Graham Factors
The three-factor test courts use to evaluate whether police force was 'reasonable' — severity of crime, immediate threat, and resistance.
What They Are
The Graham factors come from Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) and provide the framework for evaluating excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment:
- The severity of the crime at issue
- Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others
- Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight
How Courts Apply Them
These aren’t a mechanical checklist — they’re guideposts for the “totality of the circumstances” analysis. The court asks: Given these factors, would a reasonable officer on the scene have used this level of force?
Factor 1 — Severity of the crime: Force that might be reasonable when arresting someone for armed robbery is unreasonable during a traffic stop. The more serious the crime, the more force courts will tolerate.
Factor 2 — Immediate threat: This is the most important factor. If the suspect poses no immediate threat — hands raised, unarmed, compliant — force is much harder to justify. Conversely, a suspect reaching for a weapon creates an imminent threat that justifies significant force.
Factor 3 — Resistance or flight: A suspect who is running gets more force than one standing still. A suspect who is struggling gets more force than one who is compliant. But once resistance ends, so should the force.
The Catch
Courts evaluate force “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. This deference makes it hard to second-guess officers.
But deference has limits. In Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), the Supreme Court reversed a grant of summary judgment because the lower court failed to view the facts in the plaintiff’s favor — crediting the officer’s account over the plaintiff’s.
Key Cases
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) — The three-factor test
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) — Must view disputed facts in plaintiff’s favor
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) — Objective standard for pretrial detainee force