Overview
 Definitions
 History of the Issue
 Case Background
 Case Significance
 Class Connections
 Our Theories
Excessive Force
 Definition: “the use of force greater than that which a
reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would
use under the circumstances is generally considered to
be excessive. In most cases, the minimum amount force
required to achieve a safe and effective outcome during
law enforcement procedures is recommended.”
(www.USLegal.com)
 A pervasive problem.
“Reasonableness”
 Definition: “a test whereby a hypothetical person is used
as a legal standard, especially to determine if someone
acted with negligence. This hypothetical person referred
to as the reasonable/prudent man exercises average
care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires
of its members for the protection of their own and of
others' interests. This serves as a comparative standard
for determining liability.” (www.USLegal.com)
 Problematic, because it is vague.
The Fourth Amendment
 Definition: “The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.” (www.law.cornell.edu)
History of Graham v. Connor
 The issue of excessive force used by the law is quite
common, however the Supreme Court has only
undertaken very few of these cases. Graham v. Connor is
one of the landmark cases that established a precedent
to deciding what kind of analysis should be used by the
courts in deciding what is considered excessive force in
the conduct of police officers during stops and searches.
Several Crucial Cases Leading
Up to Graham v. Connor
The standard used in excessive force cases originated with the 1973
Second Circuit decision of Johnson v. Glick.
This was a case in which a pretrial detainee had claimed assault from a
prison guard under section 1983.
Section 1983 Litigation:
- Death Cases – First Amendment Rights - Equal Protection Claims - Denial of
Medical Attention – State Created Danger – Wrongful Convictions – Monell
Claims (policies and practices that cause constitutional injuries) –
- court did not apply the Fourth Amendment and instead
clarified that constitutional protection from excessive force
“quite apart from any ‘specific’ of the Bill of Rights,
application of undue force by law enforcement officers
deprives a suspect of liberty without the due process of
law”
The test for excessive force that came about from the court’s
decision characterizes that the use of force must be
measured by: - the severity of the crime
- any possible danger to the officer
- the risk of flight
- whether or not the force was applied with malicious intent.
Lester v. the City of Chicago
(1987)
 criteria to be used in the seizure of a free citizen should be centered
on the “reasonableness” standard rather than a “substantive due
process”.

“Reasonableness”
takes into account that “police are often forced to make split second
judgements – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly
evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular
situation”
Problem with this:
-creates an incredible leeway as far as police misconduct is concerned,
because the law tends to side with the police, whom are allowed to execute
stops following reasonable suspicion based on their subjective observations.
 The courts tend to side with the police officers due to the “danger and
uncertainty inherent in every arrest situation.. deciding whether certain
police conduct is reasonable involves making judgments about dangerous
situations that judges know little about (Brown, 1991).”
 Places an incredible amount of confidence in the “split second” judgement
of the police officer
 unreliable way to decide whether the actions of the officer are justified.
Case Background
 November 12, 1984 in Charlotte, North Carolina
 Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, and friend William Berry
 Police officer M.S. Connor + 4 responding officers
 Graham v. City of Charlotte
Graham v. City of Charlotte
 “substantive due process” from Johnson v. Glick decision
 “[1] the need for the application of force, [2] the
relationship between the need and the amount of force
that was used, [3] the extent of injury inflicted, and [4]
whether force was applied in a good faith effort to
maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and
sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”
(Brown, 1259)
 Fourth Circuit panel affirmed this decision.
Graham v. Connor
 Chief Justice Reinquist: “all claims that law enforcement
officers have used excessive force – deadly or not – in the
course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a
free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment
and its ‘reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a
‘substantive due process’ approach.” (Reinquist, Certiorari)
 “The Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of ‘objective
reasonableness’ under the circumstances, and subjective
concepts like ‘malice’ and ‘sadism’ have no proper place in
that inquiry.” (Reinquist, Certiorari)
Case Significance
 Reasonableness of a particular use of force:
1. The severity of the crime
2. Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety
of the officers or others
3. Whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade
arrest by flight.
 Reasonableness is determined by the answer to these questions. The
more serious the offense the greater the degree of force will be
reasonable.
 Officers can then consider these factors when deciding what degree
of force is justified in a particular set of circumstances.
Class Connections
 Concepts of normality and intersectionality.
 Human Rights Watch, “Sex Workers at Risk: Condoms as
Evidence of Prostitution in Four U.S. Cities.”
 Kimberle Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of
Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of
Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and
Antiracist Politics.”
Our Theories
Decision made in Dethorne Graham’s original case seems unjust, considering that
force was applied completely disregarding his medical condition which was voiced by
both Graham and Berry when the police questioned Graham’s “suspicious” activity.
Graham and Berry voiced that Graham was carrying a medical card indicating that
he is a diabetic.
Graham was brutalized by the other police officers called to the scene who refused
to acknowledge or check on his medical condition and refused to let Graham drink the
orange juice that would have stabilized his blood sugar.
The negligence to acknowledge medical need could have put Graham at risk of a
diabetic seizure and possibly threatened his life.
How Graham could have
proceeded…
An argument can be made under Section 1983, a statute that
was drafted in response to the abuses suffered by African
Americans in the Post – Civil War Era, as far as denial of medical
attention.
This constitutional claim can be called for anything ranging from “deliberate
indifference” to “ a serious medical need” for a detainee in custody (Loevy, 2004).
The officers exhibited prejudice
 their own ideas of what constitutes “normal” behavior to assume that Graham was
intoxicated, and used that assumption to justify assaulting him.
Graham v. Connor
Historical Context
 It
is crucially important to acknowledge these factors around Dethorne
Graham's case:
 a black man (Race), living in North Carolina in the late 1980s. (Racist
South)
 The 1980’s was also a time period heavily plagued by crack related
drug crimes, which drives the legitimization of the use of force due to the
suspicion of Officer Connor, based on his observations it is very possible
that he profiled Mr. Graham as someone who fits a racial profile and
must further be investigated.  The criminalization of the black man especially in the context of the
War on Drugs, has had incredible effects on the unparalleled
brutalization and incarceration of African Americans.
 shaped who the American public perceives to be “criminal.”
No Protection
There is no civil rights safeguard to protect individuals from the
police power to target persons according to their own sets of
prejudices.
This problem persists to current day profiling of people of color
with policies such as Stop and Frisk, which have been declared
unconstitutional but are still taking place.
Recently the Graham v. Connor Case was used in reference to
the shooting of Michael Brown, another black teenager that was
shot due to the prejudice of police to view urban teenagers of
color as dangerous.
In conclusion,
 Graham v. Connor reaffirms our Fourth Amendment
rights. According to Darrell Ross, “the court emphasized the
overriding function of the Fourth Amendment is to protect an
individual’s personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted
intrusion by the ‘State’.”
 Although Graham v. Connor establishes use of the objective
reasonableness standard, this does not mean that this
standard is evenly applied. This is often left open to
interpretation by courts, and even by officers themselves.
 Does not address issues of police profiling and increased
marginalization as a result of one’s belonging to one or more
minority groups; does not prevent use of excessive force.
Selected Sources

Brown, Jill I. “Defining “Reasonable” Police Conduct: Graham v. Connor and
Excessive Force During Arrest,” UCLA Law Review 38 no. 5 (1991). The Regents of
the University of California. Lexis Nexis Academic. 1257-1286.

“Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,” Graham
v. Connor. University of Arkansas School of Law.
http://law.uark.edu/documents/Bailey-CrimPro-Graham-v.-Connor.pdf

Ross, Darrell L. “An Assessment of Graham v. Connor Ten Years Later,” Policing 25
no. 2 (2002). Proquest Social Sciences Premium Collection. 294-319.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/211220201?accountid=27495

Sullivan, Eileen. “Supreme Court case to shape Ferguson investigation.” The Big
Story. Associated Press. August 21 2014. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/supremecourt-case-shape-ferguson-investigation