By: Jeffery Asiedu, Mariana Mihova, and Genevieve Mcnamara
Introduction
“Excessive force” and “reasonableness” are two terms that are common in court cases regarding police power. “Excessive force” is defined as “the use of force greater than that which a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.” “Reasonableness” is a standard that compares the person in question to a hypothetical one who “exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others’ interests.” Although loosely defined, these terms hold great power in the court of law and are often subject to interpretation. This proved to be the case in lower court rulings of Dethorne Graham’s case against the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, regarding his brutal treatment at the hands of five police officers. However, in Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court ruled that his case, and others like it, must be reviewed under the objective Fourth Amendment standard. In our paper, we present not only the history and facts of the case, but our understanding of the role of the law, police power, and police profiling, as well as the long-ranging implications of the Supreme Court decision.
History of the Issue
The issue of excessive force used by the law is quite common, however the Supreme Court has only undertaken very few of these cases. Graham v. Connor is one of the landmark cases that established a precedent to deciding what kind of analysis should be used by the courts in deciding what is considered excessive force in the conduct of police officers during stops and searches. In a preceding case of Lester v. the City of Chicago it was decided that the criteria to be used in the seizure of a free citizen should be centered on the “reasonableness” standard rather than a “substantive due process”[1]. Graham v. Connor invoked the protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment is often considered objectively in the court of law, as far as taking into account whether the police conduct was justified. This standard for “reasonableness” takes into account that “police are often forced to make split second judgements – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation”[2]. This creates an incredible leeway as far as police misconduct is concerned, because the law tends to side with the police, whom are allowed to execute stops following reasonable suspicion based on their subjective observations. Brown remarks that the courts tend to side with the police officers due to the “danger and uncertainty inherent in every arrest situation.. deciding whether certain police conduct is reasonable involves making judgments about dangerous situations that judges know little about (1991).” This places an incredible amount of confidence in the “split second” judgement of the police officer, and is a quite unreliable way to decide whether the actions of the officer are justified.
The first Supreme Court case ruling that still guides the interpretation of the use of deadly force by law enforcement is the case of Tennessee v. Garner (1985) in which the courts decided that police officers could not shoot at a suspect attempting to flee in order to prevent their escape. The standard of excessive force originated with the 1973 Second Circuit decision of Johnson v. Glick. This was a case in which a pretrial detainee had claimed assault from a prison guard under section 1983. In this case, the court did not apply the Fourth Amendment and instead clarified that constitutional protection from excessive force “quite apart from any ‘specific’ of the Bill of Rights, application of undue force by law enforcement officers deprives a suspect of liberty without the due process of law”[3]. The test for excessive force that came about from the court’s decision characterizes that the use of force must be measured by the severity of the crime, any possible danger to the officer, the risk of flight, and whether or not the force was applied with malicious intent[4].
- 1830 F.2d 706 (7th Circuit 1987) Lester v. City of Chicago
- Rhenquist, Chief Justice. (n.d.). Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://law.uark.edu/documents/Bailey-CrimPro-Graham-v.-Connor.pdf
- 3481 F.2d at 1032.
- 4481 F.2d 1028 ( 2nd Cir. 1973) Johnson v. Glick.
Case Background
On November 12, 1984, Dethorne Graham was working in an auto shop in Charlotte, North Carolina. Graham had diabetes, and began to feel symptoms of an insulin reaction. Graham asked his friend, William Berry, to drive him to a convenience store nearby so that he could purchase juice to stabilize his insulin. Once inside the store, Graham noticed a long line at the check out counter. He ran from the store into Berry’s car, and asked Berry to drive him to a nearby friend’s house.[1] This behavior attracted the attention of a nearby police officer.
Charlotte Police Officer M.S. Connor, who had been parked in his patrol car outside the store, noticed Graham running from the store and became suspicious. Connor followed Berry’s car, and stopped him about a half a mile away. Berry informed the officer that Graham was having a “sugar reaction,” but Connor responded that he had to find out what had happened at the convenience store. Connor radioed for police backup. In the meantime, Graham’s condition was quickly deteriorating. He exited the car and circled it twice before sitting on the curb and passing out. When he woke up, he was handcuffed and lying on the ground.[2] His behavior had been misunderstood by the responding police officers.
The four officers who arrived as backup assumed that Graham was drunk, with some making comments about his presumed intoxication and others remarking that they knew diabetics who did not act as he was. They did not allow Graham to access his diabetic identification card, which was in his wallet. When a friend brought Graham juice, officers did not allow Graham to drink it. The officers also carried him to Berry’s car, shoving Graham’s face against the hood in the process. As a result of this encounter, Graham experienced a broken foot, lacerations on his forehead and wrists, and an injured shoulder. He also stated that he developed a ringing in his right ear.[3] Graham took his case to court.
Graham sued the five involved officers, as well as the City of Charlotte in Graham v. City of Charlotte. He alleged that his constitutional right to be free from excessive force had been violated. The district court applied the four-part “substantive due process” test developed after the Johnson v. Glick decision: “[1] the need for the application of force, [2] the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, [3] the extent of injury inflicted, and [4] whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” The court found that under this test, the officers had acted to “maintain or restore order,” and the Fourth Circuit panel affirmed this decision.[4] However, the United States Supreme Court decision differed from that of the lower courts.
The Supreme Court Justices unanimously decided to overturn the lower court rulings in Graham v. Connor. In his statement of the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Reinquist emphasized that the case must be decided under the Fourth Amendment, not under any other statute, because it concerns unreasonable search and seizure. Reinquist stated, “all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force – deadly or not – in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a ‘substantive due process’ approach.” Reinquist also insisted that the case must be reviewed objectively, without regard for the officer’s perceived intent: “Because petitioner’s excessive force claim is one arising under the Fourth Amendment, the Court of Appeals erred in analyzing it under the four-part Johnson v. Glick test. That test, which requires consideration of whether individual officers acted in ‘good faith’ or ‘maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm,’ is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis…The Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of ‘objective reasonableness’ under the circumstances, and subjective concepts like ‘malice’ and ‘sadism’ have no proper place in that inquiry.” [5] The Court instructed the Fourth Circuit to review the case according to the Fourth Amendment, and not according to substantive due process, which they had originally and incorrectly used.
[1] Brown, 1257.
[2] Brown, 1257-1258.
[3] Brown, 1258.
[4] Brown, 1259.
[5] Reinquist, Graham v. Connor: Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals, 2-3.
Case Significance
The case proposes great insight to the injustices of the system. The Supreme Court, in their decision in Graham v Connor, stated: “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.” Meaning that the severity of the crime can cost an officer to make a decision that the end result could or could not be calculated properly. The final judgment is based on an assumption that when not carefully rationalized, Graham v. Connor delivers the broad framework for measuring how the use of force is legal under the Fourth Amendment. A balancing test is implemented when Courts must pay attention to the facts and circumstances of the case incorporating the severity of the crime committed. To determine whether the suspect is of any threat to the safety of the people or the officer. The test also should determine whether the individual is actively resisting arrest or attempting to avoid arrest. The officer has to make the judgment and not anyone not understanding the situation or event should make the judgment.
In similar cases such as Plumhoff v. Rickard, the court reaffirms their decision in Graham v. Connor. After an officer shooting the car of Richard’s, for speeding, the court had to decide whether the officers actions are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness. The justices also decided that the officers did not fire more shots than needed to end the public safety risk. Furthermore the court noted “ if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.” The real problem here is not shooting the suspect till the threat has ended but rather endangering the same public you are trying to protect. The actions of the officer poses a real threat on the public and can cause more damage than needed.
In comparison to the Ferguson case, you wonder what the right level of force to warrant an arrest is? You would think that an unarmed man usually does not pose as a threat to society. But since the actions of the officer are based on perspectives, what the officer perceives is how they act. The law must be changed because too many people especially minorities are a victim of this law. The chance to prove their innocence is out the door because the action of the officers is based on perspectives. In situations like this suspects are treated as guilty, without given the opportunity to be proven innocent. Officers are not held accountable and it could be said that their profiling is abusing the system because the law is behind them and its quite unfortunate that officers can shoot anyone they see as a threat even if its not the case.
Class Connections
Graham v. Connor relates to our class readings regarding issues of normality and intersectionality. In the Human Rights Watch article, “Sex Workers at Risk: Condoms as Evidence of Prostitution in Four U.S. Cities,” we learned the vague language that allows for the arrest of many on suspicion of sex worker. Behavior that was considered consistent with sex work included loitering, frequenting an area known for sex work, and gesturing or beckoning towards a person or car. This vague language allows for police profiling of people based on their dress, associates, and perceived “abnormal” behavior. In this case, Dethorne Graham was profiled on account of his being diabetic. The symptoms of his medical condition caused him to act in a manner that could be considered “abnormal,” and possibly criminal, leading to his subsequent, unwarranted arrest.
In Kimberle Crenshaw’s paper, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics,” we learned the unique experience that occurs under the intersection of two or more marginalized classes. Crenshaw addresses the position of black women, however, in our case, Dethorne Graham is both black and has a medical condition. His unwarranted arrest stemmed most directly from his behavior that resulted from an insulin reaction, however, it may have been compounded by the fact that black men are often profiled and marginalized. Both his race and the symptoms of his medical condition created a unique situation that contributed to his being profiled. While these factors can be addressed individually—and were in this case, as his medical condition was discussed but his race not mentioned, they should be addressed both individually and together, in order to best understand the complex effects of profiling and marginalization.
Our Theories
The decision made in Dethorne Graham’s original case seems unjust, considering that force was applied completely disregarding his medical condition which was voiced by both Graham and Berry when the police questioned Graham’s “suspicious” activity. Graham and Berry voiced that Graham was carrying a medical card indicating that he is a diabetic confirming their story that Graham’s behavior was exhibiting diabetic symptoms. While Connor, the officer who had made the stop returned to the store to question if any crime had taken place, Graham was brutalized by the other police officers called to the scene who refused to acknowledge or check on his medical condition and refused to let Graham drink the orange juice that would have stabilized his blood sugar. This negligence to acknowledge medical need could have put Graham at risk of a diabetic seizure and possibly threatened his life. An argument can be made under Section 1983, a statute that was drafted in response to the abuses suffered by African Americans in the Post – Civil War Era, as far as denial of medical attention. This constitutional claim can be called for anything ranging from “deliberate indifference” to “ a serious medical need” for a detainee in custody (Loevy, 2004). The officers used nothing but their own ideas of what constitutes “normal” behavior to assume that Graham was intoxicated, and used that assumption to justify assaulting him.
In Graham v. Connor there are many historically important factors that play into the decisions made by the court. It is crucially important to acknowledge that Dethorne Graham was a black man, living in North Carolina in the late 1980s. The 1980’s was also a time period heavily plagued by crack related drug crimes, which drives the legitimization of the use of force due to the suspicion of Officer Connor, based on his observations it is very possible that he profiled Mr. Graham as someone who fits a racial profile and must further be investigated. This criminalization of the black man especially in the context of the War on Drugs, has had incredible effects on the unparalleled brutalization and incarceration of African Americans. It has shaped who the American public perceives to be “criminal.”
There is no civil rights safeguard to protect individuals from the police power to target persons according to their own sets of prejudices. This problem persists to current day profiling of people of color with policies such as Stop and Frisk, which have been declared unconstitutional but are still taking place.
Conclusion
The unanimous Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor reaffirms our Fourth Amendment rights. According to Darrell Ross, “the court emphasized the overriding function of the Fourth Amendment is to protect an individual’s personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the ‘State’.”[1] However, although Graham v. Connor helped to clarify the objective reasonableness standard to be used in cases of search and seizure, this does not mean that this standard has been evenly applied. The reasonableness standard is often left open to interpretation by courts, and even by the officers themselves.[2] This has led to situations such as the recent shooting of unarmed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, which police officer Darren Wilson justified in terms of “reasonable” action in order to protect himself and others.[3] Although the Graham v. Connor decision helps to reaffirm our Fourth Amendment rights, it does not address issues of police profiling and increased marginalization as a result of one’s belonging to one or more minority groups. Problems persist, not only with these issues, but with the uneven application of the Fourth Amendment and the objective reasonableness standard.
[1] Ross, 300.
[2] Ross, 302.
[3] Leonnig, 2.
Bibliography
Brown, Jill I. “Defining “Reasonable” Police Conduct: Graham v. Connor and Excessive Force During Arrest,” UCLA Law Review 38 no. 5 (1991). The Regents of the University of California. Lexis Nexis Academic. 1257-1286.
“Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,” Graham v. Connor. University of Arkansas School of Law. http://law.uark.edu/documents/Bailey-CrimPro-Graham-v.-Connor.pdf
Leonnig, Carol D. “Current Law Gives Police Wide Latitude to use Deadly Force (Posted 2014-08-28 16:25:14).” The Washington Post, Aug 28, 2014. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1557934610?accountid=27495.
Loevy, J. (n.d.). Ection 1983 Litigation In A Nutshell: Make A Case Out of It! The Journal of the DuPage County Bar Association, 17. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.dcbabrief.org/vol171004art2.html
Lopes, Zachary. “Supreme Court Reaffirms Graham v. Connor – Arkansas Officers’ Use Of Deadly Force Cleared,” Rains Lucia Stern, PC. June 4 2014. http://www.rlslawyers.com/supreme-court-reaffirms-graham-v-conner-arkansas-officers-use-of-deadly-force-cleared/
Miller, Tim. “Part 1: Graham v. Connor.” FLETC Training Center Materials. https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIGrahamvConnor.pdf
“Oral Argument,” Graham v. Connor. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2011. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_6571
Ross, Darrell L. “An Assessment of Graham v. Connor Ten Years Later,” Policing 25 no. 2 (2002). Proquest Social Sciences Premium Collection. 294-319. http://search.proquest.com/docview/211220201?accountid=27495
Sullivan, Eileen. “Supreme Court case to shape Ferguson investigation.” The Big Story. Associated Press. August 21 2014. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/supreme-court-case-shape-ferguson-investigation
Sussman, Aaron. “Shocking the Conscience: What Police Tasers and Weapon Technology Reveal About Excessive Force Law,” UCLA Law Review 59 no. 5 (2012). The Regents of the University of California. Lexis Nexis Academic. 1342-1415.
USLegal, Inc. “Excessive Force Law & Legal Definition,” USLegal.com, 2014. http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/excessive-force/
USLegal, Inc. “Reasonable Man Theory Law & Legal Definition,” USLegal.com, 2014. http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reasonable-man-theory/
SOC320: Law, Society and Civil Rights 
You must be logged in to post a comment.