Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Graham, the petitioner, had an insulin reaction so he went to a convenience store, where there turned out to be police activity. He then told his friend, Berry, to bring him to a friend's house. The respondent, Officer Connor, became suspicious and followed Berry's car. Backup police officers put handcuffs on Graham, ignoring his health need. The encounter resulted in Graham sustaining multiple injuries. He was released after the police determined that nothing occurred in the store. Graham filed a suit, alleging that his Fourteenth Amendment right was violated because the stop was conducted with excessive force. In the District Court, the Court came up with a directed verdict, granting the respondent's motion. The court applied a four-factor test to determine if…show more content… It questioned if the force was applied in good faith. The Court of Appeals agreed to the verdict and the use of the four-factor test for constitutionally excessive force allegations. The Court of Appeals rejected Graham's argument that it was not right that he had to proved that force was maliciously applied and held that jurors using the Johnson v. Glick test would see that the officers did not use constitutionally excessive force. However, the Supreme Court held that the single test should not govern all constitutionally excessive force claims and that the "seizure" of a person should be judged with the "reasonableness" standard of the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, intention is irrelevant to the question of whether the action is "objectively reasonable". The Supreme Court did not think that the Johnson v. Glick test is suitable for the Fourth Amendment analysis. "Malicious and sadistic" and objectively unreasonable conduct in light of the circumstances are not synonymous. Judge Rehnquist delivered the court's opinion and Judges White, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy joined. Judges Blackmun, Brennan, and Marshall concurred
