Understanding UOF
Understanding Use of Force: Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner
Few court decisions have shaped modern law enforcement practices more than Graham v. Connor (1989) and Tennessee v. Garner (1985). Together, these landmark cases form the constitutional foundation for how police use of force is judged in the United States. Every officer, attorney, and community member who seeks to understand law enforcement accountability should be familiar with them.
Graham v. Connor (1989): The Reasonableness Standard
In Graham v. Connor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all claims of excessive force by law enforcement officers must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard. The Court rejected the use of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “substantive due process” standard, which focused on whether the officer acted maliciously or sadistically. Instead, the Court established a more practical and measurable test: whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable given the circumstances.
The Three-Prong Test
The Court identified three primary factors—often called the Graham factors—that must be considered when evaluating use of force:
Severity of the crime – Was the offense serious enough to justify the use of force?
Immediate threat to officers or others – Did the suspect pose an immediate danger? This is often the most important factor.
Active resistance or attempt to evade arrest – Was the suspect actively resisting, or attempting to flee?
These factors are not exhaustive. Courts must consider the totality of circumstances, including split-second decisions made under tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving conditions.
Governmental Interest
The concept of governmental interest refers to balancing the officer’s use of force against the government’s legitimate need to enforce the law, protect public safety, and maintain order. In practice, this means the greater the danger posed by the suspect, the greater the governmental interest in using force. Conversely, when the crime is minor or the threat is low, the governmental interest in using significant force is limited.
Tennessee v. Garner (1985): Deadly Force and Fleeing Suspects
In Tennessee v. Garner, the Court addressed the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The case involved police shooting an unarmed teenager who was running away after a suspected burglary. The Court ruled that the use of deadly force to prevent escape is unconstitutional unless:
It is necessary to prevent the suspect’s escape, and
The officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
This decision established that deadly force cannot be used simply to stop someone from fleeing. Instead, there must be an immediate and serious threat to justify such action.
Why These Cases Matter Today
Together, Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner form the cornerstone of constitutional policing. They remind us that:
Use of force must always be judged against the objective reasonableness standard.
Officers’ decisions are evaluated based on what they knew at the time—not hindsight.
Governmental interest must be carefully balanced against individual rights.
Deadly force is an option of last resort, reserved for the most dangerous and threatening situations.
For law enforcement professionals, these cases aren’t just legal precedents—they’re guiding principles. For communities, they provide the legal framework to hold agencies accountable. And for courts, they serve as the measuring stick for justice in use-of-force cases.
