This document provides a summary of two Supreme Court cases - Tennessee v. Garner in 1985 and Graham v. Conner in 1989 - that were pivotal in establishing modern police use-of-force policies. It discusses the background and outcomes of each case. Tennessee v. Garner resulted in restrictions on when lethal force can be used to apprehend suspects. Graham v. Conner established that use-of-force must be judged based on what an officer knew in the moment, not with 20/20 hindsight. These cases helped define appropriate limits on police authority while also protecting officers acting in good faith. They helped rebuild public trust in law enforcement.

1. Running Head: Issues Midterm 1
Issues Midterm
Marcos Corley
University of Texas at Arlington

2. Marcos: Issues Midterm 2
Abstract
This essay delves into the issue of police use-of-force policy and how it is developed.
Specifically looking into the Supreme Court cases of Tennessee v. Garner and Graham V.
Conner to better understand where the policies that exist today come from. Beginning
with background information on the cases to provide proper context. Followed by
analysis of why these cases are important both then and today. Finally, outlining the
impacts that these cases directly held on police use-of-force policies.

3. Marcos: Issues Midterm 3
The recent string of high profile cases involving police use-of-force have sparked
heated controversy over how the United States should handle those types of situations.
While it is a topic that is currently at the foreground of political debate and social
movements, the American public’s perception of police use-of-force is not a new topic in
the least. In the 1980’s there were riots very similar to the ones seen across the country
today. In fact, the policies and procedures that are currently in place stemmed from two
significant incidents that resulted in Supreme Court cases for the government to make a
decision on how society should progress. The first case was Tennessee v. Garner, which
went before the Supreme Court in 1985, and the second was Graham v. Conner, which
was heard in 1989. The Supreme Court had to be involved to defend police legitimacy,
which was lost to a significant portion of the public, creating a hostile social climate. The
significance of these trials is the policy implications they held for creating a standard to
judge police use-of-force by. In order understand the resulting impact, one must begin by
understanding the surrounding narrative of each case. Following that, analysis should be
drawn from the significance of the cases themselves. Finally resulting in an outline of the
impacts that these cases held for police use-of-force policy.
Of the two cases, Tennessee v. Garner was chronologically the first of the two
cases to be heard, as well as the one with the most significance. The trial began on
October 30th, 1984 and was finally decided on March 27th 1985 (SCOTUS, 1985). The
incident that led to this court trial occurred in Memphis Tennessee, when police officers
responded to an emergency call. The caller stated that there was a potential home
burglary in progress. Upon arrival, police found a suspect who appeared to be around the
ages of 17-18 and potentially carrying a weapon. The suspect saw the police and began

4. Marcos: Issues Midterm 4
fleeing on foot despite the fact that officers had commanded him to stop. One of the
officers made the decision to use lethal force to prevent the suspect from getting away,
which resulted to a lethal wound to the back of his head. The problem that immediately
occurred was that the suspect was actually an unarmed 15-year-old boy. At the
conclusion of the trial, the court found that the officer in question was acting within the
realm of Tennessee law at the time of the incident. However, it was also decided that the
law left a serious gap in the due process rights of an individual who is affected by this use
of force policy, leading to changes in policy for when lethal force is justified in regards to
apprehending a suspect (SCOTUS, 1985).
The second groundbreaking case in regard to police use-of-force was Graham v.
Conner, which was heard on February 21st, 1989 and decided on May 15th, 1989
(SCOTUS, 1989). In this case, Graham was a diabetic man who needed orange juice to
counteract his insulin before going into diabetic shock. Graham asked his friend Barry to
drive them to the convenience store to purchase the orange juice. Once inside, Graham
quickly entered the store to buy the juice but decided it would take too long to purchase it
because of the line inside. Graham ran back out to the car and asked Barry to take him to
a nearby friend’s home. Conner, an active duty police officer, witnessed Graham running
into the store and quickly returned back to the car. Finding the behavior suspicious,
Conner pulled the vehicle over on an investigative stop. Graham was detained and
sustained injury when he ignored the officer’s orders to stay in his vehicle, due to the
medical attention that was needed. The force that Conner used to detain Graham was
claimed to be excessive, in violation of the 14th amendment, because of the injuries that
Graham sustained during the encounter. At the conclusion of this trial it was found that

5. Marcos: Issues Midterm 5
the courts must only take into account what knowledge an officer has when administering
force on a subject. Considering the fact that the officer was acting in good faith because
he did not know about Graham’s medical condition or whether or not a crime had been
committed, the use of force in apprehension was justified (SCOTUS, 1989).
Now that the background for these cases has been laid out, analysis can be drawn
to show why the resulting decisions are significant to the American justice system. The
question raised by these trials is whether or not police had been using their authority to
violate the rights of those they had sworn to protect. Because of the responsibility that
police have to uphold the social contract through means not available to the public, there
is widespread concern whenever it appears that an officer has abused their granted power,
effectively destroying the essence of the contract. Both of these cases led to a more
clearly defined structure in use of force policy to protect the rights of the people, as well
as the rights of the officers.
In the case of Tennessee v. Garner, the amendments to the constitution which
were cited as having been violated by the police, were the fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and
fourteenth amendments. Before the conclusion of that trial, Tennessee law stated that
police were allowed to use whatever force necessary to apprehend a fleeing felon. The
most significant aspect of the ruling is not that the officer was found not guilty, but rather
the structural change that the court made in an effort to protect the rights of the people.
Without the resulting decision, there would have been a significant decrease in police
legitimacy because of how the public would view any police officer’s use of lethal force
thereafter (SCOTUS, 1985).

6. Marcos: Issues Midterm 6
In the case of Graham v. Conner, the significance resided more in the courts
protecting the rights of police officers when they are performing to the best of their
ability to protect social contract. The fourteenth amendment to the constitution was cited
as having been violated in the trial (SCOTUS, 1985). The result of the case set a
precedent for how the public and the justice system should view police use-of-force
incidents. Reaffirming in the eyes of the law and the public that police officers are just
people and can not possibly know every aspect of every situation that they enter, it is
important that the situation only be viewed through the eyes of the officer in the moment
that the incident occurred. Because of the fact that Conner felt that Graham might have
just committed a crime, and was disobeying direct orders from an officer, the force the
Conner used on Graham was in good faith. It is easy to demonize Conner if the only
perspective one takes is that a diabetic man was detained with force while trying to
prevent his own diabetic shock. However, as mentioned before, there is no way that
Conner could have known that fact going into the situation, clearing him of any perceived
wrongs.
With the analysis provided explaining the significance of the Supreme Court
decisions in both of these trials, the impacts that these cases had on use of force policies
begin to outline themselves. At the beginning of both of these trials, public perception of
the police had been significantly damaged by the narrative alone. With careful
consideration to all the surrounding factors that played into both of these incidents, the
Supreme Court laid a foundation for all use-of-force policies in the future. This is
important for more than just the idealistic implications of justice being upheld within the
spectrum of these incidents, but also the precedent that they set for the facilitation of

7. Marcos: Issues Midterm 7
justice in the future. In previous classes where police use-of-force has been discussed as
it relates to police legitimacy, it has been implied numerous times that the way the public
perceives police legitimacy weighs heavily on their authority as a whole. Because of that,
it is important to take into account whether or not the public viewed the outcome of these
trials as positive changes, or miscarriages of justice.
The most significant issue with use of force policies prior to Tennessee v. Garner
is the vast number of police killings that were taking place on a regular basis. The most
heavily speculated reason for why this was happening was that a direct correlation could
be drawn between how justifiable society views police killings and how often they occur
(Tennenbaum, 1994). One dispute about the proposed policy changes was the validation
of a criminal’s right to flee. In fact that was the heaviest reason given in the dissenting
opinion of the ruling. While this was carefully considered, the majority agreed that this
was a risk worth taking in order to save lives of people who don’t necessarily deserve to
be killed. The other problem that was immediately cited in regard to the courts decision is
that the courts might not have any significant impact on police behavior, seeing as the
original officer in the case was set free. However, even with this perception, there has
been recorded evidence of a significant drop in police killings since the enactment of this
policy. All of this pointing towards a potential increase in public relations for police
officers when the public acknowledges that policy changes can increase legitimacy
(Tennenbaum, 1994).
The significant impact that Graham v. Conner held for police use of force policy
was directed more toward the concern of police brutality rather than fatal incidents.
Regardless of whether the incident itself implied a specific prejudice, excessive use of

8. Marcos: Issues Midterm 8
force by police officers is generally held by the same standard. If police officers are
allowed to cause undue harm to a person, there is the innate violation of social contract as
well as the extended issue of justifying any prejudice that an officer might hold for a
particular people group. Because of this lethal combination society is quick to judge and
harsh to forgive when there is even potential for misconduct of a violent nature. Because
of this the decision of the court in Graham v. Conner was being speculated closely. While
it was found that Conner was not violating any of Grahams rights, there was the added
impact of the court clearly defining when use of force is acceptable (SCOTUS, 1985).
The outcome was well received and is the criterion for any police use of force situation to
this day. Pointing out that police should be justified if the situation meets the 3 necessary
standards provided by the court. Those standards include police having reason to believe
that a crime has been committed, the subject implying or actively engaging in resistance,
and the police having any reason to believe that the subject might be armed. The key
implication of the policy is that it is centered on the knowledge that the police officer has
when entering the situation (SCOTUS, 1985).
In conclusion, there is quite a bit of turmoil surrounding the idea of police use-of-
force today. While new policy is being considered it is important to know what the legal
standards are and why they have been set. In the end, new policy dictates not only how
police must conduct themselves as they go about their day, but also how much power
they have to protect each individual and the social contract as a whole. This makes
emotionally driven policy changes quite the double-edged sword. Seeing how issues have
been dealt with in the past and how effective those responses were, is the most effective
way to fix similar problems in the future. In the interest of fully understanding where

9. Marcos: Issues Midterm 9
current policies originated, a background was given for the two cases that have been
paramount in policy development. Once the narrative for the cases was outlined, analysis
was provided for why these cases were important to the protection of rights and
significant to the world today. Finally, the impacts of the Supreme Court decisions in
Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Conner were applied to the development of use-of-
force policy, providing a thorough understanding of these cases and how they set the
foundation for the policies still held as standard today.

10. Marcos: Issues Midterm 10
References
Tennenbaum, A. N. (1994). The Influence of the Garner Decision on Police Use of
Deadly Force. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 85(1), 241-260.
United States Supreme Court. (1989). Graham v. Conner: No. 87-6571.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/490/386.html
United States Supreme Court. (1985). Tennessee v. Garner: No. 83-1035.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/1.html