He missed five and a half weeks of work at the North Carolina Department of Transportation. We think Petitioner has misunderstood the Court of Appeals decision in this case. Petitioner was also asked twice whether he wanted to go to the hospital or needed medical assistance and he said no. Whether the policeman is liable for it, on the other hand, would depend upon whether a reasonable policeman could have believed that he was using no more than was necessary.

The problem with this case is that the 4th Circuit opinion, and I repeat, allows… at least allows, if not requires… the consideration of subjective intent.

it would appear that the officer’s statements would have no relevance. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) Graham v. Connor. And similarly, in the 4th Amendment area, the question again is what is a reasonable range of choice for police officers in carrying out their duties.

Whether he was Upon seeing a long line at the store, Graham quickly left and asked Berry to drive him to a friend’s house instead. Indeed, at the trial here, no one ever suggested that subjective intent was an element. Mr. Beaver, you have to run that one by me again, where you said that you cannot conceive of how, you say, a pretextual stop is always objectively unreasonable. May it please the Court, this decision is wrong, and it is wrong for four reasons. If we adopt a purely objective standard as everyone suggests, is the language that the officers used relevant or not? Does the jury decide reasonableness in every case? Well, they have sufficient factual basis for a Terry stop. It should be recognized that there is a range of actions that would be reasonable for the police to take in light of their appraisal on the scene, on the spot of the ambiguous and changing circumstances as they see them.

But the one comment that I wish you’d comment on is the second paragraph of Footnote 3, when the Court points out that they don’t think there should be a conceptual difference between 8th Amendment standard and the 4th Amendment standard. Initially, all parties in briefs concede that the Petitioner was seized in this case, when Officer Connor informed the Petitioner and Berry that they were not free to leave. Dump the man in the car and take him home and dump him on the lawn? Should the jury be instructed that if the facts are as you state them to be they must bring in a verdict for the Plaintiff? It might be an insulin reaction, a sugar reaction. If they found it in the way the defense said… there are some cases which are clear.

On November 12, 1984, Dethorne Graham was not a convict or a criminal. –We read the Court of Appeals decision in this case and in Justice subsequent en banc decision to explain that it was an objective test: that it’s a legal description of that level of force that is more than simply a battery under state law and reaches the level of a constitutional violation.