Master Seminal Supreme Court decision establishing the Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness standard for excessive force claims arising during a seizure. with this comprehensive case brief.
Graham v. Connor is the cornerstone of modern excessive force jurisprudence. The Supreme Court held that claims alleging police use of force during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure must be judged under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard—not under substantive due process. By anchoring the analysis in the text and history of the Fourth Amendment, the Court provided a clear, uniform framework that governs day-to-day policing encounters and civil rights litigation nationwide.
The decision operationalizes reasonableness through practical, fact-sensitive factors: the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to flee. Graham also instructs courts to evaluate force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, accounting for tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances, and cautioning against 20/20 hindsight. This standard shapes police training, informs § 1983 litigation strategy, and remains the foundational lens for evaluating force in street-level encounters.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, felt the onset of an insulin reaction and asked a friend to drive him to a convenience store to buy orange juice. Seeing a long line, Graham quickly entered and exited without making a purchase. Charlotte police officer M.S. Connor, observing Graham’s abrupt movements, suspected criminal activity and initiated an investigatory stop of the car as it drove away. During the stop, Graham’s behavior appeared erratic due to his medical condition; he briefly lost consciousness, sat down on the curb, and then got up and moved around the car. Backup officers arrived. Despite repeated explanations from Graham and his companion that Graham was having a diabetic reaction and needed sugar, officers restrained and handcuffed him. Graham alleges that officers tightly applied handcuffs, ignored requests to allow him to consume sugar, and used force that caused injuries, including a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder. After another officer confirmed that nothing criminal had occurred at the store, Graham was released. Graham sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and related constitutional violations. The lower courts evaluated his claim under a substantive due process standard and ruled for the officers, prompting Supreme Court review.
Whether a claim that law enforcement officers used excessive force during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard rather than under substantive due process.
All claims that law enforcement officers used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. The inquiry balances the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each case, including: (1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others; and (3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The officer’s underlying intent or motivation is irrelevant; objectively reasonable force does not become unconstitutional because of ill will, and objectively unreasonable force is not excused by good intentions.
Excessive force claims arising during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, not by a substantive due process analysis. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for application of the Fourth Amendment standard.
The Court, per Chief Justice Rehnquist, reasoned that when a specific constitutional provision provides an explicit textual source of protection against a particular type of governmental conduct, that provision must govern the analysis. Because claims of force used during a seizure fall squarely within the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures, they must be evaluated under that Amendment, rather than under the more open-ended substantive due process framework. Building on Tennessee v. Garner, the Court emphasized that reasonableness is an objective inquiry balancing the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against governmental interests, assessed from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the moment and without 20/20 hindsight. The Court identified three core, non-exclusive considerations—the severity of the crime, immediacy of the threat, and resistance or flight—and recognized that officers often must make split-second judgments in tense, rapidly evolving situations. The Court rejected reliance on the Johnson v. Glick due process test (which asked whether force was applied maliciously and sadistically) because it improperly injected subjective intent and did not align with the Fourth Amendment’s objective standard for seizures. The Court also made clear that trivial uses of force do not necessarily amount to constitutional violations and that an officer’s subjective motives are irrelevant to whether the force used was objectively reasonable. Because the lower courts applied the wrong constitutional framework, the Court vacated and remanded for analysis under the Fourth Amendment standard.
Graham provides the definitive framework for evaluating police use of force during seizures, structuring virtually all modern Fourth Amendment excessive force litigation. It supplies practical factors and a perspective that courts, juries, and police trainers apply daily, while excluding subjective intent from the constitutional inquiry. The case also clarifies constitutional boundaries across detention stages: force during seizures is governed by the Fourth Amendment (Graham), force against pretrial detainees is assessed under the Fourteenth Amendment’s objective standard (later clarified by Kingsley v. Hendrickson), and force against convicted prisoners is governed by the Eighth Amendment’s malicious-and-sadistic standard. For law students, Graham is essential for understanding the interaction between constitutional text, § 1983 doctrine, and qualified immunity, as well as for framing trial strategy, jury instructions, and summary judgment practice in excessive force cases.
It is an objective Fourth Amendment inquiry that balances the nature and quality of the force used against the governmental interests at stake, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. Courts focus on three recurrent factors: (1) severity of the crime, (2) immediacy of the threat to officers or others, and (3) active resistance or flight, while allowing for split-second decisionmaking in tense, rapidly evolving situations.
No. The Graham standard is objective. An officer’s ill will does not make reasonable force unconstitutional, and an officer’s good intentions do not excuse objectively excessive force. The analysis turns on what a reasonable officer would have done under the circumstances known at the time.
No. The presence or extent of injury can be relevant to the degree of force used and damages, but a plaintiff need not show a particular threshold of injury to establish a Fourth Amendment violation. The central question is whether the force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Graham provides the substantive Fourth Amendment standard. Qualified immunity is a separate inquiry: even if force was unreasonable under Graham, officers are immune unless the unlawfulness was clearly established at the time. Courts therefore often conduct a two-step analysis—first, was there a constitutional violation under Graham; second, was the right clearly established.
Graham governs force used during a seizure (arrests and investigatory stops). After the seizure, pretrial detainee claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment; the Supreme Court later held in Kingsley v. Hendrickson that the standard there is also objective reasonableness. Force against convicted prisoners is evaluated under the Eighth Amendment’s malicious-and-sadistic standard.
Graham v. Connor anchors excessive force analysis to the Fourth Amendment and provides a practical, objective framework that governs police-citizen encounters during seizures. By directing courts to judge force from the perspective of a reasonable officer and by emphasizing real-time decisionmaking in volatile situations, the Court created a durable standard that balances individual rights with the realities of policing.
For practitioners and students, Graham’s influence is pervasive: it dictates pleading and proof in § 1983 cases, guides jury instructions, and shapes qualified immunity arguments. Understanding how to marshal facts around the Graham factors—and how to evaluate force without resort to hindsight or subjective motive—is essential for litigating, judging, and advising in the law of police use of force.