What is NOT considered when applying the 3-Prong Test for Reasonableness?

The reason that the officer's intent is not considered when applying the 3-Prong Test for Reasonableness is rooted in the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor. This test evaluates the use of force in a law enforcement context based on three primary factors: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

The focus of the test is on the circumstances surrounding the incident from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the time, rather than the officer's subjective state of mind or intentions. This emphasizes an objective standard rather than a subjective one, ensuring that officer actions are evaluated based on the immediacy and severity of the situation rather than personal motivations or intentions.

In contrast, the other factors—severity of the crime, the suspect's attempts to escape, and threats to officer safety—are all critical in determining the appropriateness of the force used, as they directly relate to the perceived imminent danger and necessary response by the officer in that moment.