Which case established the principle of Objective Reasonableness?

The principle of Objective Reasonableness was established by the case of Graham v. Connor. This legal standard is critical in evaluating whether a law enforcement officer’s use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The decision set forth that the reasonableness of an officer's actions in a given situation must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the benefit of hindsight. This means that factors like the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or others, and the suspect's resistance to arrest are all considered in determining whether the use of force was justified.

The other cases mentioned address different aspects of law enforcement practices. Tennessee v. Garner deals with the use of deadly force in apprehending fleeing felons. Miranda v. Arizona focuses on the necessity of informing suspects of their rights during interrogation. Ferguson v. Charleston touches on the constitutional implications of a police department’s practices but does not establish the principle of Objective Reasonableness. By understanding these distinctions, one can appreciate how Graham v. Connor specifically laid the groundwork for evaluating police conduct in the context of the Fourth Amendment.