Brown Undergraduate Law Review — Vol. 2 No. 2 (Spring 2021)

The Legal Precedents for Police Brutality: The Enduring Legacy of the Objective Reasonableness Standard
sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. 20 Altogether, the greatest difference between the Glick test
and Graham?s Fourth Amendment analysis is that, under
Graham appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
the latter, the intent of a police officer is not relevant in
which affirmed the district court?s judgment and further
assessing reasonableness. The former?s criteria assess
endorsed the applicability of the four-factor test to claims
whether force was applied in ?good faith? or ?maliciously
of unconstitutionally excessive force. The Fourth Circuit
and sadistically? in its substantive due process analysis.
held that since a reasonable jury applying the test could not
However, this is irreconcilable with the Fourth
find Connor?s use of force ?constitutionally excessive,?
Amendment analysis because the ??malicious and sadistic?
then the original ruling should be upheld. Graham filed a
factor concerns the subjective motivations of the individual
petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.
officers.? 25 Moreover, ?the calculus of reasonableness?
In the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice William
must consider that officers are often caught in
Rehnquist, the Court reversed the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals?decision. 21 The Court found that the due process
approach established by Johnson v. Glick cannot be
?split-second? situations where they are forced to make
decisions based on ?tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving?
circumstances.
applied indiscriminately to cases of excessive force by
Modern Legal Consequences of Objective
police officers because there must be a constitutional basis
for such claims. 22 Reasonableness
The Court determined that Graham?s
claim instead fell under the Fourth Amendment given that
he was invoking his right to ??to be secure in [his] persons
? against unreasonable ? seizures.?? 23 Using the Fourth
The judicial legacy of Graham v. Connor lies in its
frequent citations in lower court decisions on police
brutality. The Supreme Court?s objective reasonableness
Amendment, the Court determined that the standard has bound the judicial system toward favoring
?reasonableness? of an officer?s actions must be assessed
based on the facts and circumstances presented to the
officer in the moment? disregarding analysis of intent or
hindsight. In other words, one must determine whether an
officer?s actions are ?objectively reasonable? based on the
suspect?s threat to others, active resistance, and severity of
law enforcement. To fully understand the municipal effects
of the Court?s ruling, one must review additional Supreme
Court and district level cases that cite Graham. Maney v.
Garrison (2017) and Mullenix v. Luna (2015) are two
recent cases with outcomes influenced by the 1989
landmark decision.
the crime committed. Therefore, the Court ruled that the
To begin with, Maney v. Garrison underscores how the
Fourth Circuit erred in using the Johnson v. Glick four-part
notion of objective reasonableness still has a component of
test because it considered intent and subjective motivations
subjectivity. On May 4, 2010, Officer Terence Garrison
(which play no role in Fourth Amendment analysis). Given
and his police dog Bikkel tracked a robbery suspect to an
this, the Court remanded the case for reconsideration.
abandoned house in High Point, North Carolina. 26 At the
20. Graham v. Charlotte, 827 F.2d 945 (1987).
21. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 392.
22. Ibid., 490 U.S 396.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Maney v. Garrison, 681 Fed. Appx. 210 (2017).
Brown Undergraduate Law Review
50