Patrick Morley
Vice President
McCarthy Byrnes
April 28, 2026
Over the next several weeks, I will be sharing a series of 40 essential use‑of‑force cases that every law enforcement professional, from police, sheriff, corrections, probation, parole, and federal- should understand, be able to explain, and recognize in day‑to‑day operations. These cases form the backbone of modern constitutional policing and define the legal boundaries for force, detention, arrest, pursuit, and custodial care.
This series is not ranked or ordered by importance. Every case matters. Every case is foundational.
While the focus is on United States Supreme Court decisions, officers must remember that state law, state constitutional provisions, and departmental policy may be more restrictive. Supreme Court rulings establish the constitutional floor, not the ceiling. Your state statutes, case law, and agency directives always control your daily practice.
What This Series Covers
Across the 40 cases, we will examine:
- Core Use of Force & Qualified Immunity
- Foundational Fourth Amendment & Arrest Standards
- Corrections and Jail Use of Force
- Police Pursuits & Vehicle‑Related Force
- Medical Care, Restraints & Positional Asphyxia
- Training, Policy & Municipal Liability
- Search, Seizure & Force‑Related Encounters
Each posting will include:
- A brief case summary
- A short fact pattern
- The constitutional rule
- Why the case matters for officers
- Practical takeaways for field application
A summary will be provided, but law enforcement personnel should read the full opinion to understand the facts, reasoning, and holdings.
We begin with five foundational Supreme Court decisions-classic black‑letter law every officer should know cold.
1. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Fact Pattern: A diabetic man, Graham, rushed into a convenience store and quickly exited. Officers stopped him, believing he was involved in a crime. During the stop, Graham was forcibly detained and injured, despite repeatedly requesting medical assistance.
Rule: All excessive‑force claims during a seizure are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. Courts must evaluate force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, without hindsight.
Why It Matters: This is the constitutional test for nearly every use‑of‑force incident in the field.
2. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Fact Pattern: Officers responded to a burglary. A 15‑year‑old unarmed suspect fled over a fence. An officer shot and killed him to prevent escape.
Rule: Deadly force may not be used on a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm.
Why It Matters: Garner established the modern deadly‑force framework and remains one of the most cited cases in policing.
3. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007)
Fact Pattern: A high‑speed pursuit reached speeds over 85 mph. An officer used a PIT‑style maneuver, causing the suspect to crash and suffer severe injuries. Dash‑cam video captured the entire event.
Rule: Deadly force to end a pursuit is reasonable when the suspect’s driving poses an extreme danger to the public. Courts must weigh the actual risk to the public, not just the suspect’s interest in avoiding capture.
Why It Matters: Video evidence can be decisive, and pursuits are judged by the danger created—not the underlying offense.
4. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014)
Fact Pattern: A suspect fled from a traffic stop, leading officers on a dangerous multi‑state pursuit. Even after being cornered, he continued trying to escape. Officers fired multiple rounds, killing the driver and passenger.
Rule: Officers may continue using deadly force until the threat has ended. They are not required to stop shooting once a suspect is initially struck if the threat persists. Qualified immunity applied.
Why It Matters: Reinforces that reasonableness is assessed over the entire encounter, not a single moment.
5. Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018)
Fact Pattern: Officers responded to a welfare check involving a woman with a knife. She approached another woman while holding the knife. An officer fired within seconds of arrival.
Rule: Even assuming a constitutional violation, the law was not clearly established, so qualified immunity applied. Courts must account for rapidly evolving, uncertain threat situations.
Why It Matters: Knife encounters unfold quickly, and officers are given legal latitude in ambiguous, high‑risk moments.
Parting Thoughts-for Now
These cases define the constitutional landscape of police and correctional use of force. They clarify when force is reasonable, when deadly force is justified, how courts evaluate rapidly evolving threats, when qualified immunity applies, and how agencies must train, supervise, and manage risk. They also highlight the increasing legal focus on medical care, restraint practices, de-escalation, and custodial conditions.
This series is designed to give officers and supervisors a working command of the law – practical, applicable, and grounded in real cases that shape daily policing.
There will be more cases coming soon. It is the hope of McCarthy Byrnes that this series will be a very valuable legal refresher.
