Graham V Connor

785 Words4 Pages
Criminal Law Graham v. Connor Reference Use Only CJA/354 Do Not Plagiarize This is Not your paper Criminal Law Graham v. Connor Working for a law enforcement agency one must be able to make split second decisions regarding the use of force. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) established the standard of “objective reasonableness” for law enforcement (Graham v. Connor, 1989). This case was heard by the Supreme Court after a diabetic man (Graham) was forcibly detained by law enforcement after he was suspected of a crime. The petitioner of this chase who is diabetic had asked his friend identified only as Berry to drive him to a convenience store to reverse the effects of an insulin reaction. When Graham entered the convenience…show more content…
For example a person who breaks in to a home with the intention of committing a felony is criminally liable for the crime of burglary. A person who agreed to drive the person to the home who knows the first person committed a crime has accomplice liability. An accomplice is a person who acts as an enabler for the principal perpetrator of the crime. In Graham v. Connor there was no criminal liability or accomplice liability because no crime occurred. This case is important to anyone working in law enforcement because of the objective reasonableness standard that it established via the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case also reversed a four-factor test regarding use of force that was used to test if the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or was applied with malice to cause harm. The Supreme Court in 490 U.S. 396 (1986) determined that the four factor test did not cover all possible situations and only the decision making skills of a human being can adequately determine the appropriate use of force. Objective reasonableness comes from a simple test; would another reasonable officer or person placed in the same exact situation find the original officer’s use of force reasonable? It is important that person judging the original use of force does not “Monday morning quarterback” the situation, meaning the judge should not say, “I would have done it this way” or “what the officer
Open Document