Graham held that determining
the "reasonableness" of a seizure "requires a careful balancing
of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual... against the
attempt at "countervailing" and under the guise of governmental
interests, being at stake." These rights of which, are well documented,
and established, of the people, by the people, and for the people, of the
United States of America. It acknowledged, "Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long
recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily
carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof
to effect it." However, it then noted, "Because the test of
reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition
or mechanical application, “the test's" proper application requires
careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case."
The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors for balancing an individual's rights and an officer's: "the severity of the crime at issue," "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others," "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."
The Graham Court cautioned, "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." It also reinforced, "As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the 'reasonableness' inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation."
The Court rejected the notion that the judiciary could use the Due Process Clause instead of the Fourth Amendment in analyzing excessive force claims: "Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims."
This reasonable officer standard has been defined as what an officer with similar knowledge skills and experience would find to be reasonable under the same circumstances. Not what a civilian sees a reasonable. Not what the media sees as reasonable. This is why, after the defense has presented it's expert witness on use of force and the prosecution has presented it's expert witness on use of force, the jury is left to evaluate it under the instructions of this standard. They have all the information, from both sides, to determine the facts of the case. And given this, that is why many of these cases are being adjudicated not guilty.
If you are reading this as a probation officer, you may ask how it applies to you. As a probation officer, this means that when looking at the Graham factors, you should write your report as to describe the totality of circumstances, and why you used force. Additionally, you want to avoid boilerplate language when writing your report. You do want to insure that the use of force is described as it applies to your departmental policy, as long as it is an honest description. You need to describe what you saw and felt and why you decided to use any particular force option. Write a thoroughly descriptive story describing what happened, because you may have to defend your actions under Graham in court.
Stay safe!!
P. O. Doe
#probation
#probationuncovered
Twitter - @PODoe2015
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/probationuncovered/
Email - probationuncovered@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment