THE COMMON LAW RULE REGARDING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY POLICE OFFICERS TO ARREST PERSONS FLEEING FROM THE SCENE OF A CRIME IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED INADEQUATE. PART I OF THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE RULE'S INADEQUACIES AND BRIEFLY DESCRIBES THE STATUTORY REFORMS WHICH SOME STATES HAVE ENACTED IN ORDER TO MORE CLEARLY DEFINE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS APPROPRIATE. PART II DEALS WITH REFORM ATTEMPTS WHICH HAVE HAD THEIR ORIGINS IN THE POLICYMAKING DECISIONS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATORS, THE DECISIONS OF STATE COURT JUDGES DEALING WITH CIVIL CASES IN WHICH A POLICE OFFICER IS CHARGED WITH NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTIONAL TORTIOUS CONDUCT, AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES. IN THE CONTEXT OF ADMINISTRATIVE POLICYMAKING, IT IS NOTED THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATORS OFTEN PROMULGATE DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES WHICH ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY STANDARD. PROBLEMS AND INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN STATES HAVE ARISEN WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY OF THESE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS IN CASES WHERE A POLICE OFFICER IS SOUGHT TO BE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LIABILITY FOR USING DEADLY FORCE IN A SITUATION WHICH IS PERMITTED UNDER THE STATUTORY STANDARD BUT NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE DEPARTMENTAL STANDARD. THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE MAY BE MADE EITHER AS A SUIT FOR DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, HOWEVER, SUCH CHALLENGES MOST FREQUENTLY OCCUR AS A CLAIM UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. THE FEDERAL REMEDY IS INDEPENDENT OF AND SUPPLEMENTARY TO ANY STATE REMEDIES WHICH MAY BE AVAILABLE. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. FOR PART I AND III SEE NCJ-43280 AND 47841. (MPK)