When a police officer engages with a citizen—during a stop, an arrest, or a pursuit—the law grants that officer a troubling amount of discretion. While most citizens understand that law enforcement has authority, fewer realize how flexible and powerful that authority becomes the moment "reasonable force" enters the conversation. The Supreme Court has made it clear that officers are given latitude in these situations, but where is the line drawn—and how often is it crossed? Two major cases—Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989)—have defined the constitutional boundaries of force used during searches, seizures, and arrests. Yet even within these rulings, the balance of power heavily favors law enforcement, often leaving the public at a disadvantage in interpreting what counts as “reasonable” behavior by police. Tennessee v. Garner: Deadly Force and the Threat ThresholdIn Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court tackled the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The Court concluded that it is unconstitutional for police to use deadly force to stop an unarmed suspect who does not pose an immediate threat. In the words of the Court:"Such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others This was a critical ruling. It emphasized that not every fleeing felon is fair game. Instead, police must have probable cause to believe the suspect is a real danger. Still, this language leaves room for interpretation. What does “significant threat” mean in the heat of the moment? Who decides when deadly force becomes "necessary"? The answer is, more often than not, the officer on the scene—and that officer’s judgment is later measured by what courts call “objective reasonableness.”Graham v. Connor: Reasonableness Through the Officer's EyesFour years later, Graham v. Connor gave us the constitutional framework that continues to shape excessive force claims. The ruling underscored that any use of force must be judged based on the perspective of a “reasonable officer on the scene,” not in hindsight. In a famous passage, the Court noted:"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving..."This language may seem logical; after all, police often face unpredictable situations. But in practice, it builds a legal buffer around nearly every decision an officer makes, so long as the court finds the action “objectively reasonable.” Crucially, the Court added that an officer's intent is irrelevant. If the use of force is objectively reasonable, it doesn't matter if the officer acted out of malice or bias. Conversely, even good intentions can’t justify objectively unreasonable force. This makes it exceptionally difficult to hold officers accountable based on internal motivations—even when those motivations clearly impact outcomes on the grounDiscretion: A Shield or a Sword?The core issue is this: the law presumes good faith and sound judgment from police, while asking the public to accept the gray zones where officers operate. The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures, but the definitions of what is "reasonable" seem to shift depending on whether you're holding a badge or being held at gunpoint.That legal gray area gives officers significant discretion—not only to stop, search, and seize, but to use force under a shield of perceived necessity. When courts defer so heavily to “split-second judgment,” it becomes nearly impossible to challenge decisions that result in injury or death, especially when the officer can claim fear, confusion, or urgency. Accountability Must Start With the Law If reform is to be more than a political slogan, we must start by acknowledging the expansive legal power the police hold. We must scrutinize not just how officers act, but the laws that protect those actions—especially in the name of “reasonable” force.The real problem isn't always the individual officer; it's the legal standard that gives that officer the benefit of the doubt before the public even has a chance to ask questions. Until we reframe how discretion is granted—and limited—we will continue to see justice diluted in the shadow of “reasonable” force.