Notes

For Tennessee v. Garner:
>Garner was suspected of robbing a nearby house.
>Hymon admitted that before he shot he saw no evidence that Garner was armed and "figured" he was unarmed.
>The bullet hit Garner in the back of the head.
>Garner's father sued seeking damages for violations of Garner's constitutional rights.
>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that killing a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and such a seizure would only be reasonable if the suspect posed a threat to the safety of police officers or the community at large.
>In a 6-3 decision, Justice Byron R. White wrote for the majority affirming the court of appeals decision.
>The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force unless it is necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of violence to the officer or the community.

For Graham v. Connor:
>On November 12, 1984, Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, had an insulin reaction while doing auto work at his home.
>He entered the store and saw a line of four or five persons at the counter; not wanting to wait in line, he quickly left the store and returned to Berry’s car.
>Officer M.S. Connor, a Charlotte police officer, observed Graham entering and exiting the store unusually quickly.
>Graham, still suffering from an insulin reaction, exited the car and ran around it twice.
>Berry and Officer Connor stopped Graham, and he sat down on the curb. He soon passed out; when he revived he was handcuffed and lying face down on the sidewalk.
>The officers picked up Graham, still handcuffed, and placed him over the hood of Berry’s car.
>The police then struggled to place Graham in the squad car over Graham’s vigorous resistance.
>Graham sustained multiple injuries, including a broken foot, as a result of the incident.
>Graham filed § 1983 charges against Connor, other officers, and the City of Charlotte, alleging a violation of his rights by the excessive use of force by the police officers, unlawful assault, unlawful restraint constituting false imprisonment, and that the City of Charlotte improperly trained its officers in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
>Graham appealed the ruling on the use of excessive force, contending that the district court incorrectly applied a four-part substantive due process test from Johnson v. Glick that takes into account officers’ “good faith” efforts and whether they acted “maliciously or sadistically”.
>The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, rejected this argument, reasoning that concepts such as "good faith" are relevant to determining the degree of force used.
> In a unanimous ruling written by Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that claims of excessive force used by government officials are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard.
>Rather, the Fourth Amendment stands as one of the two primary sources of protection against physically abusive government conduct, along with the Eighth Amendment.
>the validity of Graham’s claim must be judged by reference to the specific rights conferred by the Fourth Amendment, not by a generalized “excessive force” standard.
>Justice Blackmun argued that there was not sufficient precedent to hold that claims of use of excessive force will never be subject to Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process review.