FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

Dynamic Plaques - FVT Plaques
FVT Plaques is introducing new dynamic plaques to recognize police and sheriff's...

Security Policy and the Cloud

Ask The Expert

Mark Rivera

FBI-CJIS Security Policy Compliance Officer

Mark Rivera, Customer Retention Manager and CJIS Security Compliance Officer with Vigilant Solutions, served for sixteen years with the Maryland State Police, retiring at the rank of First Sergeant with thirteen of those years at the supervisory and command level. He holds a Master of Science Degree in Management from The Johns Hopkins University and Secret clearance through the FBI, Baltimore.

Features

Understanding Graham v. Connor

A quarter-century ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case that determines the legality of every law enforcement use-of-force incident.

October 27, 2014  |  by

No law enforcement officer starts his or her shift saying, "I want to make some case law here today." But there are those rare occasions where an officer's observations and actions get reviewed, scrutinized, and solidified as case law in the highest courts of the land. The 1989 case of Graham v. Connor is an example of how the actions of one officer can start a process that establishes law.

Findings from Graham v. Connor determine the legality of every use-of-force decision an officer makes. And they will certainly be considered in the recent deadly use-of-force decision made by Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson when using deadly force on Michael Brown. Which is why every American law enforcement officer should have a sound understanding of the Graham case and what it means.

Using the Graham standard, an officer must apply constitutionally appropriate levels of force, based on the unique circumstances of each case. The officer's force should be applied in the same basic way that an "objectively reasonable" officer would in the same circumstances. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the most important factor to consider in applying force is the threat faced by the officer or others at the scene.

Orange Juice

1984, On Nov. 12, 1984, Dethorne Graham, a North Carolina Department of Transportation maintenance worker and diabetic, sensed the onset of a diabetic reaction and needed sugar to offset the insulin. He asked a friend to drive him to a convenience store so he could purchase orange juice to counteract the insulin reaction.

As he entered the store, Graham took note of the police car parked across from the store, but didn't give it a second thought. He needed sucrose and couldn't wait. Upon entering the store and seeing the number of people ahead of him, Graham hurried out of the store and asked his friend to drive him elsewhere for his sugar. Officer Connor of the Charlotte Police Department, sitting in the car across the street, saw Graham enter the store, then quickly run from the store, a textbook move for a thief or robber.

Officers are trained to look for suspicious activity and Connor, along with any other "objectionably reasonable" officer, would think that Graham's actions were suspicious and worth investigating further.

According to well-publicized facts of the case, Connor followed the car Graham got into and stopped it a short ways down the street. The driver of the car, William Berry, told the officer that Graham was a diabetic, but the officer ordered the pair to wait while he found out what had happened in the store.

When Connor returned to his patrol car to call for backup, Graham got out of the car, ran around it twice, and finally sat down on the curb, where he passed out briefly.

A number of Charlotte police officers arrived as backup on the scene. One of the officers rolled Graham over on the sidewalk and cuffed his hands tightly behind his back, as Berry pleaded with the officers to get Graham some sugar. 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 put him head first 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.

Graham secured counsel and filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—a section of U.S. Code that covers the violation of someone's civil rights by a law enforcement officer—against the individual officers involved in the incident. The case wound its way through the appellate process all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which established the rulings in Graham v. Connor as the law of the land in 1989.

Graham and Ferguson

On closer inspection of the Graham v. Connor ruling, there are some important thoughts expressed by the court that are salient to the Ferguson shooting case.

Devallis Rutledge is special counsel to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, a use-of-force subject matter expert, and author of numerous books and POLICE Magazine's monthly "Point of Law" column. He says that the most important quotes from the written opinion of the Supreme Court in the Graham decision are in the three paragraphs talking about the reasonableness test of the Fourth Amendment.

These paragraphs say: Any use of force by law enforcement officers needs to take into account "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."

"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."

"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."

So considering the facts that are known in the Ferguson case, of which there are very few in the public domain at this time, the officer's state of mind will play an important role in considering if the shooting was excessive. What level of threat did the officer perceive? What is his training and background? What are the physical size differences between officer and offender? What options could be reasonable considered short of deadly force?

It is safe to say that the situation in Ferguson was "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving," as the incident was reportedly a prolonged violent confrontation that went from a police car to a confrontation on the street. Would a reasonable officer, faced with the exact same circumstances, with the same training and physical conditioning, make the same decision to use force in the same manner? These are the questions to be answered by the investigators.

We don't know what will happen with Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department. But we can be certain that officials charged with evaluating the facts of his shooting will consider Graham when deciding if it was objectively reasonable and constitutional.

Write It Up

Officers working the street and applying the principles of Graham v. Connor every day may or may not know they are doing it. A generation of officers has been trained in the case's practical meaning and has spent decades applying it to every use-of-force decision. So it has become part of law enforcement DNA, often unnoticed as it works in the background to determine our actions. But now the events in Ferguson give us a rare opportunity to put the application of the Graham standards in everyday policing and in-service training under the microscope and study them.

What are the relevant points for a police officer in a situation of deciding the right level of force to use to effect an arrest? Focus on the main questions to be asked: Was the force "objectively reasonable" based on the facts and circumstances faced by the officer? What was the seriousness of the crime? What was the threat to the officer or other people? Was the suspect resisting and/or attempting to flee?

According to retired LAPD Capt. Greg Meyer, a POLICE Advisory Board member and noted use-of-force expert, the officer's assessment of the suspect becomes very important in a Graham analysis. Height and weight? Weapons? Demeanor? Verbal threats? Intoxication? Prior knowledge of suspect's history? These are among the many factors that you should remember to include in the reporting.

"When you focus on the Graham factors, your police report will be better," Meyer says. "Your report should be specific about what the suspect was doing that caused you to use force."

It's not enough to give a generalized statement about levels of resistance and levels of force, Meyer says. It's far better to specifically write what happened. Meyer provides the following example of specifics for a police report on a TASER deployment.

"The suspect started looking around to his left and his right. I used my radio to request a backup unit. He flexed his arm muscles and clenched his fists. I drew my TASER and stated, ‘Sir, if you don't calm down, I will use the TASER on you, and it will hurt a lot.' Then he yelled at me, ‘I am not going to jail again!' I calmly repeated my instruction, ‘Sir, I know you're upset, but you are under arrest. Please cooperate. Put your hands behind your head, and turn around so that I can handcuff you. Do it now!' At that time, the suspect looked around to his left and right again. He bent forward at the waist and began to take a step forward in my direction. At that time, I believed that he was about to attack me. I deployed TASER probes, and he fell to the ground. At that time I handcuffed him."

Writing specific accounts of why you used force during an incident will go a long way toward getting any potential jury inside your head and understanding what you were thinking. You have to say what the exact threat was that you perceived. You may not be thinking about making case law at the time, but you may be doing just that.

The Decision

The words of Chief Justice William Rehnquist can still be heard loud and clear today, 25 years after the Graham v. Connor decision. And every American law enforcement officer should know them well.

"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. 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. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application."

Our society would benefit from listening to Rehnquist's opinion rather than listening to community activists, protesters, or ill-informed politicians who see issues in black and white instead of seeing the issues from the standpoint of objective reasonableness. After the dust settles in Ferguson, we may have new case law or we may have affirmation of a 25-year-old decision that started with a quest for a bottle of orange juice.

Mark Clark is a 27-year veteran police sergeant. He has served as PIO, training officer, and as supervisor for various squads.


Comments (9)

Displaying 1 - 9 of 9

TheRookie @ 10/28/2014 12:16 AM

Very good re-cap of case law precedent learned in the Academy & training. Just wish it could or would apply to Ferguson. When the New Black Panthers & Other rebel rousing violent groups are stirring the pot it doesn't look good. This past weekend they were videoed threatening Police Officers if they didn't leave the immediate area. It's the same long braided hair, medium build, black man who was doing the same to a CNN News Crew. He needs to be contacted, identified, & warned. But, with Al "Cocaine Snorting C.I.7" Shark-ton, "Card Carrying" Erica` von With-Holder @ Dept. of No-Justice, & "Bat Boy" Ostumbler covering & backing the violence there not much will be done.

Capt. Crunch @ 10/28/2014 5:23 AM

Hmmm, Brown, was not carrying a bottle of orange juice, he was carrying a stolen box of cigars, I wonder what type of illness would a box of cigars cure?

charles hill @ 11/17/2014 2:53 PM

Being a Missouri officer the thing that bugs me the most is that no one in a supervisory position or with the courts addressed the public in regard to the steps that would take place involving the investigation. No one explained that there are Standards of operation all across the state if not the Country as to how an investigation is conducted. Such as if the person is deceased at the scene the body remains as part of the crime scene, not to be disrespectful. That people are not charged with crimes because of public opinion, the crimes area based on elements of a crime, as in demanding the officer Wilson be immediately arrested and charged. That officers have a right to protect themselves when having their face pounded on by a person twice or three times there size. They are not required to ask how old a suspect is before shooting them, because they apparently don't have the physical ability to fight the offender off. Very simple don't be criminal don't deal with the Police.

Steve @ 11/21/2014 6:51 AM

One issue not addressed in this article is the issue of politics. Case law and proper procedure go out the window when the AG and the state Gov all but tell the public the Officer is guilty. So as law enforcement what do we do?

Peter Hilton JD @ 10/18/2015 12:20 PM

You should feel embarrassed at your opinion, i have been in Law enforcement for over 40 years and you still miss the point. a person leaving a store is grounds for stopping him, injuring him and violating his rights. He committed no crime and there were no facts that he had. Once stopped, he gave a lucid explanation which none of the officers bothered to check out, WHY!, because their own philosophy got in the way, and maybe a bit of racism. Read my book "Command Decisions" and you will learn why you miss the point? It available on Amazon . My next book "Command Decisions, Use of Force" will be even more open about why police shoot, injure and violate the law in the US. Get it together police officers, stop trying to justify breaking the law, and start following it!

Floridapopo @ 1/2/2016 10:37 AM

Peter,

You've been in law-enforcement for 40 years ?? Clearly, you've been a shitty officer for those years. Look up reasonable suspicion and apply his actions to it. it's reasonable, based upon his limited time in the store followed by fleeing from the store that he has committed a crime. Don't forget old timer that reasonable suspicion allows us to detain to investigate if a crime has been committed, is being committed, or about to be committed.

Tyrus Moulder @ 1/15/2016 3:48 PM

Peter Hilton suggests that racism was a factor in the original Graham stop. Interesting to note the reality of this encounter as briefed to me during a recent training seminar. Officer Connor and the other officers at the stop were all African Americans. none of the officers, including Connor, wrote a report to document the contact with Graham. It just wasn't part of the way officers worked those many years ago.

Al Parra @ 2/3/2016 11:24 AM

Who's "hind sight" is G v Conner talking about , the officer applying the force or the person(s) examining the incident. Is post incident video viewing hindsight?

Nick @ 5/14/2016 8:48 AM

One needs only to research Peter Hilton, JD, to determine why he holds the views he espouses. A check of his LinkedIn profile reveals his background is in loss prevention for 30 some years, and while he lists his rank of lieutenant for the Los Angeles Dept of Transportation - that is the city department that deals with parking, traffic control and enforcement, and taxi cab enforcement. Under 830 CPC, they are not peace officers (LEOs). They do not carry weapons or make arrests. While it is notable that he has a JD, the lack of LEO background, training and experience does not lend itself to understanding police UOF or Graham v. Connor.

Join the Discussion





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Stories

Police Product Test: AE Light AEX35/50 HID Searchlight
This is a searchlight. It is designed to blast a wide beacon of daylight over a very long...
Police Product Test: Dickies Men's Stretch Ripstop Tactical Pants
Dickies' Ripstop Tactical Pants retain the rugged functionality that has made Dickies...

Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine