Use of ForceQuestion 51 of 200

The U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386 established that the constitutional reasonableness of force is judged from:

a.The subjective intent of the officer at the moment force was applied, since a good motive is what makes a use of force reasonable
b.The perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, considering the totality of the circumstances
c.The view of the suspect who was subjected to the force, because the person on the receiving end is best placed to say whether it was excessive at the time
d.An outcomes-based test focused on the injuries actually inflicted, so that force producing no injury is reasonable and force producing injury is not

Explanation

Graham v. Connor adopted the objective-reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment seizure-by-force claims: courts judge force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, without 20/20 hindsight, considering all the facts and circumstances, including the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to flee. Subjective intent (a) is not the test; suspect perception (c) is not the standard; outcome-based liability (d) was rejected. Although Graham concerns peace officers, its reasonableness framework informs private-security civil standards.

Law Reference: Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386

This topic, taught in full in the California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide. California Guard Card — Complete Study Guide (2026) — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 · 14-day refund →

Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.

Own the complete California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 →

Related questions on this topic

Last reviewed: · editorial process

PrepPass team · Verified against California BSIS Guard Card Exam · How we review
Report