Section 4.2: Graham v. Connor & Use of Force Standards

Section 4.2: Graham v. Connor and Use of Force Standards

The Constitutional Baseline: The Fourth Amendment

While state statutes govern criminal law and specify defenses within Minnesota, the overarching legal framework for evaluating police use of force in the United States is established by federal constitutional law. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The U.S. Supreme Court has established that whenever a police officer uses physical force—whether non-deadly or deadly—to arrest, detain, or otherwise restrict a person's freedom, that action constitutes a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the force used must comply with the constitutional standard of "reasonableness." The landmark cases that define this standard for every peace officer in the nation are Graham v. Connor (1989) and Tennessee v. Garner (1985).

Graham v. Connor (1989): The Objective Reasonableness Standard

Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Connor, courts often analyzed excessive force claims under a substantive due process standard, which asked whether the officer acted in "good faith" or with a "malicious and sadistic" intent to cause harm. In Graham, the Supreme Court rejected this subjective inquiry, holding that all claims of excessive force during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard.

Under this standard, an officer's subjective motivations (e.g., whether they acted in good faith or with ill intent) are irrelevant. Instead, courts must ask: Would a reasonable officer on the scene, with the same information and facing the same circumstances, have used the same level of force?

The Three Graham Factors

To determine whether a specific use of force was objectively reasonable, the Supreme Court established a multi-factor test. Officers must evaluate three core prongs, commonly referred to as the Graham Factors:

1. The severity of the crime at issue: Is the officer investigating a minor misdemeanor (e.g., shoplifting) or a violent felony (e.g., armed robbery)? Higher-severity crimes generally permit a higher tolerance for physical control, whereas minor offenses require more restraint.
2. Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others: This is widely recognized by courts as the most critical factor. If the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical harm, the officer's justification for using force is at its peak.
3. Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight: Active physical resistance (e.g., pulling away, punching, or bracing) or attempting to run away escalates the authorized level of force necessary to secure compliance, compared to passive resistance (e.g., going limp).

The "Reasonable Officer on the Scene" Perspective

One of the most vital protections established in Graham v. Connor is that the reasonableness of a use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

The Supreme Court explicitly recognized that:

• Split-Second Judgments: Peace officers are frequently forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.
• Situational Context: Evaluators must consider only the facts known to the officer at the precise moment the force was applied. Information discovered after the fact (e.g., discovering that a suspect's gun was actually a replica) cannot be used to make an otherwise reasonable action unreasonable, nor can it make an unreasonable action reasonable.
• No Subjective Intent: A "good faith" mistake does not immunize an officer if their actions were objectively unreasonable. Conversely, an officer's bad intentions will not make a use of force unconstitutional if the force was objectively reasonable based on the facts on the scene.

Tennessee v. Garner (1985): Fleeing Felon Standard

Before the Supreme Court addressed use of force in Graham, it established the constitutional limits on the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects in Tennessee v. Garner (1985). Under common law, the "fleeing felon rule" allowed officers to use deadly force to prevent the escape of any fleeing felon. The Court declared this practice unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

The Garner Standard

The Supreme Court ruled that deadly force may not be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless:

1. Necessary to Prevent Escape: The force is necessary to prevent the suspect's escape; AND
2. Significant Threat: 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.

Requirements Under Garner

• Probable Cause of Threat: The officer must have objective reasons to believe the suspect is dangerous (e.g., the suspect just committed a violent crime involving deadly force, or is brandishing a weapon while fleeing).
• Warning Feasibility: If feasible, the officer must give some warning prior to using deadly force (e.g., shouting "Police! Stop or I will shoot!").

Synthesis of Federal and Minnesota Standards

For the MN POST exam, you must synthesize Tennessee v. Garner and Minnesota Statute § 609.066. Under both standards, an officer cannot shoot a fleeing suspect simply because they are fleeing. The suspect must pose an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the officer or others, and the officer must believe that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if not apprehended without delay.