Graham v. Connor 9
whitney122158
showard-560-6.pptxCauses and reaction to controversy
SNHU
SHAWNETTE HOWARD
3/31/2021
Introduction
The case covered in the analysis is Graham v. Connor held by the United States Supreme Court in 1989.
The case was based on the Fourth Amendment requirements.
The outcome of the case resulted into the creation of objective reasonableness standard
The case was considered controversial with a significant impact on the preceding cases (Re, 2018).
Graham v. Connor is one of the most famous cases and raked among the most controversial cases in the history of the United States court system. The case was based on the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution that stipulate on the rights to be observed by law enforcement officers in making arrests or conducting seizure of the person. The court determined the case with a proposal for a reasonableness standard to be applied to a civilian’s claim on the violation of the Fourth Amendment as purported by Graham. The test for reasonableness has been applied in other cases since the case.
2
Causes of controversy
Media coverage:
Graham v. Connor attracted spirited controversy in determining the party that would win the case and the impact the decision would have on the judicial process.
The media coverage on the case changed the public perception on the rights of law enforcement officers in carrying out their duties.
The involvement of the media affected the proceeding of the court as the public and political leaders focused on the outcome of the case (Obasogie & Newman, 2017).
The media played a significant role in the proceedings of the court as more interested parties such as law experts and political leaders focused on the case for their political agenda. The media offered a platform for the stakeholders to follow the proceedings by using photos portraying the impacts of violations of the Fourth Amendment. This led into the Judiciary being in a close scrutiny on the decision to be made on the case as it would attract much support and critics.
3
Causes of controversy cont.
Fairness:
The fairness of the case was dependent on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the application.
The judicial process had the duty to uphold the law while still protecting the right of the citizens and state officers.
The judicial process caused a controversy due to lack of a standard metric to determine the allowance at which a police officer would be exempted from violation of Fourth Amendment.
The judicial process exhibited fairness through the introduction of reasonableness test.
In determining the case, the court required to strike a fair decision by upholding the rights of Graham as a private citizen entitles to Fourth amendment without compromising the rights of the law enforcement officer. The main cause of controversy is that the defendant, Connor had violated entitlements of the Fourth Amendment in the course of enforcing the law. The main concern was determining the measure to be used in determining the rights of police officers in executing their duties of preventing crime. The judicial process was fair and equitable in deciding the case through the introduction of reasonableness test which was to be applied on Graham case.
4
Reaction to controversy
Reaction Explanation:
Different stakeholders reacted different in relation to the case.
The Supreme court reacted by providing a neutral verdict of reasonableness which would determine the validity of Graham’s claims
Human rights activists acted were biased against Graham as they advocated for the need to uphold the rights provided by the Fourth Amendment
Some national leaders were biased on racial politics which affected their conclusions on the case.
Majority of the media gave objective coverage by advocating on the need to uphold the rights of the police officers in preventing crime while observing the Fourth Amendment.
The case attracted different reactions from different stakeholders such as the media towards perceived equality of the judicial processes. The Supreme court reacted by avoiding ruling in favor of either side but rather providing a standard assessment which would be used in determining the validity of the verdict on the initial claims. There was the pressure among the human rights activists in ensuring that the court proceeding did not result into police brutality. This contributed into the activists to be biased towards the equality of the judicial process by advocating in favor of Graham.
5
Reaction to controversy cont.
Reaction Defense:
The Supreme Court’s use of objective reasonableness to solve the controversy on the application of the Fourth Amendment was important in that:
It provided variables to consider when determining the violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The reaction to the controversy contributed to the use of the decision on other similar cases: shooting of Michael Brown, shooting of Philando Castile.
The reaction contributed to the protection of law enforcement officers rights in their line of work (Obasogie & Newman, 2017).
The reaction of the Supreme court towards the controversy was appropriate and effective in various ways. One of the ways is that the introduction of objective reasonableness standard helped in reducing bias against police officers who are at times forced to suspend the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in preventing a crime from occurring. This contributed to the protection of the right of the law enforcement officers in line of their work. The reaction of the court during the case led to the introduction of reasonableness in dealing with similar cases as has been evident in other cases such as the shooting of Michael Brown.
6
Reaction to controversy cont.
Alternative Reaction
The alternative reaction that the Supreme Court would have used is Due Process Clause though it had rejected the application.
Applies to the case in that there was deprivation of liberty through body restraint.
The Due process requires citizens not to be stripped their rights or possessions (Lawson, 2017).
An alternative course of direction that could have been used by the Supreme court is Due Process Clause. The clause relates to the application of Federal laws on a citizen as it had occurred on Graham by Connor, a federal state officer. Although the Supreme court rejected the use of the Due Process Clause, the law would have assisted in providing solution to the case and making decisions. The law requires any citizen not to be deprived their rights to liberty which include liberty that covers body restraint as evident in the case through Connor handcuffing Graham unless authorized by law.
7
Reaction to controversy cont.
Alternative defenses:
The use of Due Process Clause provides a more comprehensive procedure in making decision from a case of violation of liberty through:
Procedural due process: require fair processes to be followed by government official before depriving rights.
Substantive due process: allows courts to protect certain rights from interference by the government (Lawson, 2017).
The Due Process Clause would have suited the case in determining a fair verdict to both cases given that there was a violation of Graham right by being detained without a probable cause. The clause also ensures there is no bias against the defendant as it stipulates certain considerations to be made in determining if there is a solid reason to deprive citizens their right to liberty or detention. This is covered under procedural due process which requires the government official to follow fair procedures before depriving the person the right to liberty. The law also ensures the government can not interfere with the rights of the citizens by giving the courts the power to protect the rights.
8
Reference
Lawson, G. (2017). Take the Fifth, Please: The Original Insignificance of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process of Law Clause. BYU L. Rev., 611.
Re, R. M. (2018). Fourth Amendment Fairness. Michigan Law Review, 116(8), 1409-1463.
Obasogie, O. K., & Newman, Z. (2017). The futile fourth amendment: Understanding police excessive force doctrine through an empirical assessment of Graham v. Connor. Nw. UL Rev., 112, 1465.
