# Graham v. Connor
{% hint style="info" %} **After reading this case,** [**watch this short talk**](#fletc-talks-graham-v.-connor) **by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. It contains several practical tips, particularly about report writing in the context of**** *****Graham v. Connor*****.**
{% endhint %}
***
[490 U.S. 386](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4306215806680760770\&q=490+U.S.+386\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50) (1989)
Supreme Court of the United States
**Graham**\
**v.**\
**Connor et al.**
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
## \[Issue and Holding]
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.
## \[Facts and Procedural History]
In this action under [42 U.S. C. § 1983](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=\&req=%28title%3A42+section%3A1983+edition%3Aprelim%29\&f=\&fq=\&num=0\&hl=false\&edition=prelim), 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 checkout 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." \[...] Several officers then lifted Graham up from behind, 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.
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." \[...] 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."\[...] Finding that the amount of force used by the officers was "appropriate under the circumstances," that "\[t]here was no discernable injury inflicted," and that the force used "was not applied maliciously or sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm," but in "a good faith effort to maintain or restore order in the face of a potentially explosive situation," \[...] the District Court granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.[\[...\] ](#user-content-fn-1)[^1]The majority ruled first that the District Court had applied the correct legal standard in assessing petitioner's excessive force claim. \[...] Without attempting to identify the specific constitutional provision under which that claim arose,\[3] the majority endorsed the four-factor test applied by the District Court as generally applicable to all claims of "constitutionally excessive force" brought against governmental officials.[ \[...\] ](#user-content-fn-2)[^2]The majority rejected petitioner's argument, based on Circuit precedent,\[4] that it was error to require him to prove that the allegedly excessive force used against him was applied "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm."[\[5\] ](#user-content-fn-3)[^3]\[...] Finally, the majority held that a reasonable jury applying the four-part test it had just endorsed to petitioner's evidence "could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive." \[...] The dissenting judge argued that this Court's decisions in [*Terry* v. *Ohio,* 392 U. S. 1 (1968),](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17773604035873288886\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50) and [*Tennessee* v. *Garner,* 471 U. S. 1 (1985)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5843997099226288287\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50), required that excessive force claims arising out of investigatory stops be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard.\[..] We granted certiorari \[...], and now reverse.
## \[Discussion]
Fifteen years ago, in [*Johnson* v. *Glick,* 481 F. 2d 1028](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16836831667858662272\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50), \[...] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed a § 1983 damages claim filed by a pretrial detainee who claimed that a guard had assaulted him without justification. In evaluating the detainee's claim, Judge Friendly applied neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Eighth, the two most textually obvious sources of constitutional protection against physically abusive governmental conduct.\[6] Instead, he looked to "substantive due process," holding that "quite apart from any \`specific' of the Bill of Rights, application of undue force by law enforcement officers deprives a suspect of liberty without due process of law."\[...] As support for this proposition, he relied upon our decision in [*Rochin* v. *California,* 342 U. S. 165 (1952)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13189177772806165249\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50), which used the Due Process Clause to void a state criminal conviction based on evidence obtained by pumping the defendant's stomach.\[...] If a police officer's use of force which "shocks the conscience" could justify setting aside a criminal conviction, Judge Friendly reasoned, a correctional officer's use of similarly excessive force must give rise to a due process violation actionable under § 1983. \[...] Judge Friendly went on to set forth four factors to guide courts in determining "whether the constitutional line has been crossed" by a particular use of force—the same four factors relied upon by the courts below in this case. \[...]
In the years following [*Johnson* v. *Glick*](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16836831667858662272\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50)*,* the vast majority of lower federal courts have applied its four-part "substantive due process" test indiscriminately to all excessive force claims lodged against law enforcement and prison officials under § 1983, without considering whether the particular application of force might implicate a more specific constitutional right governed by a different standard.\[7] Indeed, many courts have seemed to assume, as did the courts below in this case, that there is a generic "right" to be free from excessive force, grounded not in any particular constitutional provision but rather in "basic principles of § 1983 jurisprudence."\[8]
We reject this notion that all excessive force claims brought under § 1983 are governed by a single generic standard. As we have said many times, § 1983 "is not itself a source of substantive rights," but merely provides "a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred." \[...] In addressing an excessive force claim brought under § 1983, analysis begins by identifying the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force. *See* [*id.,* at 140](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3540873929159376732\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50) ("The first inquiry in any § 1983 suit" is "to isolate the precise constitutional violation with which \[the defendant] is charged").\[9] In most instances, that will be either the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person, or the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, which are the two primary sources of constitutional protection against physically abusive governmental conduct. The validity of the claim must then be judged by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right, rather than to some generalized "excessive force" standard. *See* [*Tennessee* v. *Garner, supra,* at 7-22](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5843997099226288287\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50) (claim of excessive force to effect arrest analyzed under a Fourth Amendment standard); [*Whitley* v. *Albers,* 475 U. S. 312, 318-326 (1986)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5005381815871626027\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50) (claim of excessive force to subdue convicted prisoner analyzed under an Eighth Amendment standard).
Where, as here, the excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable. . . seizures" of the person. This much is clear from our decision in [*Tennessee* v. *Garner, supra*](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5843997099226288287\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50)*.* In *Garner,* we addressed a claim that the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect who did not appear to be armed or otherwise dangerous violated the suspect's constitutional rights, notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to arrest. Though the complaint alleged violations of both the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause, \[...] we analyzed the constitutionality of the challenged application of force solely by reference to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person, holding that the "reasonableness" of a particular seizure depends not only on *when* it is made, but also on *how* it is carried out. \[...] Today we make explicit what was implicit in *Garner*'s analysis, and hold that *all* claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its "reasonableness" standard, rather than under a "substantive due process" approach. Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of "substantive due process," must be the guide for analyzing these claims.\[10]
Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of " \`the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests' " against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. \[...] Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. *See* [*Terry* v. *Ohio,* 392 U. S., at 22-27](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17773604035873288886\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50#p22). Because "\[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," \[...] however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See [*Tennessee* v. *Garner,* 471 U. S., at 8-9](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5843997099226288287\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50#p8) (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifie\[s] a particular sort of . . . seizure").
The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. See [*Terry* v. *Ohio, supra,* at 20-22](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17773604035873288886\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50#p20). The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested,\[...] nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises.\[...] With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," [*Johnson* v. *Glick,* 481 F. 2d, at 1033](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16836831667858662272\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50#p1033), violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, however, the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question 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.\[...] An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.\[...]
Because petitioner's excessive force claim is one arising under the Fourth Amendment, the Court of Appeals erred in analyzing it under the four-part [*Johnson* v. *Glick*](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16836831667858662272\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50) test. That test, which requires consideration of whether the individual officers acted in "good faith" or "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm," is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals' suggestion \[...] that the "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. Whatever the empirical correlations between "malicious and sadistic" behavior and objective unreasonableness may be, the fact remains that the "malicious and sadistic" factor puts in issue the subjective motivations of the individual officers, which our prior cases make clear has no bearing on whether a particular seizure is "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. Nor do we agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion \[...] that because the subjective motivations of the individual officers are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment \[...],\[11] it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. Differing standards under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments are hardly surprising: the terms "cruel" and "punishments" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the 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."\[\*] The Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of "objective reasonableness" under the circumstances, and subjective concepts like "malice" and "sadism" have no proper place in that inquiry.\[12]
Because the Court of Appeals reviewed the District Court's ruling on the motion for directed verdict under an erroneous view of the governing substantive law, its judgment must be vacated and the case remanded to that court for reconsideration of that issue under the proper Fourth Amendment standard.
*It is so ordered.*
JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
\[...]
***
{% hint style="info" %} **Remember to watch the video below by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers.**
{% endhint %}
## FLETC Talks - *Graham v. Connor*
{% embed url="" %}
FLETC Talks - Graham v. Connor
{% endembed %}
***
Editorial Notes and Licensing
Editing to the original case by Matthew L. Mac Kelly. Many of the court's original citations to authorities and other content may have been omitted for length and readability purposes. Many elisions of text are not identified, particularly string citations and original footnotes when not materially necessary to the purpose of this portion of the sourcebook. However, some elisions are identified by bracketed ellipses (e.g., \[...]).
Judicial decisions and annotations thereto by third parties are not subject to copyright protection and are in the public domain. *See, e.g., Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc*., [140 S. Ct. 1498](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8288711378870515248\&q=Georgia+et+al.+v.+Public.Resource.Org,+Inc.\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50) (2020).
Note: Hyperlinks within this case are not original. Some of these hyperlinks (such as cases and footnotes) may direct you to an external publicly accessible display of the case. This is helpful for reference purposes, and no copyright is claimed here over a third party's hyperlinking choices and methodologies, if applicable.
Subject to limitations above, if any, this page is in the public domain. [CC0 1.0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) 
[^1]: [827 F.2d 945 ](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7226541936933773809\&q=+827+F.2d+945+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50)(1987).
[^2]: *Id.*, at[ 948](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7226541936933773809\&q=+827+F.2d+945+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50#p948).
[^3]: The majority noted that in [*Whitley* v. *Albers,* 475 U. S. 312 (1986),](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5005381815871626027\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50) we held that the question whether physical force used against convicted prisoners in the course of quelling a prison riot violates the Eighth Amendment "ultimately turns on \`whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.' " 827 F. 2d, at 948, n. 3, quoting [*Whitley* v. *Albers, supra,* at 320-321](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5005381815871626027\&q=490+U.S.+386+\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50). Though the Court of Appeals acknowledged that petitioner was not a convicted prisoner, it thought it "unreasonable . . . to suggest that a conceptual factor could be central to one type of excessive force claim but reversible error when merely considered by the court in another context." 827 F. 2d, at 948, n. 3.
---
# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.
## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.
Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter:
```
GET https://studies-de-jure.gitbook.io/learn/sourcebooks/cj-liability/unit-6-selected-topics-in-law-enforcement-liability/graham-v.-connor.md?ask=
```
The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.
Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.