Graham V. Hendrickson Case Brief

812 Words4 Pages

Jake Ruksakiati V-220 HW 3 Case one: Graham v. Connor (1989) Case two: Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015) Graham v. Connor: Facts: Graham is a diabetic and asked one of his friends to take him to a convenience store so he could purchase juice to counteract an insulin reaction he had been experiencing. While in the store Graham noticed that the line to check out was extremely long and decided to leave the store. Graham left the store extremely fast, raising suspicion about his activity to police officer Connor. The suspicion caused Officer Connor to pull over Graham and his friend for an investigative stop. Police respondents handcuffed Graham and ignored his plea for them to stop, resulting in injuries. Issue: Did the alleged excessive force …show more content…

Kingsley was ordered to take a piece of paper off of a light in his cell by Sergeant Stan Hendrickson and refused after being asked many times. Sergeant Hendricks was ordered to move Kingsley to another cell and remove the paper from his previous cell. While attempting to transfer Kingsley, an altercation occurred when Kinsley refused to comply with the officer’s orders. Kingsley was ripped out of his bed by his feet and they hit the bed frame so forcefully that he was not able to walk or stand. Once Kingsley reached his new cell, he resisted the officer’s attempt to remove his handcuffs, resulting in the officer putting his knee into Kingsley’s back and causing him great pain. Kingsley also reported that his head was smashed into a concrete bed frame and that he was also tased in the back. Kingsley sued the officers, including Hendrickson, stating that his due process rights under the 14th amendment were …show more content…

The due process clause protects pre-trial detainees from the use of excessive force, and according to a previous trial, Bell v. Wolfish, all a pre-trial detainee must do to prove excessive force, is provide objective evidence that the defendant acted out of “legitimate governmental objective”(Bell v. Wolfish). Hendrickson’s actions were not of a legitimate governmental objective and therefore were considered

Open Document