graham
connor
argued
february
decided
may
petitioner
graham
diabetic
asked
friend
berry
drive
convenience
store
purchase
orange
juice
counteract
onset
insulin
reaction
upon
entering
store
seeing
number
people
ahead
graham
hurried
asked
berry
drive
friend
house
instead
respondent
connor
city
police
officer
became
suspicious
seeing
graham
hastily
enter
leave
store
followed
berry
car
made
investigative
stop
ordering
pair
wait
found
happened
store
respondent
backup
police
officers
arrived
scene
handcuffed
graham
ignored
rebuffed
attempts
explain
treat
graham
condition
encounter
graham
sustained
multiple
injuries
released
connor
learned
nothing
happened
store
graham
filed
suit
district
respondents
alleging
used
excessive
force
making
stop
violation
rights
secured
fourteenth
amendment
constitution
district
granted
respondents
motion
directed
verdict
close
graham
evidence
applying
test
determining
excessive
use
force
gives
rise
cause
action
inquires
inter
alia
whether
force
applied
effort
maintain
restore
discipline
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
johnson
glick
appeals
affirmed
endorsing
test
generally
applicable
claims
constitutionally
excessive
force
brought
government
officials
rejecting
graham
argument
error
require
prove
allegedly
excessive
force
applied
maliciously
sadistically
cause
harm
holding
reasonable
jury
applying
johnson
glick
test
evidence
find
force
applied
constitutionally
excessive
held
claims
law
enforcement
officials
used
excessive
force
deadly
course
arrest
investigatory
stop
seizure
free
citizen
properly
analyzed
fourth
amendment
objective
reasonableness
standard
rather
substantive
due
process
standard
pp
notion
excessive
force
claims
brought
governed
single
generic
standard
rejected
instead
courts
must
identify
specific
constitutional
right
allegedly
infringed
challenged
application
force
judge
claim
reference
specific
constitutional
standard
governs
right
pp
claims
law
enforcement
officials
used
excessive
force
course
arrest
investigatory
stop
seizure
free
citizen
properly
characterized
invoking
protections
fourth
amendment
guarantees
citizens
right
secure
persons
unreasonable
seizures
must
judged
reference
fourth
amendment
reasonableness
standard
pp
fourth
amendment
reasonableness
inquiry
whether
officers
actions
objectively
reasonable
light
facts
circumstances
confronting
without
regard
underlying
intent
motivation
reasonableness
particular
use
force
must
judged
perspective
reasonable
officer
scene
calculus
must
embody
allowance
fact
police
officers
often
forced
make
decisions
amount
force
necessary
particular
situation
pp
johnson
glick
test
applied
courts
incompatible
proper
fourth
amendment
analysis
suggestion
test
malicious
sadistic
inquiry
merely
another
way
describing
conduct
objectively
unreasonable
circumstances
rejected
also
rejected
conclusion
individual
officers
subjective
motivations
central
importance
deciding
whether
force
used
convicted
prisoner
violates
eighth
amendment
reversible
error
inquire
deciding
whether
force
used
suspect
arrestee
violates
fourth
amendment
eighth
amendment
terms
cruel
punishments
clearly
suggest
inquiry
subjective
state
mind
whereas
fourth
amendment
term
unreasonable
moreover
less
protective
eighth
amendment
standard
applies
state
complied
constitutional
guarantees
traditionally
associated
criminal
prosecutions
pp
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
white
stevens
scalia
kennedy
joined
blackmun
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
brennan
marshall
joined
post
gerald
beaver
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
richard
glazier
mark
levy
argued
cause
respondents
brief
frank
aycock
iii
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
reynolds
deputy
assistant
attorney
general
clegg
david
shapiro
brian
martin
david
flynn
american
civil
liberties
union
et
al
steven
shapiro
lacy
thornburg
attorney
general
north
carolina
isaac
avery
iii
special
deputy
attorney
general
linda
anne
morris
assistant
attorney
general
filed
brief
state
north
carolina
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
chief
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
case
requires
us
decide
constitutional
standard
governs
free
citizen
claim
law
enforcement
officials
used
excessive
force
course
making
arrest
investigatory
stop
seizure
person
hold
claims
properly
analyzed
fourth
amendment
objective
reasonableness
standard
rather
substantive
due
process
standard
action
petitioner
dethorne
graham
seeks
recover
damages
injuries
allegedly
sustained
law
enforcement
officers
used
physical
force
course
investigatory
stop
case
comes
us
decision
appeals
affirming
entry
directed
verdict
respondents
take
evidence
hereafter
noted
light
favorable
petitioner
november
graham
diabetic
felt
onset
insulin
reaction
asked
friend
william
berry
drive
nearby
convenience
store
purchase
orange
juice
counteract
reaction
berry
agreed
graham
entered
store
saw
number
people
ahead
checkout
line
concerned
delay
hurried
store
asked
berry
drive
friend
house
instead
respondent
connor
officer
charlotte
north
carolina
police
department
saw
graham
hastily
enter
leave
store
officer
became
suspicious
something
amiss
followed
berry
car
mile
store
made
investigative
stop
although
berry
told
connor
graham
simply
suffering
sugar
reaction
officer
ordered
berry
graham
wait
found
anything
happened
convenience
store
officer
connor
returned
patrol
car
call
backup
assistance
graham
got
car
ran
around
twice
finally
sat
curb
passed
briefly
ensuing
confusion
number
charlotte
police
officers
arrived
scene
response
officer
connor
request
backup
one
officers
rolled
graham
sidewalk
cuffed
hands
tightly
behind
back
ignoring
berry
pleas
get
sugar
another
officer
said
seen
lot
people
sugar
diabetes
never
acted
like
ai
nothing
wrong
drunk
lock
app
several
officers
lifted
graham
behind
carried
berry
car
placed
face
hood
regaining
consciousness
graham
asked
officers
check
wallet
diabetic
decal
carried
response
one
officers
told
shut
shoved
face
hood
car
four
officers
grabbed
graham
threw
headfirst
police
car
friend
graham
brought
orange
juice
car
officers
refused
let
finally
officer
connor
received
report
graham
done
nothing
wrong
convenience
store
officers
drove
home
released
point
encounter
police
graham
sustained
broken
foot
cuts
wrists
bruised
forehead
injured
shoulder
also
claims
developed
loud
ringing
right
ear
continues
day
commenced
action
individual
officers
involved
incident
respondents
alleging
used
excessive
force
making
investigatory
stop
violation
rights
secured
fourteenth
amendment
constitution
complaint
app
case
tried
jury
close
petitioner
evidence
respondents
moved
directed
verdict
ruling
motion
district
considered
following
four
factors
identified
factors
considered
determining
excessive
use
force
gives
rise
cause
action
need
application
force
relationship
need
amount
force
used
extent
injury
inflicted
hether
force
applied
good
faith
effort
maintain
restore
discipline
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
supp
wdnc
finding
amount
force
used
officers
appropriate
circumstances
discernable
injury
inflicted
force
used
applied
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
good
faith
effort
maintain
restore
order
face
potentially
explosive
situation
district
granted
respondents
motion
directed
verdict
divided
panel
appeals
fourth
circuit
affirmed
majority
ruled
first
district
applied
correct
legal
standard
assessing
petitioner
excessive
force
claim
without
attempting
identify
specific
constitutional
provision
claim
arose
majority
endorsed
test
applied
district
generally
applicable
claims
constitutionally
excessive
force
brought
governmental
officials
majority
rejected
petitioner
argument
based
circuit
precedent
error
require
prove
allegedly
excessive
force
used
applied
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
ibid
finally
majority
held
reasonable
jury
applying
test
endorsed
petitioner
evidence
find
force
applied
constitutionally
excessive
dissenting
judge
argued
decisions
terry
ohio
tennessee
garner
required
excessive
force
claims
arising
investigatory
stops
analyzed
fourth
amendment
objective
reasonableness
standard
granted
certiorari
reverse
fifteen
years
ago
johnson
glick
cert
denied
appeals
second
circuit
addressed
damages
claim
filed
pretrial
detainee
claimed
guard
assaulted
without
justification
evaluating
detainee
claim
judge
friendly
applied
neither
fourth
amendment
eighth
two
textually
obvious
sources
constitutional
protection
physically
abusive
governmental
conduct
instead
looked
substantive
due
process
holding
quite
apart
specific
bill
rights
application
undue
force
law
enforcement
officers
deprives
suspect
liberty
without
due
process
law
support
proposition
relied
upon
decision
rochin
california
used
due
process
clause
void
state
criminal
conviction
based
evidence
obtained
pumping
defendant
stomach
police
officer
use
force
shocks
conscience
justify
setting
aside
criminal
conviction
judge
friendly
reasoned
correctional
officer
use
similarly
excessive
force
must
give
rise
due
process
violation
actionable
ibid
judge
friendly
went
set
forth
four
factors
guide
courts
determining
whether
constitutional
line
crossed
particular
use
force
four
factors
relied
upon
courts
case
years
following
johnson
glick
vast
majority
lower
federal
courts
applied
substantive
due
process
test
indiscriminately
excessive
force
claims
lodged
law
enforcement
prison
officials
without
considering
whether
particular
application
force
might
implicate
specific
constitutional
right
governed
different
standard
indeed
many
courts
seemed
assume
courts
case
generic
right
free
excessive
force
grounded
particular
constitutional
provision
rather
basic
principles
jurisprudence
reject
notion
excessive
force
claims
brought
governed
single
generic
standard
said
many
times
source
substantive
rights
merely
provides
method
vindicating
federal
rights
elsewhere
conferred
baker
mccollan
addressing
excessive
force
claim
brought
analysis
begins
identifying
specific
constitutional
right
allegedly
infringed
challenged
application
force
see
first
inquiry
suit
isolate
precise
constitutional
violation
defendant
charged
instances
either
fourth
amendment
prohibition
unreasonable
seizures
person
eighth
amendment
ban
cruel
unusual
punishments
two
primary
sources
constitutional
protection
physically
abusive
governmental
conduct
validity
claim
must
judged
reference
specific
constitutional
standard
governs
right
rather
generalized
excessive
force
standard
see
tennessee
garner
supra
claim
excessive
force
effect
arrest
analyzed
fourth
amendment
standard
whitley
albers
claim
excessive
force
subdue
convicted
prisoner
analyzed
eighth
amendment
standard
excessive
force
claim
arises
context
arrest
investigatory
stop
free
citizen
properly
characterized
one
invoking
protections
fourth
amendment
guarantees
citizens
right
secure
persons
unreasonable
seizures
person
much
clear
decision
tennessee
garner
supra
garner
addressed
claim
use
deadly
force
apprehend
fleeing
suspect
appear
armed
otherwise
dangerous
violated
suspect
constitutional
rights
notwithstanding
existence
probable
cause
arrest
though
complaint
alleged
violations
fourth
amendment
due
process
clause
see
analyzed
constitutionality
challenged
application
force
solely
reference
fourth
amendment
prohibition
unreasonable
seizures
person
holding
reasonableness
particular
seizure
depends
made
also
carried
today
make
explicit
implicit
garner
analysis
hold
claims
law
enforcement
officers
used
excessive
force
deadly
course
arrest
investigatory
stop
seizure
free
citizen
analyzed
fourth
amendment
reasonableness
standard
rather
substantive
due
process
approach
fourth
amendment
provides
explicit
textual
source
constitutional
protection
sort
physically
intrusive
governmental
conduct
amendment
generalized
notion
substantive
due
process
must
guide
analyzing
claims
determining
whether
force
used
effect
particular
seizure
reasonable
fourth
amendment
requires
careful
balancing
nature
quality
intrusion
individual
fourth
amendment
interests
countervailing
governmental
interests
stake
quoting
place
fourth
amendment
jurisprudence
long
recognized
right
make
arrest
investigatory
stop
necessarily
carries
right
use
degree
physical
coercion
threat
thereof
effect
see
terry
ohio
test
reasonableness
fourth
amendment
capable
precise
definition
mechanical
application
bell
wolfish
however
proper
application
requires
careful
attention
facts
circumstances
particular
case
including
severity
crime
issue
whether
suspect
poses
immediate
threat
safety
officers
others
whether
actively
resisting
arrest
attempting
evade
arrest
flight
see
tennessee
garner
question
whether
totality
circumstances
justifie
particular
sort
seizure
reasonableness
particular
use
force
must
judged
perspective
reasonable
officer
scene
rather
vision
hindsight
see
terry
ohio
supra
fourth
amendment
violated
arrest
based
probable
cause
even
though
wrong
person
arrested
hill
california
mistaken
execution
valid
search
warrant
wrong
premises
maryland
garrison
respect
claim
excessive
force
standard
reasonableness
moment
applies
every
push
shove
even
may
later
seem
unnecessary
peace
judge
chambers
johnson
glick
violates
fourth
amendment
calculus
reasonableness
must
embody
allowance
fact
police
officers
often
forced
make
judgments
circumstances
tense
uncertain
rapidly
evolving
amount
force
necessary
particular
situation
fourth
amendment
contexts
however
reasonableness
inquiry
excessive
force
case
objective
one
question
whether
officers
actions
objectively
reasonable
light
facts
circumstances
confronting
without
regard
underlying
intent
motivation
see
scott
see
also
terry
ohio
supra
analyzing
reasonableness
particular
search
seizure
imperative
facts
judged
objective
standard
officer
evil
intentions
make
fourth
amendment
violation
objectively
reasonable
use
force
officer
good
intentions
make
objectively
unreasonable
use
force
constitutional
see
scott
supra
citing
robinson
petitioner
excessive
force
claim
one
arising
fourth
amendment
appeals
erred
analyzing
johnson
glick
test
test
requires
consideration
whether
individual
officers
acted
good
faith
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
incompatible
proper
fourth
amendment
analysis
agree
appeals
suggestion
see
malicious
sadistic
inquiry
merely
another
way
describing
conduct
objectively
unreasonable
circumstances
whatever
empirical
correlations
malicious
sadistic
behavior
objective
unreasonableness
may
fact
remains
malicious
sadistic
factor
puts
issue
subjective
motivations
individual
officers
prior
cases
make
clear
bearing
whether
particular
seizure
unreasonable
fourth
amendment
agree
appeals
conclusion
see
subjective
motivations
individual
officers
central
importance
deciding
whether
force
used
convicted
prisoner
violates
eighth
amendment
see
whitley
albers
reversible
error
inquire
deciding
whether
force
used
suspect
arrestee
violates
fourth
amendment
differing
standards
fourth
eighth
amendments
hardly
surprising
terms
cruel
punishments
clearly
suggest
inquiry
subjective
state
mind
whereas
term
unreasonable
moreover
less
protective
eighth
amendment
standard
applies
state
complied
constitutional
guarantees
traditionally
associated
criminal
prosecutions
ingraham
wright
fourth
amendment
inquiry
one
objective
reasonableness
circumstances
subjective
concepts
like
malice
sadism
proper
place
inquiry
appeals
reviewed
district
ruling
motion
directed
verdict
erroneous
view
governing
substantive
law
judgment
must
vacated
case
remanded
reconsideration
issue
proper
fourth
amendment
standard
ordered
footnotes
petitioner
also
asserted
pendent
claims
assault
false
imprisonment
intentional
infliction
emotional
distress
claims
dismissed
case
majority
note
graham
incarcerated
prisoner
complaint
excessive
force
therefore
arise
eighth
amendment
however
made
effort
identify
constitutional
basis
claim
petitioner
argument
based
primarily
kidd
read
decision
tennessee
garner
mandating
application
fourth
amendment
objective
reasonableness
standard
claims
excessive
force
arrest
see
reasoning
kidd
subsequently
rejected
en
banc
fourth
circuit
justice
dennis
cert
pending
majority
noted
whitley
albers
held
question
whether
physical
force
used
convicted
prisoners
course
quelling
prison
riot
violates
eighth
amendment
ultimately
turns
whether
force
applied
good
faith
effort
maintain
restore
discipline
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
quoting
whitley
albers
supra
though
appeals
acknowledged
petitioner
convicted
prisoner
thought
unreasonable
suggest
conceptual
factor
central
one
type
excessive
force
claim
reversible
error
merely
considered
another
context
judge
friendly
apply
eighth
amendment
cruel
unusual
punishments
clause
detainee
claim
two
reasons
first
thought
eighth
amendment
protections
attach
conviction
sentence
view
confirmed
ingraham
wright
eighth
amendment
scrutiny
appropriate
state
complied
constitutional
guarantees
traditionally
associated
criminal
prosecutions
second
expressed
doubt
whether
spontaneous
attack
prison
guard
done
without
authorization
prison
officials
fell
within
traditional
eighth
amendment
definition
punishments
although
judge
friendly
gave
reason
analyzing
detainee
claim
fourth
amendment
prohibition
unreasonable
seizures
person
refusal
apparently
based
belief
protections
fourth
amendment
extend
pretrial
detainees
see
noting
courts
faced
challenges
conditions
pretrial
detention
primarily
based
analysis
directly
due
process
clause
see
infra
see
freyermuth
rethinking
excessive
force
duke
nn
collecting
cases
see
justice
dennis
supra
certain
basic
principles
section
jurisprudence
relates
claims
excessive
force
beyond
question
hether
factual
circumstances
involve
arrestee
pretrial
detainee
prisoner
analysis
applies
excessive
force
claims
brought
federal
law
enforcement
correctional
officials
bivens
six
unknown
fed
narcotics
agents
seizure
triggering
fourth
amendment
protections
occurs
government
actors
means
physical
force
show
authority
way
restrained
liberty
citizen
terry
ohio
see
brower
county
inyo
cases
resolved
question
whether
fourth
amendment
continues
provide
individuals
protection
deliberate
use
excessive
physical
force
beyond
point
arrest
ends
pretrial
detention
begins
attempt
answer
question
today
clear
however
due
process
clause
protects
pretrial
detainee
use
excessive
force
amounts
punishment
see
bell
wolfish
conviction
eighth
amendment
serves
primary
source
substantive
protection
cases
deliberate
use
force
challenged
excessive
unjustified
whitley
albers
protection
substantive
due
process
affords
convicted
prisoners
excessive
force
held
best
redundant
provided
eighth
amendment
ibid
whitley
addressed
claim
brought
convicted
prisoner
claimed
prison
officials
violated
eighth
amendment
rights
shooting
knee
prison
riot
began
eighth
amendment
analysis
reiterating
maxim
eighth
amendment
violation
requires
proof
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
quoting
ingraham
wright
turn
quoting
estelle
gamble
went
say
prison
officials
use
physical
force
inmate
restore
order
face
prison
disturbance
question
whether
measure
taken
inflicted
unnecessary
wanton
pain
ultimately
turns
whether
force
applied
good
faith
effort
maintain
restore
discipline
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
emphasis
added
quoting
johnson
glick
also
suggested
prongs
johnson
glick
test
might
useful
analyzing
excessive
force
claims
brought
eighth
amendment
made
clear
judge
friendly
test
talismanic
formula
generally
applicable
excessive
force
claims
four
factors
help
focus
central
inquiry
eighth
amendment
context
whether
particular
use
force
amounts
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
see
endorsement
johnson
glick
test
whitley
thus
implications
beyond
eighth
amendment
context
course
assessing
credibility
officer
account
circumstances
prompted
use
force
factfinder
may
consider
along
factors
evidence
officer
may
harbored
toward
citizen
see
scott
similarly
officer
objective
good
faith
whether
reasonably
believed
force
used
violate
fourth
amendment
may
relevant
availability
qualified
immunity
defense
monetary
liability
see
anderson
creighton
since
claim
qualified
immunity
raised
case
however
express
view
proper
application
excessive
force
cases
arise
fourth
amendment
justice
blackmun
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
join
opinion
insofar
rules
fourth
amendment
primary
tool
analyzing
claims
excessive
force
prearrest
context
concur
judgment
remanding
case
appeals
reconsideration
evidence
reasonableness
standard
light
respondents
concession
however
pleadings
case
properly
may
construed
raising
fourth
amendment
claim
see
brief
respondents
see
reason
find
necessary
reach
decide
prearrest
excessive
force
claims
analyzed
fourth
amendment
rather
substantive
due
process
standard
also
see
basis
suggestion
ante
decision
tennessee
garner
implicitly
held
nowhere
garner
substantive
due
process
standard
evaluating
use
excessive
force
particular
case
discussed
suggestion
standard
offered
alternative
rejected
case
petitioner
apparently
decided
best
interest
disavow
continued
applicability
substantive
due
process
analysis
alternative
basis
recovery
prearrest
excessive
force
cases
see
brief
petitioner
choice
certainly
wise
matter
litigation
strategy
case
indeed
expected
serve
potential
plaintiffs
equally
well
reason
done
better
leave
question
another
day
expect
use
force
demonstrably
unreasonable
fourth
amendment
rarely
raise
substantive
due
process
concerns
faced
case
question
squarely
raised
merits
subjected
adversary
presentation
join
foreclosing
use
substantive
due
process
analysis
prearrest
cases