14.1: Graham v. Conner
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
Dethorne Graham M.S. Connor
LOCATION
United States District Court, Western District North Carolina, Charlotte Division
DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY
87-6571 Rehnquist Court
LOWER COURT
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
CITATION
ARGUED
Feb 21, 1989
Decided
May 15, 1989
Granted
Oct 3, 1988
ADVOCATES
H. Gerald Beaver on behalf of the Petitioner
Mark Irving Levy on behalf of Respondents
Facts of the case
On November 12, 1984, Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, had an insulin reaction while doing auto work at his home. He asked a friend, William Berry, to drive him to a convenience store in order to purchase some orange juice to counter his reaction. When they arrived at the store, Graham rapidly left the car. He entered the store and saw a line of four or five persons at the counter; not wanting to wait in line, he quickly left the store and returned to Berry’s car. Officer M.S. Connor, a Charlotte police officer, observed Graham entering and exiting the store unusually quickly. He followed the car and pulled it over about a half mile away. Graham, still suffering from an insulin reaction, exited the car and ran around it twice. Berry and Officer Connor stopped Graham, and he sat down on the curb. He soon passed out; when he revived he was handcuffed and lying face down on the sidewalk. Several more police officers were present by this time. The officers picked up Graham, still handcuffed, and placed him over the hood of Berry’s car. Graham attempted to reach for his wallet to show his diabetic identification, and an officer shoved his head down into the hood and told him to shut up. The police then struggled to place Graham in the squad car over Graham’s vigorous resistance. Officer Connor soon determined, however, that Graham had not committed a crime at the convenience store, and returned him to his home. Graham sustained multiple injuries, including a broken foot, as a result of the incident. Graham filed § 1983 charges against Connor, other officers, and the City of Charlotte, alleging a violation of his rights by the excessive use of force by the police.
Question
- Must Graham show that the police acted “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” to establish his claim that Charlotte police used excessive force?
- Must Graham’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force be examined under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard?
UNANIMOUS
Blackmun
White
Scalia
Rehnquist
O’Conner
Marshall
Brennan
Stevens
Kennedy
Conclusion
No and yes. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that claims of excessive force used by government officials are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard. The Court vacated the directed verdict and remanded the case to the district court to be decided by that standard. Justice Rehnquist rejected Connor’s argument that “malicious and sadistic” is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable, noting that the subjective motivations of the officers are relevant under the Eighth Amendment, not the Fourth.