Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published August 21, 2014 at 8:48 PM | Page modified August 22, 2014 at 6:22 AM

  • Share:
             
  • Comments
  • Print

Supreme Court case to shape Ferguson investigation

To most civilians, an 18-year-old unarmed man may not appear to pose a deadly threat. But a police officer’s perspective is different. And that is how an officer should be judged, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1989 use-of-force Supreme Court opinion.


The Associated Press

Reader Comments
Hide / Show comments
If a 300lb person comes at you, I don't think age matters. It is a mortal threat. MORE
@v142 I agree entirely. And if that's what the evidence eventually shows happened in this case when the evidence is... MORE
"When Graham asked the officers to check his pocket for something he carried that identified him as a diabetic, one of... MORE

advertising

WASHINGTON —

It started with a bottle of orange juice 30 years ago.

The national legal standards that govern when police officers are justified in using force against people trace their lineage to a 1984 case from Charlotte, N.C. In that case, a diabetic man’s erratic behavior during a trip to a convenience store for juice to bring up his low blood sugar led to a confrontation with officers that left him with injuries from head to foot.

Dethorne Graham’s subsequent lawsuit against police for his injuries led to a 1989 Supreme Court decision that has become the prism for evaluating how police use force. As soon as Ferguson, Mo., police Officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown on Aug. 9, the Graham v. Connor case became the foundational test for whether Wilson’s response was appropriate or criminal.

To most civilians, an 18-year-old unarmed man may not appear to pose a deadly threat. But a police officer’s perspective is different. And that is how an officer should be judged, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1989 opinion.

“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,” Rehnquist wrote.

The sequence of events that led to the death of Brown, a black man shot by a white officer, remains unclear. An autopsy paid for by Brown’s family concluded he was shot six times, twice in the head. The shooting has prompted multiple investigations and triggered days of rioting reflecting long-simmering racial tensions in a town of mostly black residents and a majority white police force.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday the crisis had opened a national conversation about “the appropriate use of force and the need to ensure fair and equal treatment for everyone who comes into contact with the police.”

A grand jury is hearing evidence to determine whether Wilson, 28, who has policed the St. Louis suburbs for six years, should be charged in Brown’s death.

The key question will be: Would a reasonable police officer, with a similar background as Wilson, have responded the same way?

The answer is typically yes.

“Except in the most outrageous cases of police misconduct, juries tend to side with police officers and give them a lot of leeway,” said Woody Connette, the attorney who represented Graham.

In Graham’s case, his behavior as he was experiencing low blood sugar looked similar to that of a belligerent drunk.

On Nov. 12, 1984, Graham, 39, felt the onset of an insulin reaction and asked a friend to drive him to buy orange juice that would increase his blood sugar, Connette said. According to the Supreme Court, Graham rushed into the store and grabbed the orange juice but saw the line was too long, so he put the juice down and ran back to the car.

Charlotte police Officer M.S. Connor thought this was suspicious and followed him. When Connor stopped Graham’s friend’s car, Graham explained he was having a sugar reaction. But Connor didn’t believe him.

As Connor was following up with the store to see whether anything had happened, Graham left the car, ran around it twice, sat down and passed out for a short time. Other police officers arrived, and Graham was rolled over and handcuffed. The officers lifted Graham from behind and placed him face down on the car.

When Graham asked the officers to check his pocket for something he carried that identified him as a diabetic, one of the officers told him to “shut up” and shoved his face against the hood of the car.

Then four officers grabbed Graham and threw him headfirst into the police car.

Once police confirmed no crime had been committed inside the convenience store, they dropped Graham off at his home and left him in the yard, Connette said.

Graham ended up with a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead and an injured shoulder.

Graham, who died in 2000, lost in his first jury trial and appealed to the Supreme Court, which set out the standards used today. He then had a new trial, which he also lost.

The Graham decision found that an officer’s use of force should be considered on the facts of each case. Officers are to weigh the seriousness of the crime, whether the suspect poses a threat to the safety of police or others and whether the suspect is trying to resist arrest.

Since then, police officers across the U.S. have been trained to use force in that context. States and police departments have their own policies, but the standards set in the Graham case are always the minimum.

Some departments, like the Los Angeles Police Department, even reference Graham v. Connor in their manuals.

The police force in St. Louis, where officers shot and killed a knife-wielding robbery suspect 10 days after the Ferguson shooting, also alludes to the Graham standards.

Officers are to be judged by those standards, even if things look different to people who weren’t involved. “What a police officer ... perceives at the moment of application of force may seem very different in the hard light of the following Monday morning,” said Ken Wallentine, a recently retired police chief and former law professor in Utah. “And there’s the rub.”



Want unlimited access to seattletimes.com? Subscribe now!

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited seattletimes.com access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►