Graham v. Connor: Striking a Balance Between Policing and Civil Rights

The US Supreme Court’s Graham v. Connor decision has greatly influenced US law enforcement’s use of force. This 1989 case established the “objective reasonableness” criterion for deciding whether a law enforcement agent violated the Fourth Amendment’s restriction on unreasonable seizures. The verdict sought to reconcile law enforcement officials’ core power with citizens’ civil rights against excessive force.

The study focused on diabetic Dethorne Graham, who had an insulin response at a convenience shop. Graham asked a close friend to take him to a neighbor’s house for protection.

Charlotte Police Department Officer Connor grew suspicious and investigated. A battle broke out as the car stopped, and Graham was forcefully arrested and injured.

The Supreme Court’s most pressing issue was whether Officer Connor’s action against Graham violated the Fourth Amendment. This amendment prohibits government searches and seizures, even by law enforcement. The court tried to find a reasonable way to evaluate complaints of excessive force that would be equitable to law enforcement and the public.

The Court decided that a “reasonable officer on the scene” was a better judge of an officer’s “reasonability” than the officer’s subjective goals. This objective reasonableness standard considers the officer’s incident-related information. This criteria also considers law enforcement’s high-stress and fast-changing environments.

Objective reasonableness standards include several aspects. These variables include the gravity of the alleged offense, if the suspect presents an imminent danger to law enforcement or others, and whether the defendant is actively fighting arrest or evading capture.

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified

Proficient in: Law

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The Court wanted to create a workable structure. This paradigm would address law enforcement’s problems and prevent unwarranted force.

Graham v. Connor’s verdict was praised and criticized. The objective reasonableness test is said to help courts and law enforcement evaluate force instances. It acknowledges that police officers must make split-second judgments to defend themselves and the public. The standard emphasizes the officer’s view of the incident as it happens rather than the officer’s objectives thereafter to accommodate for law enforcement’s realities.

Some contend that objective reasonableness criteria allow subjectivity and interpretation. “Reasonable” might mean different things depending on the context since its meaning is subjective. The standard may not be able to handle law enforcement encounters involving racial bias or discrimination. Some fear civil rights breaches and discrimination, especially against poor populations.

Since Graham v. Connor, the public and legal community have debated police enforcement’s use of force. Protests and demands for police reform have followed high-profile police force incidents. Law enforcement needs greater openness, accountability, and training to reduce needless force and establish trust with the communities they serve.

De-escalation training and objective reasonableness-compliant use-of-force guidelines have been established by certain police agencies to address these issues. These programs aim to reduce police force by teaching de-escalation tactics.

The Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness requirement is essential for assessing police action. Graham v. Connor created it. Despite its goal of balancing police responsibilities and civil rights, it remains controversial. To guarantee that law enforcement upholds fairness, justice, and respect for everyone, police procedures must be continuously assessed and improved.