Supreme Court case to shape Ferguson investigation

It started with orange juice: Decades-old case shapes how Ferguson police officer to be judged

Share with others:


Print Email Read Later

WASHINGTON — It started with a bottle of orange juice 30 years ago.

The national legal standards that govern when police officers are justified in using force against people trace their lineage to a 1984 case from Charlotte, N.C. In that case, a diabetic man’s erratic behavior during a trip to a convenience store for juice to bring up his low blood sugar led to a confrontation with officers that left him with injuries from head to foot.

Dethorne Graham’s subsequent lawsuit against police for his injuries led to a 1989 Supreme Court decision that has become the prism for evaluating how police use force. As soon as Ferguson, Mo., police Officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown on Aug. 9, the Graham v. Connor case became the foundational test for whether Officer Wilson’s response was appropriate or criminal.

To most civilians, an 18-year-old unarmed man may not appear to pose a deadly threat. But a police officer’s perspective is different. And that is how an officer should be judged after the fact, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1989 opinion. “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,” Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote.

The sequence of events that led to the death of Mr. Brown, a black man shot by a white officer, remains unclear. An autopsy paid for by Mr. Brown’s family concluded that he was shot six times, twice in the head. The shooting has prompted multiple investigations and triggered days of rioting reflecting long-simmering racial tensions in a town of mostly black residents and a majority white police force.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday that the incident had opened a national conversation about “the appropriate use of force and the need to ensure fair and equal treatment for everyone who comes into contact with the police.”

A grand jury is hearing evidence to determine whether Officer Wilson, 28, who has policed the St. Louis suburbs for six years, should be charged in Brown’s death. The key question will be: Would a reasonable police officer, with a similar background as Wilson, have responded the same way?

The answer is typically yes. “Except in the most outrageous cases of police misconduct, juries tend to side with police officers and give them a lot of leeway,” said Woody Connette, the attorney who represented Mr. Graham.

In Mr. Graham’s case, his behavior as he was experiencing low blood sugar looked similar to that of a belligerent drunk. On Nov. 12, 1984, Mr. Graham, 39, felt the onset of an insulin reaction, and asked a friend to drive him to buy orange juice that would increase his blood sugar, Mr. Connette said. According to the Supreme Court, Mr. Graham rushed into the store and grabbed the orange juice but saw the line was too long, so he put the juice down and ran back to the car.

Charlotte police Officer M.S. Connor thought this was suspicious and followed him. When Officer Connor stopped Mr. Graham’s friend’s car, Mr. Graham explained he was having a sugar reaction. But Officer Connor didn’t believe him.

As Officer Connor was following up with the store to see whether anything had happened, Mr. Graham left the car, ran around it twice, then sat down and passed out for a short time. Other police officers arrived, and Mr. Graham was rolled over and handcuffed. The officers lifted Mr. Graham from behind and placed him face down on the car.

When Mr. Graham asked the officers to check his pocket for something he carried that identified him as a diabetic, one of the officers told him to “shut up” and shoved his face against the hood of the car. Then four officers grabbed Mr. Graham and threw him head-first into the police car. Once police confirmed that no crime had been committed inside the convenience store, they dropped off Mr. Graham at his home and left him lying in the yard, Mr. Connette said. Mr. Graham had suffered a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead and an injured shoulder in the incident.

Mr. Graham, who died in 2000, lost in his first jury trial, and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which set out the standards still used today. He then had a new trial, which he also lost.

The Graham decision found that an officer’s use of force should be considered on the facts of each case. Officers are to weigh the seriousness of the crime, whether the suspect poses a threat to the safety of police or others, and whether the suspect is trying to resist arrest.

Since then, police officers across the United States have been trained to use force in that context. States and police departments have their own policies, but the standards set in the Graham case are always the minimum. Some departments, such as the Los Angeles Police Department, even reference Graham v. Connor in their manuals. The police force in St. Louis, where officers shot and killed a knife-wielding robbery suspect 10 days after the Ferguson shooting, also alludes to the Graham standards.

The jury that acquitted four Los Angeles police officers in the beating of Rodney King in the early 1990s was instructed to consider the Graham standards — the officers’ “reasonable perceptions” — as they deliberated. Officers are to be judged by those standards, even if things look different to people who weren’t involved.

“What a police officer, what she perceives at the moment of application of force, may seem very different in the hard light of the following Monday morning,” said Ken Wallentine, a recently-retired police chief and former law professor in Utah. “And there’s the rub.”

United States - North America - United States government - California - Eric Holder - Los Angeles - Supreme Court of the United States - Missouri - St. Louis - North Carolina - Charlotte - Rodney King - Michael Brown - William Rehnquist


Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here