The 'objective reasonableness' standard for deadly force stems from which case?

The 'objective reasonableness' standard for deadly force stems from which case?

• A. Graham v. Connor
• B. Tennessee v. Garner
• C. Berkemer v. McCarty
• D. Florida v. Powell

Answer: (A)

Objective reasonableness is the standard used to judge police use of force under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor held that such judgments must be made from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, with the information available at the time, and by considering the totality of the circumstances. This means the assessment focuses on what a reasonable officer would believe and do in those moments, not on hindsight or the officer’s subjective intentions. That framework applies to deadly force as part of evaluating whether the amount of force used was reasonable given the circumstances. While Tennessee v. Garner adds a specific rule about when deadly force may be used against a fleeing suspect, requiring a significant threat or necessity to prevent escape, the overarching objective-reasonableness standard originates with Graham v. Connor.

Objective reasonableness is the standard used to judge police use of force under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor held that such judgments must be made from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, with the information available at the time, and by considering the totality of the circumstances. This means the assessment focuses on what a reasonable officer would believe and do in those moments, not on hindsight or the officer’s subjective intentions. That framework applies to deadly force as part of evaluating whether the amount of force used was reasonable given the circumstances. While Tennessee v. Garner adds a specific rule about when deadly force may be used against a fleeing suspect, requiring a significant threat or necessity to prevent escape, the overarching objective-reasonableness standard originates with Graham v. Connor.