Graham v. Connor: Difference between revisions

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 to the United States Constitution|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.". "Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," it then noted, however, 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, "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 further explained, "the 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.".

The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors to determine when an officer's use of force is objectively reasonable: "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.".

Many high-profile cases of alleged use of excessive force by a law enforcement officer have been decided based on the framework set out by ''Graham v. Connor'', including those in which a civilian was killed by an officer: [[shooting of Michael Brown]], [[shooting of Jonathan Ferrell]], [[shooting of John Crawford III]], [[shooting of Samuel DuBose]], [[shooting of Jamar Clark]], [[shooting of Keith Lamont Scott]], [[shooting of Terence Crutcher]], [[shooting of Alton Sterling]], [[shooting of Philando Castile]].<ref name="moreperfect">{{Cite web|title=Mr. Graham and the Reasonable Man {{!}} More Perfect|url=https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/mr-graham-and-reasonable-man|access-date=2020-06-03|website=WNYC Studios|language=en}} </ref><ref name="charlottemagazine">{{Cite web|date=2017-06-23|title=Why Police ‘Get Away With It’|url=https://www.charlottemagazine.com/why-police-get-away-with-it/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Charlotte Magazine|language=en-US}}</ref> In most of those cases, the officer's actions were deemed to pass the reasonableness test. ''Graham v. Connor'' was also repeatedly cited by both the prosecution and defense in ''[[State v. Chauvin]]'' regarding the [[murder of George Floyd]], including by [[University of South Carolina]] professor Seth Stoughton,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/04/12/986613631/chauvin-trial-expert-says-use-of-force-in-george-floyd-arrest-was-not-reasonable |title=Chauvin Trial: Expert Says Use Of Force In George Floyd Arrest Was Not Reasonable |work=[[National Public Radio]] |first=Vanessa |last=Romo |date=April 12, 2021 |access-date=April 17, 2021 }}</ref> who compiled a 100-page report on the case as a prosecution expert.