Patrol Case Law: Graham V. Connor

Graham v. Connor, determined the standard for evaluating claims of excessive force by law enforcement officers during arrests, investigatory stops, or other seizures of citizens. The Court rejected the previous "substantive due process" standard in favor of a more specific "objective reasonableness" standard grounded in the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures. This means that courts must determine whether the force used was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, not based on the officer's subjective intent or motivation. The decision clarifies the legal framework for evaluating such claims, emphasizing the importance of assessing the severity of the crime, the threat posed by the suspect, and the level of resistance offered. The decision also underscores the need to consider the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, recognizing the challenging and dynamic nature of law enforcement situations.