Graham v. Connor
|Graham v. Connor|
|Argued February 21, 1989|
Decided May 15, 1989
|Full case name||Dethorne Graham v. Connor, et al.|
490 U.S. 386 (more)|
109 S. Ct. 1865; 104 L. Ed. 2d 443; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2467; 57 U.S.L.W. 4513
|An objective reasonableness standard should apply to a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his person.|
|Majority||Rehnquist, joined by White, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy|
|Concurrence||Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall|
|U.S. Const. amend. IV|
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a civilian's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his person.
Graham, the petitioner, had Type 1 diabetes. He was traveling with a friend to a convenience store to get orange juice to counteract his insulin reaction. Graham entered the store but left after seeing that many people were waiting in line. Connor, a nearby police officer, observed Graham's behavior and became suspicious. Graham returned to his friend's car, and they drove off, but Connor immediately pulled them over for an investigative stop to determine what they were doing at the store. Soon after questioning, Connor put Graham in handcuffs. Once Connor confirmed that nothing had occurred at the store, he released the petitioner.
Graham claimed that he had sustained multiple injuries from the encounter and filed a law suit against the officer for violating his Fourth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court held that determining the "reasonableness" of a seizure "requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake." It acknowledged, "Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it." However, it then noted, "Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," the test's "proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case."
The Court rejected the notion that the judiciary could use the Due Process Clause, instead of the Fourth Amendment, in analyzing an excessive force claim: "Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims."
The Court then explained that, "As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." The Court also cautioned, "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."
The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors for determining when an officer's use of force is objectively unreasonable: "the severity of the crime at issue," "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others," and "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."
Having established the proper framework for excessive force claims, the Court explained that the Court of Appeals had applied a test that focused on officer's subjective motivations, rather than whether he had used an objectively unreasonable amount of force. The Court then reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration that used the proper Fourth Amendment Standard.
Since Graham, the lower federal courts have occasionally supplemented its three factors with such matters as whether a warrant was issued, the plaintiff resisted or was armed, more than one arrestee or officer was involved, other dangerous or exigent circumstances existed at the time of the arrest as well as the nature of the arrest charges and the availability of alternative methods of capturing or subduing a suspect.
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 490
- Tennessee v. Garner
- Mullenix v. Luna
- Davis v. City of Las Vegas (9th Cir. 2007)
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
- Alpert, Geoffrey P.; Smith, William C. (1994). "How Reasonable Is the Reasonable Man?: Police and Excessive Force". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 85 (2): 481–501. JSTOR 1144107.
- Brown, Jill I. (1991). "Defining 'Reasonable' Police Conduct: Graham v. Connor and Excessive Force during Arrest". UCLA Law Review. 38 (5): 1257–1286.
- Graham v. Connor and objective reasonableness standard, available at The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal, ISSN (O): 2319-8338
- "Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2017-06-15.
- Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1440 n.5 (9th Cir. 1994)