U.S. Supreme Court Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

U.S. Supreme Court Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Many citizens know their rights. There have been cases where people’s rights have been violated in law enforcement.The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says, “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.” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution) This amendment protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures, depending on the situation, and requires probable cause and a warrant in order for a police officer to commence their search.
The U.S. Supreme Court Graham v. Connor was about a man named Mr. Graham, who was a diabetic. He felt like he was about to have a diabetic attack because his blood sugar was too low. Mr. Graham decided to contact his friend Berry over the phone to ask if he could drive him to the convenience store to buy some orange juice. He felt that if he drank some orange juice that it would mitigate the reaction. Subsequently, Graham and Berry came into view of the convenience store, and Graham hastily got out of the car. Sadly there was a long queue in the checkout line. Graham worried that he would get worse and since he couldn’t wait that long, he decided to go back to the car. He told Berry to take him to another acquaintance’s home to see if he could get some orange juice to ease the insulin. Waiting casually outside of the convenient store was Officer Conner. Conner had observed Graham go in and out of the store and sensed that something was not quite right. The...

... middle of paper ...

...anded a need for subjective question of information into the definite trust of the police officers. The Supreme Court remanded the case return to the previous lower power courts authoritative instruction to decide on the case in a court of law (based) implementing on the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness test. In the case, U.S. Supreme Court Graham v. Connor, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was applied. It seems that before, the standard for judging unreasonable force, or actionable force, was just whether the officer used that force out of deliberate cruelty, or whether he really meant to protect public safety. The conclusion of the Supreme Court was that this is not a good enough measure. Just because he had good intentions does not mean that the force, search, and seizure were not reasonable and that the person's rights were not violated.