Which doctrine do courts use to describe evaluating the officer's response to resistance?

• A. Objective Reasonableness
• B. Reasonable Belief
• C. Proportionality
• D. Due Process

Answer: (A)

Courts assess an officer’s use of force using an objective reasonableness standard. This means the question isn’t what the officer personally believed or intended, but whether a reasonable officer on the scene, judging by the totality of the circumstances, would have acted as the officer did. The analysis looks at factors like the seriousness of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to flee. This framework comes from Graham v. Connor and focuses on how the force appeared to a reasonable officer at the moment, not with the benefit of hindsight.

Reasonable Belief would shift the focus to the officer’s own mindset, which this standard does not do. Proportionality isn’t the primary doctrinal test for evaluating the reasonableness of force in the moment, though proportionality can be considered as part of the broader context. Due Process governs failures of fundamental fairness in other contexts and is not the framework used to judge whether an officer’s response to resistance was reasonably executed under the Fourth Amendment.