Use Of Force — Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 368 (1989)
"Where, as here, the excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures" of the person.
". . . Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessary carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.
". . . Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
". . . 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.
". . . The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgements—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
". . . The "reasonableness inquiry in a excessive force case is an objective one: The question is whether the officer's actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
". . . An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional."