Graham v connor5/2/2023 ![]() The California Supreme Court rejected the four-part, substantive due process test from Johnson and held that the proper test was one of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. 395.) Further, "the 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. ![]() The United States Supreme Court, in its analysis, held "that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force-deadly or not-in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other 'seizure' of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its 'reasonableness' standard." (Id. Graham alleged that the officers used excessive force during the stop (42 U.S.C.A. 389) Somehow, during the stop, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts, and bruises. ![]() ![]() The law enforcement officers involved in the stop did not initially believe that Graham was diabetic, and thought that he was drunk. Graham was diabetic, and was suffering from a "'sugar reaction'" at the time of the stop. 386 (1989), Graham sought to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained when law enforcement officers used physical force against him during an investigatory stop. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |