When Force Is Used

Graham v. Connor — objective reasonableness, and what comes after

Force used during a stop or an arrest is a seizure, which means the question is not whether it was necessary in hindsight but whether it was reasonable. Graham v. Connor set the test that every court in the country still runs: objective reasonableness, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the benefit of what came out later.

The severity of the crime at issue.
Whether the person posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others.
Whether the person was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
The calculus allows for the fact that officers are often forced to make split second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.

Graham v. Connor

Deadly force has its own rule and it is narrower. Tennessee v. Garner holds that using deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect is unreasonable unless the officer has probable cause to believe the person poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Fleeing, by itself, is not that threat. The case is where the older rule permitting force against any fleeing felon stopped being law.

The remedy for a federal right violated by somebody acting under colour of state law is a civil action under section 1983. It is a lawsuit, filed by the person, and it sits entirely outside the criminal case that may also be running. It is not a complaint to a department, it is not something a prosecutor brings, and nothing about it is automatic.

42 U.S.C. § 1983

There is a deadline, and it is shorter than people expect. Section 1983 carries no limitation period of its own, so federal courts borrow the state's general personal injury limit. For Ohio the Sixth Circuit settled on the two year limit in section 2305.10. Two years from the event, not from the end of the criminal case, and a missed limit ends a claim regardless of what happened.

Qualified immunity is the defence that decides most of these cases. An officer sued individually is protected unless the right they violated was clearly established at the time, meaning existing precedent had placed the question beyond debate. A court can find that force was unreasonable and still dismiss the claim because no earlier case had said so clearly enough. It is a doctrine argued over openly, and stating it plainly is more useful than leaving it out.

A claim under state law against a city, county or township runs through a separate immunity scheme in Chapter 2744, with its own list of exceptions.
A department's internal complaint process is not a lawsuit and does not extend any deadline.
Recordings and reports of the same event are governed by the public records section, which has its own timetable and its own exceptions.

This is the framework, not an assessment. Whether any particular use of force was reasonable, whether immunity applies, which defendants a claim can name and what deadline actually governs are the questions a case turns on, and they turn on facts and on precedent that moves. A licensed Ohio attorney, early rather than late, is who answers them.

Sources for this section (10)

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) — Force during a seizure is judged by objective reasonableness from the officer's perspective at the time
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) — Deadly force against a fleeing suspect is unreasonable absent probable cause of a significant threat of death or serious injury
42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Civil action for the deprivation of a federal right under colour of state law
U.S. Const. amend. IV — Searches and seizures
Browning v. Pendleton (6th Cir.), 869 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1989) (en banc) — Ohio's two year personal injury limit is the one borrowed for a section 1983 claim
ORC 2305.10 — Two year limit on a bodily injury action, which is the limit borrowed for a federal civil rights claim
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) — Qualified immunity protects an official unless the right violated was clearly established
ORC 2744.02 — Immunity of a political subdivision, and the exceptions to it
ORC 2744.03 — Defences and immunities of a political subdivision and its employees
ORC 149.43 — Availability of public records, including law enforcement video

Legal information, not legal advice. Verified as of September 2026. Talk to a licensed Ohio attorney about your situation.

When Force Is Used

Words in this section

Nearest pages