Use of Force & Arrest · U.S. Supreme Court, 1989

Graham v. Connor

Graham v. Connor is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision. This page summarizes key points and works through practice questions for Texas peace officer exam preparation.

Key points

  • Objectively reasonable on the totality
  • From perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene (not 20/20 hindsight)
  • Severity of crime
  • Immediate threat to officers/others
  • Active resistance or attempted flight

Learn more about this topic

Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.

Start Free Practice

Worked examples

Worked example 1

The federal constitutional standard for police use of force is:

  1. Subjective good faith
  2. Objective reasonableness — judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting or attempting to flee (Graham v. Connor) Correct
  3. What the officer thinks is fair
  4. Strict liability
Why: Force claims under §1983 are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness test, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene without 20/20 hindsight.
Statute: Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Worked example 2

SCENARIO. An officer fires a Taser at a fleeing misdemeanor suspect who poses no apparent risk of harm. Apply Texas / federal law.

  1. Always permitted
  2. Likely unreasonable under Graham — the crime is minor and there is no immediate threat; flight weighs toward some force but does not alone justify a Taser, and such deployments have been found excessive in several federal circuits Correct
  3. Permitted because Taser is non-lethal
  4. Permitted with announcement
Why: Taser use is force under Graham, which weighs the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Here the crime is minor and there is no immediate threat; flight is a factor, but several circuits have found Taser use against a non-threatening fleeing misdemeanor suspect excessive.
Statute: Graham v. Connor; Bryan v. MacPherson (9th Cir.); Estate of Armstrong (4th Cir.)
Worked example 3

SCENARIO. Two officers arrive at a barricaded subject who is alone with no hostages and no weapon. The subject is shouting at the officers. May officers immediately enter and use force?

  1. Yes — any non-compliance justifies entry
  2. Generally no — there is no exigency requiring immediate entry; agency policy and court precedent favor de-escalation, time, distance, and supervisor / SWAT involvement before forced entry, particularly where the subject is alone, contained, and not posing imminent harm Correct
  3. Yes if a warrant exists
  4. Yes after announcement
Why: Where the subject is contained and not posing imminent harm, time and distance favor de-escalation. Forced entry without exigency may be excessive force; many policies require supervisor approval and SWAT planning.
Statute: Graham v. Connor; agency de-escalation policy