The Health Care Campaign for Better Health

Issues before the Court 

The major issue in this case is the use of force by police officers and the impact it has on the Fourth Amendment right of a civilian. Law enforcement officers by law are required to take significant action of coercing an individual in the quest to make an arrest. The use of excessive force will be termed as unlawful from the officers in question. The Fourth Amendment right as argued by the petitioner identifies the right of an American citizen from receiving unreasonable search or seizure and the need for a judicially sanctioned warrant that is supported by probable cause to be issued in a bid to make an arrest (Graham v. Connor, 1989). In this case, the police officers in question do not have enough evidence or a warrant to arrest the individual. 

Facts of the Case 

The Graham v. Connor case is a 1989 case where a civilian sought to file suit against police officer Connor. In this case, the petitioner was a diabetic male seeking to get medication for his condition and asked his friend to drive him to the store. The police officer, Connor witnesses as Graham walks into a drug store and quickly walks out. The officer immediately followed the pair and stopped them to confirm what exactly had happened. However, back up police officers came along to assist the respondent officer Connor and immediately arrested Graham (Graham v. Connor, 1989). During the arrest, Graham sustained injuries and felt that the officers had violated his Fourth Amendment rights. It was later identified that the individual in question had not committed any crime and was released as a result. 

Procedural History 

Before the proceedings, Mr. Graham had an injured shoulder, ringing in his ear, cuts on his wrist, broken bone in his foot and a bruised forehead. The District Court identified the need to use a four factor test to determine the use of excessive force that will require the use of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that action requiring the petitioner to prove that the effort was malicious and intended to cause harm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the four-factor test used by the District Court. In both cases, the force used by the police officers was not constitutionally excessive. However, the Supreme Court remanded and vacated the ruling by the lower court indicating that the use of excessive force by an enforcement official should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment in an objective reasonable standard and not by the due process required (Graham v. Connor, 1989). 

Court Decision and Reasoning 

The court ruled against the notion that excessive force claims will be judged by § 1983 was rejected as it only uses a single generic standard. This notion was rejected as the court would be required to identify the constitutional right of an individual that has been infringed and judge the actions by the same. The court identified the Fourth Amendment right as the most properly characterized infringement against the free citizen hence the issue should be judged under the standard of “reasonableness” (Graham v. Connor, 1989). In this case, the court will seek to identify that the actions of the officers are “objectively reasonable” using the facts and circumstances and disregarding their motives or intent. 

Opinion and Reasoning 

The decision by the Supreme Court to vacate and remand the lower court’s ruling is seen as correct as it seeks to identify the objective actions of the officers under the circumstances and facts of the case. Through the use of the Fourth Amendment right of the free citizen, the court seeks to identify whether the police officer infringed on the right of the citizen from unreasonable seizure. The “reasonableness” of the action of these officers is questioned to determine if the sustained injuries was a result of poor judgment and not an action of officers seeking to enforce the law. 

References 

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/