Graham v Conner490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Graham v Conner490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Facts of the case- Graham, the petitioner was a diabetic patient who requested his friend to drive him to a convenience store as he desperately needed orange juice in order to calm insulin reaction. He rushed to the store but due to a long queue, he asked friend to drive to one of his friend’s house and left store in haste. Seeing graham entering into store, buy nothing and leaving in haste, Conner, who was a police officer, stopped both of them in order to probe. Graham was handcuffed and also sustained some physical injuries during this incident; his requests and health condition were completely ignored by the respondents. Later on he was released by the respondents but he felt utterly embarrassed and suffered mental agony. Graham sued respondents under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging use of extreme force and violation of constitution’s fourth amendment. Respondents pleaded a directed verdict and district court, after applying a four factor test, granted respondents directed verdict. It was hound by the court that force, used by the respondents was appropriate and was not excessive.
Issue involved in the case- major issue, involved in this case was about constitutional provisions that govern and deal with liberty of a free citizen and use of force by law enforcing authorities in course of probe, search, seizure and arrest (Schwartz and Kirklin, 2013).
- Why force was applied
- link between Need and amount of force
- Force applied, was in good faith or in order to control any unfortunate situation or unjustified.
Court found that force used by officials was justified in the given circumstances. The force was not excessive and was necessary to control the situation. Plaintiff did not suffer grievous injuries. Force was not used with malicious intention. Considering and relying upon these four factors, court granted respondent’s directed verdict motion (Lippman, 2010).
Majority Opinion
It was held by court of Appeal that reasonableness of any arrest in any matter under 4th amendment does not depend only on the fact that when arrest was made but it talks about the way also how it was made. It was said, while taking into account the reasonableness of actions of officials in a case, court should try to make a balance in nature as well as quality of the used force and violation of rights that are bestowed to an individual by 4th amendment. Court should also take into account whether suspect caused immediate threat, amount and nature of his resist and reasonableness of the action taken by the police official in the course of arresting the suspect (Corley, 2010).
Minority opinion
Judges, who differed, relied upon Johnson vs. Glick and endorsed the importance of four factors and reiterated what was held by district court. They considered whether line drawn by constitution was crossed or not. Judges who opined differently did not anticipated in a long perspective and relied on a case that was decided fifteen years ago.
References
Corley, P. C. (2010). Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: SUNY Press.
Lippman, M. (2010). Criminal Procedure. New York: SAGE.
M. A. Schwartz and J. E. Kirklin. (2013). Section 1983 Litigation, Volume 1, Part 3. New York: Aspen Publishers Online.
