Use of Force & Arrest · Graham v. Connor

Graham v. Connor

Graham v. Connor is covered under Graham v. Connor and tested on the TCOLE peace officer licensing exam. Cadets typically encounter this topic under "Peace Officer Force" on practice exams.

To prove this offense, the State must establish each of the following elements: Objectively reasonable on the totality; From perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene (not 20/20 hindsight); Severity of crime; Immediate threat to officers/others; Active resistance or attempted flight.

Elements you must prove

  • Objectively reasonable on the totality
  • From perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene (not 20/20 hindsight)
  • Severity of crime
  • Immediate threat to officers/others
  • Active resistance or attempted flight

Practice 5 questions on this topic

Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.

Start Free Practice

Worked examples

Worked example 1

The federal constitutional standard for police use of force is:

  1. Subjective good faith
  2. Objective reasonableness — judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting or attempting to flee (Graham v. Connor) Correct
  3. What the officer thinks is fair
  4. Strict liability
Why: Force claims under §1983 are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness test, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene without 20/20 hindsight.
Statute: Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Worked example 2

SCENARIO. An officer fires a Taser at a fleeing misdemeanor suspect who poses no apparent risk of harm. Apply Texas / federal law.

  1. Always permitted
  2. Likely unreasonable under Graham — severity of crime is low, suspect is not actively resisting in a violent manner, and not posing immediate threat; Taser deployment in such a posture has been found excessive in multiple federal courts Correct
  3. Permitted because Taser is non-lethal
  4. Permitted with announcement
Why: Taser use is force under Graham. Deploying a Taser against a non-violent, non-imminent-threat fleeing misdemeanor suspect has been found excessive in multiple Circuits. Although Texas has its own analyses, agency policy and federal courts urge proportionality.
Statute: Graham v. Connor; Bryan v. MacPherson (9th Cir.); Estate of Armstrong (4th Cir.)
Worked example 3

SCENARIO. Two officers arrive at a barricaded subject who is alone with no hostages and no weapon. The subject is shouting at the officers. May officers immediately enter and use force?

  1. Yes — any non-compliance justifies entry
  2. Generally no — there is no exigency requiring immediate entry; agency policy and court precedent favor de-escalation, time, distance, and supervisor / SWAT involvement before forced entry, particularly where the subject is alone, contained, and not posing imminent harm Correct
  3. Yes if a warrant exists
  4. Yes after announcement
Why: Where the subject is contained and not posing imminent harm, time and distance favor de-escalation. Forced entry without exigency may be excessive force; many policies require supervisor approval and SWAT planning.
Statute: Graham v. Connor; agency de-escalation policy