UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS AFFECTING ALL FIFTY STATES

CASE: GRAHAM v CONNOR
490 US 386 104 L Ed 2d 443, 109 S Ct 1865 (1989)

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

Since this was not a canine case, but a question of law based on what constitutes excessive force in apprehending a suspect, the court’s ruling will be reviewed as it applies to canine usage. Canines, as a use of force, will be evaluated by this standard.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) The Supreme Court ruled in Graham that excessive force must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendments’ objective reasonableness test. The application of this test requires an analysis of the totality of the circumstances, including these factors to determine if the seizure is reasonable:

A) The severity of the crime at issue;
B) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of law enforcement officers or others;
C) And whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

The reasonableness of an officer’s use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second judgements about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation, in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.

2) The court also referred to Tennessee v Garner 471 US, 85 L Ed 2d 1, 105 S Ct 1694 (1985). The court held:

A) The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force to prevent escape of a suspected felon, unless it is necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others.
B) The apprehension of a person by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
C) The reasonableness of the seizure depends on not only when it was made, but also how it was carried out.

In each of these cases, the question was whether the totality of the circumstances justified a particular sort of seizure.

CASE: HECK v HUMPHREY
512 U.S. 477 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994)

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

Since this was not a canine case, but a question of law based upon what constitutes excessive force in apprehending a suspect, the court’s ruling will be reviewed as it applies to canine usage.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a criminal conviction or sentence invalid, a civil rights violation plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
2) Thus, a criminal conviction bars the plaintiff with proceeding with a civil rights violation claim.

Return back to the Case Law Index

Return to the Home Page