Which case established the objective reasonableness standard for evaluating police use of force?

• A. Tennessee v Gardner
• B. Hudson v McMillian
• C. Giles v Ackerman
• D. Graham v Connor

Answer: (D)

The main idea here is that police use of force is judged by an objective standard of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment, assessed from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and measured by the totality of the circumstances. This means the focus isn’t on the officer’s personal intent or what could have happened with perfect hindsight, but on what a reasonable officer would consider appropriate given the situation at hand.

Graham v. Connor (1989) established this objective reasonableness framework. It says that the reasonableness of force must be evaluated through the lens of a reasonable officer on the ground, considering factors like how severe the crime appears to be, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or others, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to flee. These factors guide whether a given use of force is deemed reasonable.

Other cases address related aspects but do not establish the standard itself. For example, Tennessee v. Garner deals specifically with whether deadly force to prevent escape is permissible under certain threat conditions; Hudson v. McMillian applies the Graham standard to excessive-force claims in civil rights cases, reinforcing how the standard is used, but it doesn’t create it. Giles v. Ackerman is not the case that established the rule in question.