What does Graham v Connor (1989) primarily address?

Graham v. Connor (1989) is a landmark case that primarily addresses the issue of excessive force in law enforcement. This case established a significant standard for determining whether law enforcement officers use excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court ruled that claims of excessive force should be evaluated based on the objective reasonableness standard, taking into account the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than the 20/20 hindsight of the situation. This framework emphasizes that law enforcement officers must balance the need for the use of force against the threat posed by the individual being apprehended, with the court recognizing that law enforcement often must make quick judgments in tense situations.

The other options focus on different legal principles: search and seizure laws relate to the protection of individuals during searches by law enforcement, Miranda rights violations involve the failure to inform suspects of their rights during interrogation, and deadly force use during arrests deals with the specific use of lethal measures by police officers. While these are all important aspects of law enforcement practices, they do not capture the central issue addressed in Graham v. Connor, which is specifically about excessive force.