11.1 Constitutional Standards for Use of Force

11.1 Constitutional Standards for Use of Force

Core Principle: Every application of physical force by a police officer against a free citizen constitutes a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Consequently, the constitutionality of law enforcement force is evaluated not by an officer's subjective intentions, but by whether the force used was objectively reasonable under the specific facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the moment force was applied.

---

The Fourth Amendment Foundation

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. When a law enforcement officer restrains the liberty of an individual through physical contact or a submission to authority, a seizure occurs.

Historically, federal courts evaluated police excessive force claims under varying legal standards, including the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process clause—which required plaintiffs to prove that an officer acted maliciously, sadistically, or with conduct that "shocked the conscience." However, in the landmark case of Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the United States Supreme Court definitively established 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 exclusively under the Fourth Amendment and its 'objective reasonableness' standard.

---

Graham v. Connor (1989) & Objective Reasonableness

Factual Background

Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, felt the onset of an insulin reaction and asked a friend to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice. Upon entering the store and seeing a long line, Graham rushed out to drive to a friend's house instead. Officer M.S. Connor observed Graham's hasty entry and exit, became suspicious, and conducted an investigatory stop. Despite Graham's attempts to explain his medical condition, officers handcuffed him, ignored his pleas for sugar, and forcefully placed him in a patrol car. Graham sustained multiple physical injuries, including a broken foot, cuts, and bruised wrists, before officers confirmed he had committed no crime and released him.

The Supreme Court's Holding

The Supreme Court rejected the lower courts' reliance on subjective intent or substantive due process. Chief Justice William Rehnquist authored the majority opinion, asserting that the Fourth Amendment inquiry is purely objective:

• Subjective Intent is Irrelevant: An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.
• No 20/20 Hindsight: The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
• Reasonable Officer Standard: Reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, equipped with the knowledge and perception the officer possessed at that precise time, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

---

The Core Graham Factors

To determine whether an officer's use of force is objectively reasonable, courts apply what are universally known as the Graham Factors. Officers must evaluate these key components during any force encounter:

1. The Severity of the Crime at Issue: Is the officer investigating a violent felony involving dangerous weapons, or a minor summary offense or misdemeanor property crime?
2. Immediate Threat to Safety: Does the suspect pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or other persons? (This is widely recognized by courts as the single most critical factor).
3. Active Resistance or Flight: Is the suspect actively resisting arrest by physical force, or attempting to evade arrest by flight?

Additional Judicial Considerations

In subsequent jurisprudence, federal circuit courts (including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overseeing Pennsylvania) have expanded the evaluation to include supplemental situational factors:

• The physical size, age, and relative strength of the suspect compared to the officer.
• The presence of multiple suspects versus a single officer.
• Suspect intoxication, drug impairment, or apparent mental health crisis.
• The availability of less-lethal force alternatives and time to de-escalate.
• Whether the suspect was brandishing or attempting to access a weapon.

---

Tennessee v. Garner (1985): Deadly Force Standard

Prior to 1985, many states followed the English common-law "fleeing felon rule," which authorized police to use deadly force to stop any fleeing felony suspect, regardless of whether the suspect was armed or dangerous.

In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Supreme Court struck down the common-law fleeing felon rule as an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Facts of Garner

Memphis police officers responded to a nighttime burglary call. Officer Elton Hymon spotted Edward Garner, an unarmed 15-year-old youth, fleeing across a backyard toward a six-foot chain-link fence. Officer Hymon used a flashlight to see Garner's face and hands, seeing no evidence of a weapon. However, to prevent Garner from escaping over the fence, Hymon shot Garner in the back of the head, inflicting a fatal wound. Garner had stolen ten dollars and a purse.

The Garner Constitutional Rule

The Supreme Court ruled that deadly force may not be used to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect. Instead, the Court established a strict constitutional standard:

Garner Deadly Force Rule: Where 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, the use of deadly force to prevent escape is constitutionally permissible. Where feasible, some warning should be given prior to the application of deadly force.

---

Constitutional Standards Summary Matrix

---

Key Takeaways

• All police use of force is governed by the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard.
• Courts apply the three core Graham factors: crime severity, immediate safety threat, and active resistance/flight.
• Force is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on scene in split-second situations, not through 20/20 hindsight.
• Tennessee v. Garner invalidated the common-law fleeing felon rule.
• Deadly force against fleeing suspects requires probable cause of a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or the public.