Summary
Graham v. Connor established that police excessive-force claims during arrests, stops, or seizures are governed by Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness. The rule focuses on the facts confronting officers at the scene, including severity of the suspected offense, immediate safety threats, and resistance or flight, while avoiding hindsight and subjective-intent tests.
Legal Issue
What constitutional standard governs a free citizen's claim that law enforcement used excessive force during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that excessive-force claims arising during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, not a substantive due process standard under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule of Law
In a police use-of-force case, the question is not whether the officer had good or bad intentions. The question is whether the force was objectively reasonable from the perspective of a reasonable officer facing the situation at the time.
Court Reasoning
Not yet summarized.
Impact for Officers
Graham remains the baseline rule in Fourth Amendment excessive-force litigation, training, policy review, and civil rights cases involving arrests, stops, and other seizures.
What Officers Can Do
Not yet summarized.
What Officers Should Avoid
Not yet summarized.
Common Misunderstanding
Not yet summarized.