Federal Case Law

Question 1

What are the Graham Factors?

Answer 1

1. Severity of the crime at issue 2. Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others 3. Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight

Question 2

What are the prongs of Tennessee V Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985)?

Answer 2

1. Force must be necessary to prevent escape
2. Officer must have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others

Question 3

What were the findings in Scott V Harris 550 U.S. 372 (2007)?

Answer 3

1. Garner did not establish an on/off switch that triggers rigid preconditions whenever an officers actions amount to “deadly force”
2. The court must balance the nature and quality of intrusion on 4th amendment rights:
   a) The risk of injury to the subject vs. the relative culpability and number of lives at risk posed by behavior
3. The Court rules that a police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death

Question 4

What were the findings in Graham V Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989)?

Answer 4

(a) The notion that all excessive force claims brought under § 1983 are governed by a single generic standard is rejected. Instead, courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force, and then judge the claim by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. Pp. 490 U. S. 393-394.
(b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right “to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures,” and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 394-395.
(c) The Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” inquiry is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

Question 5

What were the findings in Brower V County of Inyo 489 U.S. 593 (1989)?

Answer 5

1. A seizure occurs when “governmental termination of a person’s movement is effected through means intentionally applied”
2. A roadblock may be considered unreasonable under certain circumstances

Question 6

Kisela V Hughes 2018

Answer 6

1. Graham applied

2. 9th Circuit rebuked and reversed on qualified immunity

Question 7

What were the findings in Chew V Gates 27 F.3d 1432 9th cir. ?

Answer 7

1. The quantum of force (amount) is to be considered in a Graham Test
2. The most important Graham factor is whether the suspect poses an immediate threat
3. Evading and actively resisting arrest are two different things
4. Discovery of felony warrants do not automatically mean increased danger (what are underlying crimes)
5. Because officers had time for deliberation this was not a split second decision and is subject to higher standard

Question 8

What were the findings in County of LA V Mendez 581 U.S. ____ (2017)?

Answer 8

(a) The provocation rule is incompatible with this Court’s excessive force jurisprudence
(b) 9th cir provocation rule:makes an officer’s otherwise reasonable use of force unreasonable if (1) the officer “intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation” and (2) “the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation,”

Question 9

What were the findings in Tennessee V Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985) ?

Answer 9

(a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect’s rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement.
(b) The Fourth Amendment, for purposes of this case, should not be construed in light of the common law rule allowing the use of whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon.
(c) While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect – young, slight, and unarmed – posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.

Question 10

Deorle V Rutherford 263 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2001)

Answer 10

Graham test applied to beanbag cloth round application that caused severe damage to subjects eye and skull.

(a) Beanbag only to be used when a strong governmental interest applies
(b) EDPs pose a different set of problems which require different tactics than those used to subdue an armed dangerous criminal.
(c) Government interest in using force to subdue an EDP is greatly diminished
(d) Officers should provide a verbal warning before using force (Even non-deadly) if feasible. Yelling “less lethal” does not count

Question 11

Headwaters Forest Def. V County of Humboldt 240 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2001)

Answer 11

Graham test applied to OC used on non-violent environmental protesters.

(a) Pepper spray is not a pain compliance technique
(b) If time permits, officers MUST consider viable alternative tactics to using force/using more force
(c) Use of pepper spray limited to violent subject w/active resistance