Graham v. Connor, No. 87-6571

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtREHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN
Citation104 L.Ed.2d 443,109 S.Ct. 1865,490 U.S. 386
Docket NumberNo. 87-6571
Decision Date15 May 1989
PartiesDethorne GRAHAM, Petitioner v. M.S. CONNOR et al

490 U.S. 386
109 S.Ct. 1865
104 L.Ed.2d 443
Dethorne GRAHAM, Petitioner

v.

M.S. CONNOR et al.

No. 87-6571.
Argued Feb. 21, 1989.
Decided May 15, 1989.
Syllabus

Petitioner Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend, Berry, to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Upon entering the store and seeing the number of people ahead of him, Graham hurried out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Respondent Connor, a city police officer, became suspicious after seeing Graham hastily enter and leave the store, followed Berry's car, and made an investigative stop, ordering the pair to wait while he found out what had happened in the store. Respondent back-up police officers arrived on the scene, handcuffed Graham, and ignored or rebuffed attempts to explain and treat Graham's condition. During the encounter, Graham sustained multiple injuries. He was released when Connor learned that nothing had happened in the store. Graham filed suit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondents, alleging that they had used excessive force in making the stop, in violation of "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983." The District Court granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict at the close of Graham's evidence, applying a four-factor test for determining when excessive use of force gives rise to a § 1983 cause of action, which inquires, inter alia, whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028. The Court of Appeals affirmed, endorsing this test as generally applicable to all claims of constitutionally excessive force brought against government officials, rejecting Graham's argument that it was error to require him to prove that the allegedly excessive force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and holding that a reasonable jury applying the Johnson v. Glick test to his evidence could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive.

Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 392-399.

Page 387

(a) The notion that all excessive force claims brought under § 1983 are governed by a single generic standard is rejected. Instead, courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force and then judge the claim by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. Pp.393-394.

(b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard. Pp. 394-395

(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 396-397.

(d) The Johnson v. Glick test applied by the courts below is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. The suggestion that the test's "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances is rejected. Also rejected is the conclusion that because individual officers' subjective motivations are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment terms "cruel" and "punishments" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the Fourth Amendment term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, the less protective Eighth Amendment standard applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. Pp. 397-399.

827 F.2d 945, (CA4 1987), vacated and remanded.

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. ___.

Page 388

H. Gerald Beaver, Fayetteville, N.C., for petitioner.

Mark I. Levy, Chicago, Ill., for respondents.

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his person. We hold that such claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.

In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, petitioner Dethorne Graham seeks to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained when law enforcement officers used physical force against him during the course of an investigatory stop. Because the case comes to us from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the entry of a directed verdict for respondents, we take the evidence hereafter noted in the light most favorable to petitioner. On November 12, 1984, Graham, a diabetic, felt the onset of an insulin reaction. He asked a friend, William Berry, to drive him to a nearby convenience store so he could purchase some orange juice to counteract the reaction. Berry agreed, but when Graham entered the store, he saw a number of people ahead of him in the check-

Page 389

out line. Concerned about the delay, he hurried out of the store and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead.

Respondent Connor, an officer of the Charlotte, North Carolina, Police Department, saw Graham hastily enter and leave the store. The officer became suspicious that something was amiss and followed Berry's car. About one-half mile from the store, he made an investigative stop. Although Berry told Connor that Graham was simply suffering from a "sugar reaction," the officer ordered Berry and Graham to wait while he found out what, if anything, had happened at the convenience store. When Officer Connor returned to his patrol car to call for backup assistance, Graham got out of the car, ran around it twice, and finally sat down on the curb, where he passed out briefly.

In the ensuing confusion, a number of other Charlotte police officers arrived on the scene in response to Officer Connor's request for backup. One of the officers rolled Graham over on the sidewalk and cuffed his hands tightly behind his back, ignoring Berry's pleas to get him some sugar. Another officer said: "I've seen a lot of people with sugar diabetes that never acted like this. Ain't nothing wrong with the M.F. but drunk. Lock the S.B. up." App. 42. Several officers then lifted Graham up from be ind, carried him over to Berry's car, and placed him face down on its hood. Regaining consciousness, Graham asked the officers to check in his wallet for a diabetic decal that he carried. In response, one of the officers told him to "shut up" and shoved his face down against the hood of the car. Four officers grabbed Graham and threw him headfirst into the police car. A friend of Graham's brought some orange juice to the car, but the officers refused to let him have it. Finally, Officer Connor received a report that Graham had done nothing wrong at the convenience store, and the officers drove him home and released him.

Page 390

At some point during his encounter with the police, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder; he also claims to have developed a loud ringing in his right ear that continues to this day. He commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual officers involved in the incident, all of whom are respondents here,1 alleging that they had used excessive force in making the investigatory stop, in violation of "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Complaint ¶ 10, App. 5.2 The case was tried before a jury. At the close of petitioner's evidence, respondents moved for a directed verdict. In ruling on that motion, the District Court considered the following four factors, which it identified as "[t]he factors to be considered in determining when the excessive use of force gives rise to a cause of action under § 1983": (1) the need for the application of force; (2) the relationship between that need and the amount of force that was used; (3) the extent of the injury inflicted; and (4) "[w]hether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." 644 F.Supp. 246, 248 (WDNC 1986). Finding that the amount of force used by the officers was "appropriate under the circumstances," that "[t]here was no discernable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20044 practice notes
  • McNair v. Coffey, No. 00-1139.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 29, 2002
    ...of the suspect's reaction to that conduct. See Lester v. Chicago, 830 F.2d 706 (7th Cir.1987). Accord, Graham Page 467 v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Although Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 842-45, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998), held that a sh......
  • Doe v. Heck, No. 01-3648.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 16, 2003
    ...is to recover damages for a physical seizure, then that claim is more appropriately analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (holding that "[b]ecause the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitut......
  • Price v. Sery, No. 06-35159.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 22, 2008
    ...Price argues that "reasonable belief' is a different, and lesser, standard from "probable cause." 1 Both Garner and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) are recognized as the leading Supreme Court cases explicating the requirements for the use of force by l......
  • Easley v. City of Riverside, No. 16-55941
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 18, 2018
    ...Cir. 2010) :Apprehension by deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. See Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 395 [109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443] (1989). However, an officer using deadly force is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the law was......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20040 cases
  • McNair v. Coffey, No. 00-1139.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 29, 2002
    ...of the suspect's reaction to that conduct. See Lester v. Chicago, 830 F.2d 706 (7th Cir.1987). Accord, Graham Page 467 v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Although Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 842-45, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998), held that a sh......
  • Doe v. Heck, No. 01-3648.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 16, 2003
    ...is to recover damages for a physical seizure, then that claim is more appropriately analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (holding that "[b]ecause the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitut......
  • Price v. Sery, No. 06-35159.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 22, 2008
    ...Price argues that "reasonable belief' is a different, and lesser, standard from "probable cause." 1 Both Garner and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) are recognized as the leading Supreme Court cases explicating the requirements for the use of force by l......
  • Easley v. City of Riverside, No. 16-55941
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 18, 2018
    ...Cir. 2010) :Apprehension by deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. See Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 395 [109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443] (1989). However, an officer using deadly force is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the law was......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking Police Expertise.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 2, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...at 1126; Avidan Y. Cover, Reconstructing the Right Against Excessive Force, 68 FLA. L. REV. 1773,1798 (2016). (287.) Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (288.) Id. at 396. (289.) Id. at 397; see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 383-85 (2007) (deferring to a police officer's decision to e......
  • The Centrality of Exclusion: Legal Impediments to Keeping 'Undesirable' People and Uses Out of the Community
    • United States
    • Land use planning and the environment: a casebook
    • January 23, 2010
    ...who claim “arbitrary” deprivations of nonfundamental liberty interests must look to the Equal Protection Clause, and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395(1989), precludes the use of “‘substantive due process’”analysis when a more specific constitutional provision governs. As for respondents’......
  • EXPLORING THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF PROCEDURAL RULES: THE PROBLEM OF IMPLICIT AND INSTITUTIONAL RACIAL BIAS.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 Nbr. 8, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...are often forced to make split-second judgments--in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving...." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). See also Tolan v. Cotton, 854 F. Supp. 2d 444, 475 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (emphasizing the importance of qualified immunity applying i......
  • Pretrial Detainees and the Objective Standard After Kingsley v. Hendrickson
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-2, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...individuals must bring § 1983 excessive force claims under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 20. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394–95 (1989) (holding that “where the excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT