## Facts

- Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, experienced an insulin reaction and asked a friend to drive him to a convenience store to buy orange juice.
- Graham entered the store, saw a long line, and quickly left; the friend drove away.
- Officer M.S. Connor saw Graham’s hurried entry and exit, suspected wrongdoing, followed the car, and made an investigatory stop.
- During the stop, Graham exited the car, ran around it, sat on a curb, and briefly lost consciousness.
- Officers arrived as backup, handcuffed Graham, and allegedly ignored or rebuffed attempts to explain and treat his medical condition.
- Graham suffered injuries during the encounter and was released after Connor determined nothing had occurred at the store.

## Issues

1. Whether a free citizen’s excessive-force claim arising from an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure is governed by Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process or by the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the proper standard is a subjective “malicious and sadistic” type inquiry or an objective reasonableness inquiry based on the facts confronting the officer.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that excessive-force claims arising during an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free citizen are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard.
- The Court rejected applying a generic substantive due process test to such seizure-based force claims.
- The Court vacated the judgment and remanded for application of the Fourth Amendment standard.

## Legal Principles

- Courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed and apply the standard governing that right, rather than a free-floating due process test.
- When force is used in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure, the governing framework is the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures.
- Reasonableness is judged objectively, from the standpoint of a reasonable officer on the scene, without hindsight.
- The inquiry does not turn on the officer’s subjective intent; good or bad motives do not control whether the force was objectively reasonable.
- Relevant considerations include the severity of the suspected crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was resisting or attempting to flee, evaluated within the totality of the circumstances.
- Substantive due process standards such as “maliciously and sadistically” are not the controlling test for seizure-based excessive-force claims.

## Conclusion

The Court required that police use-of-force claims arising from seizures be evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, and it returned the case to the lower courts to apply that framework rather than a substantive due process test.


Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)