Legal Document

490 U.S. 386 109 S.Ct. 1865 104 L.Ed.2d 443 Dethorne GRAHAM, Petitionerv.M.S. CONNOR et al. No. 87-6571. Argued Feb. 21, 1989. Decided May 15, Syllabus Petitioner Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend, Berry, to drive him convenience store purchase orange juice counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Upon entering and seeing number people ahead him, Graham hurried out Berry friend's house instead. Respondent Connor, city police officer, became suspicious after hastily enter leave store, followed Berry's car, made investigative stop, ordering pair wait while he found what had happened in store. back-up officers arrived on scene, handcuffed ignored or rebuffed attempts explain treat Graham's condition. During encounter, sustained multiple injuries. He was released when Connor learned that nothing filed suit District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondents, alleging they used excessive force making violation "rights secured Fourteenth Amendment United States Constitution 1983." The granted respondents' motion for directed verdict at close evidence, applying four-factor test determining use gives rise cause action, which inquires, inter alia, whether applied good-faith effort maintain restore discipline maliciously sadistically very purpose causing harm. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028. Appeals affirmed, endorsing this as generally applicable all claims constitutionally brought government officials, rejecting argument it error require prove allegedly harm, holding reasonable jury Glick evidence could not find excessive. Held: All law enforcement officials have force—deadly not—in course arrest, investigatory other "seizure" free citizen are properly analyzed Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than substantive due process standard. Pp. 392-399. (a) notion governed by single generic standard is rejected. Instead, courts must identify specific constitutional right infringed challenged application then judge claim reference governs right. Pp.393-394. (b) Claims most characterized invoking protections Amendment, guarantees citizens "to be secure their persons . unreasonable seizures," judged "reasonableness" 394-395 (c) inquiry officers' actions "objectively reasonable" light facts circumstances confronting them, without regard underlying intent motivation. particular from perspective officer its calculus embody allowance fact often forced make split-second decisions about amount necessary situation. 396-397. (d) below incompatible with proper analysis. suggestion test's "malicious sadistic" merely another way describing conduct objectively Also rejected conclusion because individual subjective motivations central importance deciding convicted prisoner violates Eighth cannot reversible inquire into them suspect arrestee Amendment. terms "cruel" "punishments" clearly suggest some state mind, whereas term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, less protective applies only State has complied traditionally associated criminal prosecutions. 397-399. 827 945, (CA4 1987), vacated remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., concurring part judgment, BRENNAN MARSHALL, joined, post, p. ___. H. Gerald Beaver, Fayetteville, N.C., petitioner. Mark I. Levy, Chicago, Ill., respondents. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 This case requires us decide citizen's person. We hold such 2 In action 1983, petitioner seeks recover damages injuries physical during stop. Because comes decision affirming entry we take hereafter noted favorable On November 12, 1984, felt William nearby so agreed, but entered saw checkout line. Concerned delay, 3 Charlotte, North Carolina, Police Department, something amiss car. About one-half mile Although told simply suffering "sugar reaction," ordered what, if anything, When Officer returned patrol car call backup assistance, got ran around twice, finally sat down curb, where passed briefly. 4 ensuing confusion, Charlotte scene response Connor's request backup. One rolled over sidewalk cuffed hands tightly behind back, ignoring pleas get sugar. Another said: "I've seen lot sugar diabetes never acted like this. Ain't wrong M.F. drunk. Lock S.B. up." App. 42. Several lifted up ind, carried placed face hood. Regaining consciousness, check wallet diabetic decal carried. response, one "shut up" shoved hood Four grabbed threw headfirst A friend refused let it. Finally, received report done drove home him. 5 At point encounter police, broken foot, cuts wrists, bruised forehead, injured shoulder; also developed loud ringing ear continues day. commenced involved incident, whom respondents here,1 Complaint ¶ 10, 5.2 tried before jury. petitioner's moved verdict. ruling motion, considered following four factors, identified "[t]he factors 1983": (1) need force; (2) relationship between used; (3) extent injury inflicted; (4) "[w]hether good faith harm." 644 F.Supp. 246, 248 (WDNC 1986). Finding "appropriate circumstances," "[t]here no discernable inflicted," "was harm," "a order potentially explosive situation," id., 248-249, 6 divided panel Circuit affirmed. 945 (1987). majority ruled first correct legal assessing claim. Id., 948-949. Without attempting provision arose,3 endorsed "constitutionally force" governmental officials. 948. argument, based precedent,4 "maliciously harm."5 Ibid. held four-part just "could excessive." I ., 949-950. dissenting argued Court's Terry Ohio, 392 1, 88 1868, 20 889 (1968), Tennessee Garner, 471 105 1694, 85 (1985), required arising stops F.2d, 950-952. certiorari, 488 816, 54, 102 32 (1988), now reverse. 7 Fifteen years ago, 1028, cert. denied, 414 1033, 94 462, 38 324 (1973), Second addressed pretrial detainee who claimed guard assaulted justification. evaluating detainee's claim, Judge Friendly neither nor Eighth, two textually obvious sources protection physically abusive conduct.6 looked "substantive process," "quite apart any 'specific' Bill Rights, undue deprives liberty law." 1032. As support proposition, relied upon our Rochin California, 342 165, 72 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952), Due Process Clause void conviction obtained pumping defendant's stomach. 1032-1033. If officer's "shocks conscience" justify setting aside conviction, reasoned, correctional similarly give actionable 1983. went set forth guide "whether line been crossed" same case. 1033. 8 vast lower federal process" indiscriminately lodged prison considering might implicate more different standard.7 Indeed, many seemed assume, did case, there "right" force, grounded "basic principles jurisprudence."8 9 reject said times, "is itself source rights," provides method vindicating rights elsewhere conferred." Baker McCollan, 137, 144, n. 3, 99 2689, 2694, 61 433 (1979). addressing analysis begins identifying force. See 140, S.Ct., 2692 ("The suit" isolate precise [the defendant] charged").9 instances, will either prohibition seizures person, ban cruel unusual punishments, primary conduct. validity right, generalized "excessive supra, U.S., 7-22, 1699-1707 (claim effect arrest standard); Whitley Albers, 475 312, 318-326, 106 1078, 1083-1088, 89 251 (1986) subdue standard). 10 Where, here, arises conte t stop citizen, seizures" much clear supra. deadly apprehend fleeing appear armed otherwise dangerous violated suspect's rights, notwithstanding existence probable arrest. Though complaint alleged violations both Clause, see 5, 1698, constitutionality solely seizure depends made, how out. 7-8, 1699-1700. Today explicit implicit Garner analysis, should approach. textual sort intrusive conduct, analyzing these claims.10 11 Determining "reasonable" careful balancing " 'the nature quality intrusion individual's interests' countervailing interests stake. 8, 1699, quoting Place, 462 696, 703, 103 2637, 2642, 77 110 (1983). Our jurisprudence long recognized necessarily carries degree coercion threat thereof 22-27, 1880-1883. reasonableness capable definition mecha ical application," Bell Wolfish, 441 520, 559, 1861, 1884, 60 447 (1979), however, attention each including severity crime issue, poses immediate safety others, actively resisting evade flight. 8-9, 1699-1700 (the question totality justifie[s] seizure"). 12 20/20 vision hindsight. 20-22, 1879-1881. cause, even though person arrested, Hill 401 797, 91 1106, 28 484 (1971), mistaken execution valid search warrant premises, Maryland Garrison, 480 79, 107 1013, With respect moment applies: "Not every push shove, may later seem unnecessary peace judge's chambers," judgments—in tense, uncertain, rapidly evolving—about 13 contexts, objective one: Scott States, 436 128, 137-139, 98 1717, 1723-1724, 56 168 (1978); 1879 (in seizure, "it imperative standard"). An evil intentions constitutional. 138, 1723, citing Robinson, 218, 467, 427 (1973). 14 erred test. That test, consideration "good faith" do agree Appeals' suggestion, 948, circumstances. Whatever empirical correlations behavior unreasonableness be, remains factor puts issue officers, prior cases bearing Nor conclusion, con icted 320-321, 1084-1085,11 Differing standards Amendments hardly surprising: "only prosecutions." Ingraham Wright, 430 651, 671, 40, 97 1401, 1412, 51 711 (1977). circumstances, concepts "malice" "sadism" place inquiry.12 15 reviewed erroneous view governing law, judgment remanded court reconsideration 16 It ordered. 17 MARSHALL join, judgment. 18 join insofar rules tool prearrest context, concur remanding concession, pleadings construed raising Brief Respondents reason further reach basis ante, 395, implicitly held. Nowhere discussed; offered alternative 19 apparently decided best interest disavow continued applicability recovery cases. 20. His choice certainly wise matter litigation strategy own (indeed, expected to) serve potential plaintiffs equally well. would better expect demonstrably rarely raise concerns. But until am faced squarely raised, merits subjected adversary presentation, foreclosing named defendant employed city, challenge Appeals. Accordingly, party proceedings asserted pendent state-law assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction emotional distress. Those dismissed note incarcerated prisoner, "his not, therefore, arise eighth amendment." 3. However, Petitioner's primarily Kidd O'Neil, 774 1252 1985), read mandating 1254-1257. reasoning subsequently en banc Dennis, 834 380, 383 (1987), pending, 87-1422. (1986), prisoners quelling riot "ultimately turns 'whether harm.' 1085. acknowledged thought "unreasonable conceptual type context." apply Cruel Unusual Punishments reasons. First, attach sentence. vi w confirmed (1977) ("Eighth scrutiny appropriate prosecutions"). Second, expressed doubt "spontaneous attack" guard, authorization fell within traditional "punishments." gave refusal belief extend detainees. 1033 (noting "most challenges conditions detention directly clause"). infra. Freyermuth, Rethinking Excessive Force, 1987 Duke L.J. 692, 694-696, nn. 16-23 (1987) (collecting cases). 382 ("There certain basic section relates beyond question[,] [w]hether factual involve arrestee, prisoner"). Bivens Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388, 1999, 29 619 (1971). triggering occurs actors have, "by means show authority, restrained citizen," 19, 16, 1879, (1968); Brower County Inyo, 489 593, 596, 1378, 1381, 628 (1989). resolved provide individuals deliberate ends begins, attempt answer today. clear, protects amounts punishment. 535-539, 1871-1874, After "serves unjustified." 327, 1088. Any affords is, held, redundant provided Whitley, shooting knee riot. began reiterating long-established maxim proof ' "unnecessary wanton pain." 319, 1084, 670, turn Estelle Gamble, 429 97, 103, 285, 290, 50 (1976). say inmate disturbance, measure taken inflicted pain ultimately 1084-1085 (emphasis added), suggested prongs useful 321, Friendly's talismanic formula claims, help focus 1084-1085. endorsement thus implications context. Of course, credibility account prompted factfinder consider, along harbored ill-will toward citizen. 139, 13, 1724, (1978). Similarly, faith"—that reasonably believed violate relevant availability qualified immunity defense monetary liability Anderson Creighton, 483 635, 3034, 523 Since raised express

Classification Label: 1