Police Misconduct in Suspect Arrest and Ruling Procedure

Police Excessive Use of Force and the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case on Police Misconduct

Graham V. Connor 1989 Landmark case set the precedent for U.S. Supreme Court in matters relating to unethical Police decisions or immoral practices by the police (Baker & Thomas R., 2012). This paper presents discussions on how the U.S. Supreme Court analysis injustices by the police in the process of investigating or making an arrest a crime.

Case: Graham V. Connor 1989

The arrest was by a Charlotte Police department patrol officer who observed Graham enter a convenience store and exited in a suspicious manner. Graham's quick entry and exit of the convenient store was because of the long line at check-out that he could not endure owing to a need to quell a diabetic episode. The Police officer moved in to stop Graham, who was with another individual as they drove away. Heeding to the officers instructions, Graham obliged but acted erratically by running around the car and sat down just before he passed out. An officer who was responding to the backup call arrived at the scene, handcuffed Graham and put him face down on the hood of the police patrol car. Afterward, they police officer handled Graham so roughly as to cause a broken foot and other injuries as they shoved him into the backseat of a police patrol car.

The arresting officer had ignored Graham's pleas for sugar and failed to check in his wallet for a diabetic card. Follow-up investigation revealed that Graham had committed no crime, and they drove him home after being released. Graham filed a petition for relief at the district and circuit courts under the due process clause - Fourteenth Amendment. This petition had been shut down in all courts before the Supreme Court accepted to review his case (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012).

The accepted definition of force as given by (Baker & Thomas R., 2012) is the authority to use cohesion to overcome the intention of another. Although it is entrenched in the U.S. Civil Rights that police officers have the legal authority to use appropriate measures including force to protect themselves, apprehend alleged criminals, diffuse situation and protect others and themselves, excessive or inappropriate use of this force is cautioned against. For a plaintiff, it is challenging to accuse a police officer for excessive use of force since they are protected by the immunity clause. This immunity clause is however not absolute only allowing the officers to undertake their duties with due diligence with no fear for reprisal. The U.S. Supreme Court takes up cases relating to police injustice and police misconduct upholding that the officer ought to be afforded a benefit of the doubt that their actions were lawful and in line with their duty obligations.

Guided by the definition of excessive use of force as the force that is greater than the needful measure to oblige compliance to an unwilling or willing subject, the Supreme Court observes that reasonableness in the act of the police officer should be determined. To determine whether an action taken by a police officer is reasonable or unreasonable is a challenge and the Supreme Court applies its objectivity in such determinations (Baker & Thomas R., 2012).

In the case of Tennesse V. Garner (1985), it was the determination by the Supreme Court that the police officer used excessive force. This case stands as a landmark case in guiding the Courts in decisions regarding police officer exercise of their legally afforded right to use of force. Prior to this ruling, a police officer would shoot a fleeing felon even though they meant no immediate harm to them or members of the public. The proceedings in the Garners case established that the reasonableness of the police officer must evidence to show probable cause that a suspect poses as a significant physical injury or death threat to the officer or/and others in the scene. Additionally the Supreme Court assesses whether the police officer followed the set substantive rights process in arresting a suspect.

In the event that the police officer violates substantive due process of rights such that the resulting actions shock the conscience of a civilized society, then it is established the actions are unreasonable. In the Case of Graham V. Connor in 1989, the supreme asserted that it has no obligation in determining whether an arrest was constitutional rather a lower court should make a ruling on whether the arrest is constitutional. In the Graham V. Connor case, the Supreme court observed that it is necessary to determine the reasonableness of a police officer application of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012).