07/18/2026
Statement of the Maine State Bar Association Regarding the Fatal Shooting of Joan Sebastián Guerrero
The Maine State Bar Association is deeply saddened by the fatal shooting of Joan Sebastián Guerrero and extends its sincere condolences to his family, friends, the Biddeford community, and all those affected by this tragedy. Some important details of the circumstances surrounding the officer-involved shooting remain unknown; however, the publicized events surrounding the death of Mr. Guerrero raise serious questions that directly implicate the MSBA’s mission. For that reason, the MSBA has decided to issue this statement.
The MSBA’s mission includes advancing the knowledge of its members and supporting the public’s interest in a fair and effective system of justice. Part of a fair and effective system of justice is a framework of consistent and strictly observed legal guidelines that provide communities with confidence that law enforcement officers will only resort to using deadly force in clearly defined, and hopefully rare, circumstances.
In fact, the authority to use deadly force is governed by well-established constitutional, statutory, and departmental standards that strictly limit law enforcement officers’ use of deadly force. Whether those standards were satisfied in this case is apparently the subject of one or more investigations. The purpose of this statement is not to prejudge the outcome of any investigation, but to explain the legal principles that govern the use of deadly force.
It is unconstitutional to use deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Consistent with that constitutional principle, Maine courts have recognized that the use of deadly force must be evaluated based on the circumstances existing at the moment force is employed. Deadly force is not justified simply because a suspect refuses to stop or attempts to flee. Rather, at a minimum, the suspect must pose an immediate threat to officers or civilians. Because the analysis is moment-specific, force that may be reasonable at one point in an encounter may become unreasonable if the justification for its use has ceased. For example, a vehicle accelerating toward an officer after a violent confrontation may present an imminent deadly threat, whereas a vehicle that has passed the officer or is driving away without posing an immediate threat may not.
The United States Department of Justice’s Use of Force Policy reflects these same constitutional principles. It begins with a fundamental premise: the Department values and preserves human life. It authorizes only objectively reasonable force and permits deadly force only in circumstances where an objectively reasonable officer would perceive that such force is necessary to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury after considering whether reasonably safe and feasible alternatives exist. The policy further provides that deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect and prohibits firing at a moving vehicle when an objectively reasonable alternative exists, including moving out of the vehicle's path.
It is important to keep in mind that these standards are objective; in other words, an officer’s subjective concern for their safety or the safety of others does not alone justify the use of deadly force.
These legal standards exist to ensure that the government's most extraordinary authority, to take a human life, is exercised only in the rarest and most legally justified circumstances. They also underscore why the MSBA issued a statement earlier this year regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement activities in Maine. In that statement, the MSBA expressed concerns regarding reports of racial and ethnic profiling, profound deficiencies in training and supervision, misuse of force, disregard for constitutional protections, and the risk that these practices would result in unnecessary violence and erode public confidence in the rule of law. These considerations are amplified in circumstances where, as here, the charge for which federal agents were apparently seeking to take a suspect into custody (being in the United States without legal authorization) is a civil immigration violation and not a criminal offense.
In any event, the Department of Homeland Security has said Mr. Guerrero was not the person federal agents set out to apprehend. When the agents mistakenly attempted to stop Mr. Guerrero’s vehicle, according to DHS, an officer discharged his weapon at the vehicle “fearing for public safety.” Against the background of state and federal law limiting the use of deadly force these statements suggest strongly that an independent investigation of the entire matter is in order.
The MSBA's concerns are not, and have never been, about immigration policy itself. They are, and have always been, about due process and adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law. Those principles protect every person within our borders and impose corresponding obligations on every government official who exercises law enforcement authority. The legal standards governing the use of deadly force do not change based upon a person’s citizenship or immigration status. They apply equally whenever government officers exercise the authority to take a human life.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Guerrero’s death warrant a prompt, independent, and transparent investigation. That investigation should determine whether the actions of the officers involved in the attempted stop and ultimate shooting of Mr. Guerrero complied with constitutional requirements, federal policy, and applicable law. If the investigation determines that those standards were not met, meaningful accountability must follow.
The MSBA recognizes that reasonable people may disagree about immigration policy. However, there is no question that every law enforcement officer, whether federal, state, or local, is bound by the Constitution and the rule of law. Constitutional limits on government power are not optional. They exist to protect the public, preserve confidence in our justice system, and ensure that the government's authority is exercised lawfully, fairly, and with accountability. When the government exercises its greatest power, the power to take a human life, it must also be held to its highest legal obligations. Those obligations are the foundation of the rule of law and the public’s trust in our system of justice.
