The landmark Supreme Court case that deals with 'Reasonableness' in use of force cases is:

• A. Graham v. Connor
• B. Mapp v. Ohio
• C. Terry v. Ohio
• D. Miranda v. Arizona

Answer: (A)

Determining whether police use of force is permissible rests on an objective standard of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. The key ruling says the assessment looks at what a reasonable officer on the scene would have done in the same situation, using the information available at that moment—not with the benefit of hindsight. Factors that matter include the seriousness of the alleged crime, whether there is an immediate threat, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to flee. The focus is on proportionality and necessity as perceived by a reasonably prudent officer at the time.

Other well-known cases address different aspects of law enforcement conduct: one deals with whether evidence obtained during unlawful searches must be excluded, another outlines rights during custodial interrogation, and another allows a limited stop-and-frisk based on reasonable suspicion. They do not establish the standard for evaluating the reasonableness of use of force. This is why Graham v. Connor is the landmark case for use-of-force reasonableness.