|
Student Publications Homepage
ARTICLE CONTENTS
[Pages 1367-1406]
TOP OF ARTICLE
Introduction
I. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Applications of the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Doctrine of
Substantive Due Process to Excessive Force Claims
A. Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence Prior to Graham v. Connor
B. Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Jurisprudence
Prior to Graham v. Connor
C. Graham v. Connor: The Fourth Amendment Is the Exclusive Standard Governing Claims of Excessive Force During an Arrest
II. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Post-Graham v. Connor Extensions of Fourth Amendment Protections and Restrictions on Substantive Due Process
A. Post-Graham Expansions of Fourth Amendment Protections
B. Post-Graham Restrictions on the Doctrine of Substantive Due Process
III. Judicial Approaches to Excessive Force Claims
in the Post-Arrest Context
A. The Substantive Due Process Approach: Excessive Force Claims of Pretrial Detainees Are Governed Exclusively by the Fourteenth Amendment
B. The Continuing Seizure Approach: The Fourth Amendment Continues to Provide Protection in the Post-Arrest Context
C. The Hybrid Model: The Fourth Amendment Applies
Until a Probable Cause Hearing
IV. Analysis: The Hybrid Approach Is the Most Consistent with U.S. Supreme Court Precedent and the Most
Institutionally Feasible
A. Courts Holding That Fourth Amendment Protection Ends with the Completion of an Arrest Ignore U.S. Supreme Court Precedent
B. Exclusive Reliance on the Doctrine of Substantive Due Process Conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Limiting That Doctrine
C. The Hybrid Approach Accounts for Both Lines of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Expanding the Fourth Amendment and Limiting the
Availability of Substantive Due Process Claims
D. The Hybrid Model Is the Most Practical Approach
Conclusion
|
