Use of Force in the Course of an Arrest

When Is Force Constitutionally Permissible?

Under the Fourth Amendment, the use of force by American police during an arrest is permitted as long as it is considered objectively reasonable. The landmark case Graham v. Connor (1989) concluded that the reasonableness of the force should be viewed as that which is in the eyes of a reasonable officer on the ground, but not in retrospect. According to this approach, there must be a trade-off between the offence's severity, the risks' urgency, and whether the suspect is trying to escape or retaliate against the attack. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) is another crucial precedent. In this instance, the Supreme Court held that lethal force can only be used against a running suspect when the subject is the cause of a grave danger of harm or death. All these cases have clarified the constitutional protection that warrants the application of force in line with the interests of the state and the individual in the populace's security.

The problem with this criterion is brought to light by recent research. According to Triola (2023), cops are often shielded from accountability by qualified immunity, highlighting the discrepancies between the Fourth Amendment's intended application and the realities of policing. The availability of weapons, the suspect's behavior, and the actual location all significantly influence officers' decisions to use force and how much force they use, as demonstrated by Han et al. (2025). Jurisprudence and empirical research suggest that the constitutional authorization of force should be situational, limited, and proportionate.

Example Scenario

Take the case where Officer Smith has been called to a report about a violent attack. The suspect is a man named Jordan, who is wielding a knife and trying to escape into the midst of people. Officer Smith, who has given him explicit instructions to stop and has failed, uses a non-lethal projectile to restrain him and avoid hurting the crowd. Such a reaction would be legally acceptable since the suspect is at high risk of causing severe bodily harm, the offence is serious, and non-invasive methods have failed. In contrast, when Jordan was unarmed and just trying to flee, the use of deadly force would be a breach of the constitutional boundaries described in Garner. This case shows the working of the constitutional framework in reality, as there is a distinction between the necessary and the excessive responses taken during arrests.

My Opinion

In my opinion, police must be allowed to apply force during arrests, but on a more specific and open criterion. The objective reasonableness test is also worthy of use since it acknowledges that the officers are sometimes called upon to make immediate decisions in hostile situations. However, I concur with Triola (2023) that the qualified immunity theory, which shields police even when their actions appear disproportionate, adds to the lack of accountability. Whenever force is used more than minimally, the norms should mandate complete records, including the mandatory body-worn camera records, to uphold social confidence and equal justice. Furthermore, a well-defined statute of responsibility needs to be changed to assess disproportionate force in light of broader fundamental rights concepts rather than minor, factual precedents. These reforms would reduce the frequency of abuses, make those cases more responsible, and allow the use of force when justified.

Conclusion

Constitutional law allows force in arrests when objectively reasonable, as established in Graham v. Connor and refined by Tennessee v. Garner. Personal rights and law enforcement realities are balanced in these precedents. A fictitious scenario with an armed suspect illustrates the limits of governmental power and demonstrates how such use of force might be justified. Although I believe that the right to use force should be upheld, I would also suggest that changes be made to increase accountability, transparency, and public trust in using force. By improving the application of the reasonableness criteria, society will be better equipped to protect constitutional rights and public safety.