Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, felt the onset of an insulin reaction and asked a friend, William Berry, to drive him to a convenience store to buy orange juice. Observing a long line, Graham quickly entered and exited the store without making a purchase. Charlotte police officer M.S. Connor saw Graham's rapid movements, considered them suspicious, and initiated an investigatory stop shortly after Berry drove away. Despite Berry's explanation that Graham was experiencing a medical emergency, Officer Connor detained them and summoned backup. During the encounter, Graham exhibited erratic behavior consistent with his medical distress—he ran around the car, briefly lost consciousness, and then sat down on the curb. Officers handcuffed him tightly, refused his repeated requests (and bystanders' offers) to obtain sugar or juice, and physically restrained him in various ways. After Connor learned nothing amiss had occurred at the store, the officers released Graham. Graham suffered multiple injuries, including a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and a shoulder injury. Graham sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Constitution. The district court granted the officers' motion for a directed verdict under a substantive due process standard, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
What constitutional standard governs a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officers used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure: the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, or the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process standard?
All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process approach. The reasonableness inquiry is fact-specific and must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and with allowance for the fact that officers often make split-second decisions in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations. Key considerations include: (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The officer's subjective intent or motivation is irrelevant.
The Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard governs excessive force claims arising during arrests, investigatory stops, or other seizures. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for application of the correct Fourth Amendment analysis.
The Court rejected the lower courts' reliance on a substantive due process framework (e.g., whether the force "shocks the conscience" or was applied "maliciously and sadistically"), emphasizing that when a specific constitutional amendment supplies an explicit textual protection, that amendment controls. Because excessive force claims arising during a seizure implicate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures, the appropriate inquiry is whether the officers' actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Drawing from Tennessee v. Garner, the Court underscored that the Fourth Amendment reasonableness test is not a precise formula but a context-intensive assessment. Courts must account for the facts and circumstances confronting officers, including the severity of the suspected offense, whether the suspect posed an immediate safety threat, and whether the suspect resisted or attempted flight. Importantly, the analysis proceeds from the vantage of a reasonable officer on the scene, not from judicial calm with the benefit of hindsight. Officers often operate in rapidly evolving situations requiring split-second judgments about the type and degree of force necessary. Consequently, the inquiry is objective: an officer's good or bad intentions do not render conduct constitutional or unconstitutional if the amount of force used was, in fact, objectively reasonable or unreasonable. Applying these principles, the Court found that the lower courts used the wrong legal yardstick when they analyzed Graham's claim under substantive due process and prison-discipline constructs like Whitley v. Albers. Because the case involved force during an investigatory stop—a seizure—the Fourth Amendment governs. The Court therefore vacated and remanded for the factfinder to apply the proper objective reasonableness standard to the totality of the circumstances.
Graham is the lodestar for evaluating police force used during seizures. It standardizes analysis under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness test and provides the widely cited "Graham factors" that structure both summary judgment practice and jury instructions. The decision also clarifies that subjective intent is immaterial and that courts must avoid 20/20 hindsight, recognizing the real-world pressures of policing. For students, Graham sits at the intersection of constitutional criminal procedure and § 1983 civil rights litigation. It delineates the boundaries among the Fourth Amendment (seizure-related force), the Eighth Amendment (convicted prisoners), and the Fourteenth Amendment (other contexts, including, as later clarified in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, pretrial detainees). Graham's framework also interacts with qualified immunity by defining the underlying right before courts decide whether that right was clearly established.
Graham v. Connor fundamentally reshaped excessive force jurisprudence by anchoring it to the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard. Its structured, fact-sensitive approach, centered on the severity of the crime, the immediacy of the threat, and resistance or flight, provides a clear and uniform test that courts and juries can apply across a wide spectrum of police-citizen encounters.