Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Graham v. Connor is the foundational U.S.
What constitutional standard governs a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officers used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure: the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, or the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process standard?
All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process approach. The reasonableness inquiry is fact-specific and must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and with allowance for the fact that officers often make split-second decisions in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations. Key considerations include: (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The officer's subjective intent or motivation is irrelevant.
The Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard governs excessive force claims arising during arrests, investigatory stops, or other seizures. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for application of the correct Fourth Amendment analysis.
Graham is the lodestar for evaluating police force used during seizures. It standardizes analysis under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness test and provides the widely cited "Graham factors" that structure both summary judgment practice and jury instructions. The decision also clarifies that subjective intent is immaterial and that courts must avoid 20/20 hindsight, recognizing the real-world pressures of policing. For students, Graham sits at the intersection of constitutional criminal procedure and § 1983 civil rights litigation. It delineates the boundaries among the Fourth Amendment (seizure-related force), the Eighth Amendment (convicted prisoners), and the Fourteenth Amendment (other contexts, including, as later clarified in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, pretrial detainees). Graham's framework also interacts with qualified immunity by defining the underlying right before courts decide whether that right was clearly established.