Graham V Connor Case Study
GRAHAM v. CONNOR, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Dethorne Graham, who is a diabetic, asked a friend, William Berry, to drive him to a store to purchase some juice to neutralize the start of an insulin reaction. When Dethorne Graham entered the store, he saw the number of people that would be ahead of him, Dethorne Graham hurried out and asked William Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Connor, a Charlotte, North Carolina police officer, became wary after seeing Dethorne Graham quickly enter and leave the store. Officer Connor followed William Berry's car, about half a mile from the store, he made an investigative stop and ordered Dethorne Graham And William Berry to wait while he found out what had happened in the store. As Officer Connor
waited for information and backup officers, Dethorne Graham got out of the car, ran around twice, and sat down on the curb where he passed out for a moment. Once back up arrived, one of the officers rolled Dethorne Graham over on the sidewalk and cuffed his hands behind his back. As this was occurring, William Berry tried to tell the officers about Dethorne Grahams condition but they just ignored him. Many officers then lifted Dethorne Graham up from behind, took him to William Berrys car, and put him face down on the hood. As he was gaining consciousness again, Dethorne Graham asked the officers to check in his wallet for a diabetic card that he carries. One of the officers told him to shut up and shoved him down against the hood once again. Four officers grabbed Dethorne Graham and threw him headfirst into the police car. During the encounter, Dethorne Graham received multiple injuries which includes a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder. He also claims to have a loud ringing in his right ear. Dethorne Graham was released when Officer Connor found out that nothing happened at the store. Dethorne Graham filed a lawsuit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the officers, stating that they had used excessive force in making the stop, which was in violation of the "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983." The District Court granted the officers motion for a directed verdict at the end of Dethorne Grahams evidence, applying a four-factor test (Reasonableness Test) which will determine when excessive use of force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. The Court of Appeals approved, this will be the test to use for all claims of constitutionally excessive force brought against government officials. In conclusion, The Appeals Court stated by applying the 4 step substantive reasonableness test, the Fourth Amendment is the most appropriate place to start in these type of cases. The reasonableness of a seizure under Fourth Amendment not only depends on when the seizure was made, but also on how it was made. Considering the actions of the officers, the court is required to balance the nature and quality of the disturbance on the individual’s Fourth Amendment. The court can consider factors such as whether the suspect poses an immediate threat, whether suspect is actively resisting arrest, and such forth. Also, in judging the reasonableness of officer’s action, an objective standard will be used.
Dethorne Graham, who is a diabetic, asked a friend, William Berry, to drive him to a store to purchase some juice to neutralize the start of an insulin reaction. When Dethorne Graham entered the store, he saw the number of people that would be ahead of him, Dethorne Graham hurried out and asked William Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Connor, a Charlotte, North Carolina police officer, became wary after seeing Dethorne Graham quickly enter and leave the store. Officer Connor followed William Berry's car, about half a mile from the store, he made an investigative stop and ordered Dethorne Graham And William Berry to wait while he found out what had happened in the store. As Officer Connor
waited for information and backup officers, Dethorne Graham got out of the car, ran around twice, and sat down on the curb where he passed out for a moment. Once back up arrived, one of the officers rolled Dethorne Graham over on the sidewalk and cuffed his hands behind his back. As this was occurring, William Berry tried to tell the officers about Dethorne Grahams condition but they just ignored him. Many officers then lifted Dethorne Graham up from behind, took him to William Berrys car, and put him face down on the hood. As he was gaining consciousness again, Dethorne Graham asked the officers to check in his wallet for a diabetic card that he carries. One of the officers told him to shut up and shoved him down against the hood once again. Four officers grabbed Dethorne Graham and threw him headfirst into the police car. During the encounter, Dethorne Graham received multiple injuries which includes a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder. He also claims to have a loud ringing in his right ear. Dethorne Graham was released when Officer Connor found out that nothing happened at the store. Dethorne Graham filed a lawsuit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the officers, stating that they had used excessive force in making the stop, which was in violation of the "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983." The District Court granted the officers motion for a directed verdict at the end of Dethorne Grahams evidence, applying a four-factor test (Reasonableness Test) which will determine when excessive use of force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. The Court of Appeals approved, this will be the test to use for all claims of constitutionally excessive force brought against government officials. In conclusion, The Appeals Court stated by applying the 4 step substantive reasonableness test, the Fourth Amendment is the most appropriate place to start in these type of cases. The reasonableness of a seizure under Fourth Amendment not only depends on when the seizure was made, but also on how it was made. Considering the actions of the officers, the court is required to balance the nature and quality of the disturbance on the individual’s Fourth Amendment. The court can consider factors such as whether the suspect poses an immediate threat, whether suspect is actively resisting arrest, and such forth. Also, in judging the reasonableness of officer’s action, an objective standard will be used.