Which landmark case governs the reasonableness of the use of force?

The governing case for assessing the reasonableness of the use of force by law enforcement officers is Graham v. Connor. This decision established a standard for evaluating claims of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The case introduced the "objective reasonableness" standard, meaning that the appropriate measure for analyzing an officer's use of force is based on how a reasonable officer would have acted under similar circumstances at the time of the incident, taking into account the facts as they appeared to the officer on the scene.

This case emphasizes that the analysis of force used by law enforcement should consider the "totality of circumstances," including the severity of the crime, the immediate threat posed to officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. The relevance of Graham v. Connor highlights the importance of contextual factors and the need for a reaction that is proportional and reasonable in the eyes of a trained officer, aligning with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In contrast, the other case options deal with different aspects of law enforcement and constitutional rights. Miranda v. Arizona pertains to the rights of individuals during custodial interrogations, while Terry v. Ohio deals with the standard for stop-and-frisk procedures. Ferguson