GRAHAM V. CONNOR
490 U.S. 386 (1989)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from a directed verdict in a 42 USC 1983 action
for excessive use of force in favor of the police officers.
FACTS: In this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Graham (P) seeks to recover damages for
injuries allegedly sustained when law enforcement officers used physical force against him
during the course of an investigatory stop. P, a diabetic, felt the onset of an insulin
reaction. He asked a friend, William Berry, to drive him to a nearby convenience store so he
could purchase some orange juice to counteract the reaction. Berry agreed, but when P
entered the store, he saw a number of people ahead of him in the checkout line. Concerned
about the delay, he hurried out of the store and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's
house instead. Connor (D), a police officer saw P hastily enter and leave the store. The
officer became suspicious that something was amiss and followed Berry's car. About one-half
mile from the store, he made an investigative stop. Berry told D that P was simply suffering
from a 'sugar reaction,' the officer ordered Berry and P to wait while he found out what, if
anything, had happened. When D returned to his patrol car to call for backup assistance, P
got out of the car, ran around it twice, and finally sat down on the curb, where he passed
out briefly. A number of police officers arrived on the scene in response to D's request for
backup. P was rolled over on the sidewalk and cuffed as the officers present ignored Berry's
pleas to get P some sugar. Several officers then lifted P up from behind, carried him over
to Berry's car, and placed him face down on its hood. Regaining consciousness, P asked the
officers to check in his wallet for a diabetic decal that he carried. In response, one of
the officers told him to 'shut up' and shoved his face down against the hood of the car.
Four officers grabbed P and threw him headfirst into the police car. A friend of P's brought
some orange juice to the car, but the officers refused to let him have it. D received a
report that P had done nothing wrong at the convenience store, and the officers drove him
home and released him. P sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead,
and an injured shoulder; he also claims to have developed a loud ringing in his right ear
that continues to this day. P sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the individual officers
alleging that they had used excessive force in making the investigatory stop, in violation
of 'rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and 42 U.S.C. 1983.' At the close of P's evidence, Ds moved for a directed verdict. In
ruling on that motion, the District Court considered the following four factors, which it
identified as '[t]he factors to be considered in determining when the excessive use of force
gives rise to a cause of action under 1983': (1) the need for the application of force; (2)
the relationship between that need and the amount of force that was used; (3) the extent of
the injury inflicted; and (4) '[w]hether the force was applied in a good faith effort to
maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of
causing harm.' The District Court granted D's motion for a directed verdict. A divided panel
of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed and endorsed the four-factor test
applied by the District Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment