Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a civilian's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his or her person.
In the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling, the Supreme Court expanded its definition to include the "objective reasonableness" standard—not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have been—and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene—and its calculus must embody the fact that police officers are ...
Furthermore, Graham set the 'objectively reasonableness' standard, which has been extensively utilized by law enforcement as a defense for using deadly force; the ambiguity surrounding this standard is a subject of concern because it relies on "the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene."
To assess whether a use of force is "objectively reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained four years later in Graham v. Connor, judges should consider "the totality of the ...
“No reasonable officer would have believed that that was an appropriate, acceptable or reasonable use of force,” Stoughton said of the way Floyd was held facedown with a knee across his neck ...
The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Graham v. Connor, (1989) ruled that excessive use of force claims must be evaluated under the "objectively reasonable" standard of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the "reasonableness" factor of a use of force incident must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Over the course of the encounter, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead and an injured shoulder. In the resulting case, Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court held that it was irrelevant whether Connor acted in good faith, because the use of force must be judged based on its objective reasonableness. [8]