Graham V. Connor: Is The Force Used Reasonable?

When analyzing the use of force, it is important to answer two questions: Is the force used reasonable? Does the situation warrant the use of said force? These two questions have become important particularly with the Supreme Court determination on the Graham v. Connor case, which made a decision on cases that involved the use of force. This determination affects future cases and how jurors and the courts of law will determine such cases and provide a blueprint on how the judicial process is undertaken in such matters. This paper will indicate the influential case of Graham v. Connor and examine it thoroughly by comparing it with other cases that have a similar outlook. All this is to understand the standards that police officers are held to,

the laws and policies that regulate and/or allow the use of force, while scrutinizing the situational use of reasonable force.
Graham v. Connor case
The Graham v. Connor (1989) case is lauded with arguments of whether force was used appropriately or excessively in a specific situation. The following is the summary of the case: Graham, the petitioner of the case, asked his friend to drive him to the store. Graham had a diabetic condition and was looking to purchase orange juice so as to offset a diabetic attack. He rushed into the store but upon seeing the long line of people leading to the counter, he rushed back out and instructed his friend to drive him away to another friend’s house instead. Connor, a police officer on-duty at the time, became suspicious of the pair as the actions of Graham rushing in and out of the store raised an eyebrow. He made an investigative stop and instructed the pair to maintain their positions while he investigated what had happened back at the store. The backup officers joined Officer Graham and made an arrest, ignoring the plea of the alleged suspect, Graham, to treat his medical condition. Additionally, over the course of the arrest and holding, Graham was physically injured. He was eventually released as investigations indicated no crime was attempted by the held suspects.
Graham filed a suit and accused the officers of using excessive force, violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights, which inhibits the restriction of the rights of citizens, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, shifting liability in terms of action at law or suit inequity to any person under state or federal employment that deprives a citizen of their rights and privileges prescribed by the Constitution. The Court used a four-tier test so as to make a determination, and analyzed it under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. The first test was to ascertain the specific constitutional right impinged upon by the use of force, then judge that according to the specific constitutional standard that governs it. The second test was to judge if the criteria of the use of excessive force during the course of the arrest meets what is prescribed by the Fourth Amendment; relationship between the need and amount of force used. The actions must further be examined to determine if the actions were objectively reasonable with no regard to the intent, as police officers are required to make instantaneous decisions, under the third test. The final test was to use the Eighth Amendment standard, inquiring whether the use of force met the requirements that violate the Eighth Amendment rights.
Case analysis
Most cases after this case adjourned use this four-tier judgment procedure for determination. It is, however, difficult to address such a case by applying similar criteria from a single case. The justification of the use of force, which comes up frequently in this case, has to be analyzed within its specific context. The specific case of Graham v. Connor sought to judge the “perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than 20/20 vision of hindsight.” (Graham v. Connor, 1989). The Fourth Amendment was mainly used in this case, which hindered the analysis of the subject of malice v. motive of the officer in making the arrest and eliminated this evaluation from such a perspective. This brings in a whole other argument where such crucial point of view is eliminated. The question of “was the officer acting as a reasonable officer of the law or acting on an inclination that was outside the purview of the investigation of the case.” The jurisprudence has to identify if the arrest or initial stop was acting in accordance with the law to use coercion, or the threat of it, to advance the investigation.
First it is important to analyze the case from the perspective of the officer’s actions to determine whether the use of force correlates to the facts and circumstances that the officer used to make such judgments. The officer’s hypothetical report could have stated the facts as follows:
“I saw Mr. Graham run into the store. Less than 15-seconds later, I saw him run back out and get into Mr. Berry’s car. I could hear the screeching of the tires as the car drove away at a seemingly high speed”
The above hypothetical report statement, which was obtained from Tim Miller’s podcast, shows the train of thought of the officer before the events unfolded. The questions to ask are whether the events that took place required the officer to conduct an investigative detention and whether or not the officer’s suspicions were reasonable, to the point of denying any requests made by the suspect. Furthermore, there is also question of whether the officer’s training and experience were used effectively and within reason to determine the condition of the suspect. In the case proceedings, the court used the same conclusions that the officer had also reached at the time of the incident. The statements used as testimony were not factual, but judgments based on the training of Officer Graham. These statements are subjective and the judicial process had to determine that the actions would have been performed by any other officer in the same manner in which they were used by the original arresting officer.
The language used in the officer’s statements and their accuracy in expressing the facts and/or conclusions that were reached may have been compromised. The accuracy of the statements from the point of view of the officer can be crucial component in driving the deliberations of the jury towards a verdict that either favors the defendant or the plaintiff. The language used in most investigations, such as the suspect indicated, or what his body language may have suggested, such as the position of his arms, leave too much unanswered and use to many “if” statements in order to establish truth.
The actions of the plaintiff, Mr. Graham, during the arrest must also be analyzed, as they also influenced the judgments made by the police officer to make either decision of the investigative stop or making the arrest. The reactions of the arresting officers could also have been influenced by the way Mr. Graham conducted himself. The actions of the suspect (Mr. Graham) were described as erratic, owing to the suspect’s medical condition, which caused him to act in desperation to get medical attention which could have been perceived as an excuse to be released. Mr. Graham’s erratic actions could’ve also been viewed as drunken behavior in the eyes of an officer and may have lead to the conclusion that their lives were in danger, or that an assault was a possible outcome in accordance with the observed behavior of the suspect at the time.
The judgment of the court, in my opinion, took into consideration these factors and limited the judgment to the 4th amendment’s objective reasonability standard that the officer does not need to choose the least intrusive method to apply force or be perfect in the method chosen, but only needs to show objective reasoning. Furthermore, the Supreme Court further reiterated that “the test for reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” (Graham v. Connor, 1989). This clearly indicates that there can be more than one determination based on the events and evidence. All that really matters in such cases is whether or not the force was used in a reasonable way. This begs the question “When is force reasonable?”
Reasonable force examination
Prior to the 1989 decision of the Graham v. Connor case, the subjective mental state of the officer was in question as was illustrated in the Johnson v. Glick (1973). In the Graham v. Connor case, the argument shifted from the intent of the officer in question to the objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. This reasonableness is determined differently according to the perspective of the audiences, and especially that of the jury. The case Anderson v. Creighton (1987) took the blame further away from the officer in question by deeming the officer not liable to actions that may cause injury but do not violate any laws.
Police can heighten to use force against a suspect, either by “mere presence or verbal and visual commands, or if necessary the use of deadly force” (Alpert & Smith, 1994).

This must be directly related to the reason that for detaining the suspect. This application must be based on the situation of the arrest or the case in which force was used, rather than the wording of laws and judicial determinations. The reasonableness of the force used by the officer in question is evaluated by coworkers, superiors, civilians or a jury; expert witnesses can also be used in this evaluation. There is a double standard when assessing reasonable force, such as, the officer has to act aggressively to prevent loss of life or harm, whether it is the officer’s or civilian’s, while enforcing the law. On the other hand, officers are expected by the citizens to show restraint. Therefore, the reasonable or unreasonable nature of an officer’s actions can often result in different opinions and views on such a

matter.
Unrestricted force is limited and is prescribed in the laws and policies relative to its use. However, reasonable force has not been clearly defined or limited by any laws or policies and the twist often comes when attempting to measure excessive force. Most supervisors, police executives and researchers often state that training of the officer is vital, so as to use force appropriately without inflicting unnecessary harm. The distinction between reasonable and unreasonable force is often ambiguous. Fyfe (1993) attempted to distinguish this by categorizing two forms of unreasonable force: brutality and unnecessary force. The former was described as ineptitude or insensitivity where the officers attempt to cover up misconduct and the latter was described as a good-faith police mistake. These distinctions are reliant on the intent of the actors, which was not used in the Graham v. Connor case. Krockars offers a different definition, where he describes unreasonable force as “use of any more force than a highly skilled police officer would find necessary to use in that particular situation” (Krockars, 1995). This definition does not give any standard as pertaining to training but a vague definition of is considered to be ‘highly skilled’. Furthermore, it does not indicate a restraining measure that an officer should apply when dealing with such a case.
What is lacking in the definitions of reasonable force, whether in law, policy or social science research, is their failure to address three critical concerns that pertain to the use of force, as described by Alpert & Smith (1994). The first concern is the method or criteria an officer uses to determine the existence of a threat. This can be difficult as it depends on the training and experience of an officer. For example, a rookie officer can decide to use a baton in a situation that handcuffs could be used to restrain. The second concern is the determination of the seriousness of the threat posed by the suspect which, most of the time, can be based on instinct and may vary depending on the situation that the officer may find themselves in. The final concern would be to describe the actions of the officer in the effort to control or remove the threat; this can be provided by research and theory that provides evaluation of threats and use of force (Reiss, 1980).
Sample cases
Recent cases that involve use of reasonable force have brought in differing views on the definitions of reasonable force, especially with a new angle at which the use of force, including deadly force, is viewed. The aspect of discrimination pertaining to the use of force and new technologies, such as video capture, provide a different angle and give new perspectives on how officers choose to handle certain suspects. Cases in Baltimore and Ferguson show how the Graham v. Connor case has influenced decisions and changing the way police departments and jurors are approaching such cases.
In Baltimore Freddie Gray was arrested upon fleeing without provocation for unlawfully carrying a switch blade. The arrest was described by observers and video recordings as violent due to the officers having dragged Mr. Gray into the van. Witnesses stated that the suspect was being held down by the neck and, in the efforts of dragging the suspect, the suspect also broke his leg in the process. The video recording showed Gray standing on one leg and attempting to lift himself into the van with no assistance from the officers (Events leading to Freddie Gray's Death, 2015). He was left unbuckled in the van and was eventually taken to the hospital and ended up in a coma. Other injuries were sustained that led to the breaking of his neck (Bever & Ohlheiser, 2015). In this case, it was determined that the officers failed to show probable cause in the arrest, and the imprisonment was falsified as it was a pocket knife in his possession of legal size and not a switchblade, as described by the officers. The officers were indicted on several different charges of negligence, misconduct, assault and manslaughter.
In Ferguson, Missouri, Darren Wilson fatally shot Michael Brown and the issue of race came up frequently in this case. Brown had been involved in the stealing of items in a store and Wilson, who was responding to a police dispatch call, acted on this. He blocked the suspects – Brown was with his friend Johnson – and a struggle for the gun ensued. Brown and Johnson eventually fled and Wilson pursued Brown. Brown stopped, faced the officer and moved in his direction, who fired a total of 12 bullets at the suspect. Brown was unarmed in the entirety of this event (Brown, 2015). Wilson was then cleared of violations of civil rights and was deemed to be acting in self-defense.
These two cases show different events and outcomes of police using force for a number of reasons.

Whether the reasons are legitimate or unwarranted, it indicates the influence that the Graham v. Connor case has had, and continues to have, on proceedings and deliberations that take place pertaining to the use of reasonable force. In the first case, the officers acted in a forceful way as it was six police officers arresting one suspect with a knife. The police officers went a step further to deem the suspect dangerous and wrestled the suspect to the ground so as to immobilize him. This may have gone to court only as far as a wrongful arrest were it not for the death of the suspect while in custody that caused their indictment. Without examining the intent of the officers in the case and looking at only the events of the arrest, it would be simple enough to state that the officers feared the suspect would attack them. The officers were, however, charged with false imprisonment as the effort they put into the arrest did not warrant such a reaction.

In the second case, the officer may have acted in self defense, as the suspect attacked the officer before the shooting, which would be reasonable to fear for his safety as the boy was moving towards him. There was no way to know the intent of the suspect and if the suspect was carrying a weapon or not indicating that the officer did not show any bias in acting as he did. The officer may have assessed the situation and deemed it necessary

to prevent an escalation of the situation, which lead to the dropping of the charges.
Conclusion
The use of police force still remains a process that is difficult to determine because there are two points of view; citizens expect the officers to restrain themselves, and officers are seeking to protect themselves and the public from life threatening situations. These two perspectives often result in different interpretations of how punishment should be handled, however, the Graham v. Connor case eliminates the determination of cases with a view towards the officer’s intent and shifts it to the subject of the reasonability behind the use of force. This clause plays a large role in the determination of cases pertaining to complaints or suits in use of reasonable force and there is no particular standard with regard to this clause, but every case is examined according to the situation that has occurred to determine if the force used was reasonable or not.