Graham v. Connor

What Happened

Dethorne Graham was a diabetic having an insulin reaction. He asked his friend William Berry to drive him to a convenience store so he could buy some orange juice. When Graham got inside and saw a long line, he hurried back out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend’s house instead.

Officer M.S. Connor of the Charlotte, North Carolina police saw Graham rush in and out of the store and thought it looked suspicious. He pulled Berry’s car over about half a mile away. Even though Berry explained that Graham was just having a “sugar reaction,” Connor ordered both men to wait while he checked on what happened at the store.

What followed was a nightmare. Graham, in the grip of his insulin reaction, got out of the car, ran around it twice, and passed out on the curb. When backup officers arrived, one rolled Graham over and handcuffed his hands tightly behind his back, ignoring Berry’s pleas to get him sugar. Another officer said: “I’ve seen a lot of people with sugar diabetes that never acted like this. Ain’t nothing wrong with the M.F. but drunk. Lock the S.B. up.” Officers threw Graham headfirst into the police car, shoved his face into the hood, and refused to let a friend give him orange juice. By the time Connor confirmed nothing had happened at the store and released Graham, he had a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, an injured shoulder, and a ringing in his ear that never went away.

Graham sued the officers under § 1983. The lower courts applied the Johnson v. Glick test, which asked whether force was applied “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Under that subjective standard, Graham lost.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the lower court’s decision in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist. The Court held that all excessive force claims arising from arrests, investigatory stops, or other seizures of free citizens must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard — not under substantive due process.

The Court rejected the idea of a single “generic standard” for all excessive force claims. Instead, courts must first identify which constitutional right was infringed, then apply the standard that governs that specific right. For seizures of free citizens, that’s the Fourth Amendment. For convicted prisoners, it’s the Eighth Amendment.

Under the Fourth Amendment, the question is whether the officer’s actions were “objectively reasonable” considering the totality of the circumstances — “without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” 490 U.S. at 397. Relevant factors include “the 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.” 490 U.S. at 396.

Critically, the Court held that reasonableness “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” 490 U.S. at 396. The analysis must also account for the reality 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.” 490 U.S. at 396–397.

What It Means in Practice

Graham is the single most important case for excessive force claims under § 1983. It establishes the framework that every federal court uses to evaluate whether a police officer used too much force. If you’re bringing an excessive force claim arising from an arrest or stop, you’re litigating under Graham.

The “objective reasonableness” standard is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it eliminated the nearly impossible burden of proving an officer acted with “malice” or “sadism.” You no longer need to get inside the officer’s head. On the other hand, the “reasonable officer on the scene” perspective gives officers significant latitude. Courts must account for the stress, danger, and split-second nature of police encounters — which can make it difficult for plaintiffs to second-guess an officer’s use of force.

The Graham factors — severity of the crime, immediate threat, and active resistance — are not an exhaustive checklist. Courts consider the “totality of the circumstances.” But these three factors dominate the analysis in practice and should anchor your complaint and summary judgment briefing.

How You Can Use It

Graham is your framework for every excessive force claim during an arrest or stop:

• Apply the three factors to your facts. Was the crime minor (e.g., a traffic violation)? Did you pose no threat? Were you compliant and not resisting? If yes to all three, the force is more likely unreasonable.
• Key quote: “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.” 490 U.S. at 396.
• Key quote: “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.” 490 U.S. at 396–397.
• Intent doesn’t matter — but it can help. Graham says the inquiry is objective, but evidence of ill will can inform a factfinder’s assessment of credibility. See 490 U.S. at 399 n.12.
• Template: “Under Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989), the Court must evaluate Officer [Name]‘s use of force by examining (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. Here, all three factors weigh in Plaintiff’s favor: [explain].”

How It Can Be Used Against You

Graham’s deference to officers is a powerful defense tool:

• “Split-second judgment” defense. Officers will argue that the encounter was tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — and that the court should not second-guess their judgment with hindsight. Even if the force seems excessive in retrospect, the officer will argue it was reasonable in the moment.
• “Not every push or shove.” The Court quoted Johnson v. Glick approvingly for the proposition that “[n]ot every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers,” violates the Fourth Amendment. 490 U.S. at 396. Officers will use this to minimize the severity of the force.
• Reframing the threat level. Officers will characterize your behavior as threatening or resistant, even if you were compliant. Every flinch, every step backward, every verbal protest can be recast as “resistance.”

How to counter: Use objective evidence to tell the real story. Body camera and dashcam footage, witness testimony, medical records, and the timeline of events can all rebut the officer’s version. Emphasize the disparity between the severity of the alleged crime and the level of force used. If you were stopped for a minor infraction, posed no threat, and weren’t resisting, say so clearly and repeatedly. And remember: Graham’s factors include what the officer knew at the time — if the officer had no reason to believe you were dangerous, the force was unreasonable no matter how “tense” the situation felt.