8.2 Fourth Amendment & Graham v. Connor Objective Reasonableness in Use of Force

8.2 Fourth Amendment & Graham v. Connor Objective Reasonableness in Use of Force

For federal law enforcement officers—including Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) Special Agents—the application of physical force represents one of the most critical legal and operational responsibilities. Under the Constitution of the United States, every use of force by a law enforcement officer against a free citizen constitutes a "seizure" subject to the reasonableness clause of the Fourth Amendment.

The legal framework governing law enforcement use of force was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in two cornerstone cases: Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989). Together with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy on Use of Force (adopted by the Department of State), these standards define the constitutional boundaries of objective reasonableness, de-escalation, and deadly force.

---

Constitutional Basis: The Fourth Amendment Seizure

Prior to 1989, courts applied varying constitutional standards to police use of force, sometimes relying on the Fourteenth Amendment's Substantive Due Process standard (evaluating whether force was applied maliciously or sadistically to cause harm). In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the Supreme Court definitively held that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force—deadly or non-deadly—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free citizen must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                         FOURTH AMENDMENT USE OF FORCE FRAMEWORK                    |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS                            |
|  "Evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather     |
|   than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." (Graham v. Connor, 1989)               |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
|            THE GRAHAM 3-PRONG TEST       |         TENNESSEE V. GARNER (1985)     |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 1. Severity of the Crime at Issue        | Deadly force prohibited on non-dangerous|
| 2. Immediate Threat to Safety (Key Factor)| fleeing felons. Permissible ONLY when   |
| 3. Active Resistance or Evasion by Flight| probable cause of imminent death/injury |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

---

The Graham v. Connor Objective Reasonableness Test

The core holding of Graham v. Connor establishes that an officer's subjective intent or underlying motivation—whether good or bad—is constitutionally irrelevant. An officer with evil intentions who uses objectively reasonable force does not violate the Fourth Amendment, while an officer with good intentions who uses unreasonable force does.

The Three-Prong Graham Test

When evaluating whether a specific application of force was objectively reasonable, courts and internal review boards apply the Graham Three-Prong Test:

1. Severity of the Crime at Issue: Is the suspect believed to have committed a violent felony, a major property crime, or a minor administrative/traffic infraction? Higher levels of force are legally defensible when addressing violent crimes than when responding to minor misdemeanors.
2. Immediate Threat to Safety: Does the suspect pose an immediate, imminent threat to the safety of the officer, protective detail principals, or members of the public? Courts consistently treat this as the most heavily weighted of the three factors.
3. Active Resistance or Evading Arrest: Is the suspect actively physically resisting control, attempting to disarm an officer, or attempting to evade arrest by flight? Passive non-compliance (such as refusing to stand up) does not justify high-level impact weapons or lethal force.

Crucial Analytical Rules Established by Graham

• Perspective of the Reasonable Officer: Force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable agent on the scene facing identical facts and circumstances, not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
• Split-Second Judgments: The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.
• Totality of Circumstances: Courts examine all known facts at the precise moment force was applied, including environmental factors, subject-to-officer size differentials, specialized training, weapon access, and subject intoxication.

---

Deadly Force & Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Supreme Court struck down common-law "fleeing felon" rules that allowed police to shoot any fleeing felony suspect. The Court established strict constitutional limitations on deadly force:

• General Prohibition: Deadly force may not be used to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect.
• Probable Cause Standard for Deadly Force: Deadly force is constitutionally permissible only when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
• Requirement for Warning: Where feasible, the officer must give some warning before employing deadly force (e.g., shouting "Police, stop or I will shoot!").

---

Federal & Department of State Use of Force Policy

The Department of State Diplomatic Security Service adheres strictly to the Department of Justice Uniform Policy on Use of Force (updated in 2022). Federal policy is often more restrictive than the constitutional minimums established by Graham and Garner.

---

Post-Incident Investigation & Garrity / Miranda Protocols

When a DSS Special Agent uses force—particularly deadly force or force resulting in serious bodily injury—a mandatory administrative and criminal investigation ensues.

       +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
       |                  POST-INCIDENT DUAL INVESTIGATION                     |
       +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
       |       CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION      |   ADMINISTRATIVE / OPR REVIEW     |
       +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
       | • Evaluates Fourth Amendment /    | • Evaluates Policy Compliance     |
       |   State Law Compliance            | • Administrative Subpoenas        |
       | • Miranda Warnings Apply if       | • Garrity Warning Issued:         |
       |   Agent is Under Suspect Status   |   Compulsory statements cannot    |
       | • Agent has 5th Amendment Right   |   be used in criminal prosecution |
       +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

1. On-Scene Protocol: The agent's firearm is secured for forensic examination; the agent is removed from the active scene, offered peer support, and provided medical evaluation.
2. Garrity Rights (Garrity v. New Jersey, 1967): In internal administrative investigations, an agent can be ordered to answer questions under threat of termination. Under Garrity, compelled statements obtained in an administrative inquiry cannot be used against the agent in a subsequent criminal prosecution.
3. Miranda Rights: If the incident gives rise to potential criminal liability for the agent, traditional Fifth Amendment Miranda rights apply during criminal interviews conducted by outside agencies (such as DOJ Public Integrity Section or local homicide detectives).