that's part of the graham v. connor framework, as well as generally adopted police practices. >> so using your four-step analysis to identify facts and circumstances, would you please summarize to the jury what information would have been available to a reasonable police officer in the defendant's position prior to his arrival at the scene that day. >> yes. so the reasonable officer on the scene standard is an objective one. we don't adopt an officer's perspective. we take the reasonable officer and put them into the actual officer's position and say what would the reasonable officer have perceived, seen, heard, or believed? in this case, prior to the reasonable officer in the defendant's position arriving on scene, he would have been aware that there was a call about counterfeiting. the individual was described as possibly intoxicated. the individual later identified as mr. floyd was identified as possibly intoxicated. two other officers had taken the call. had, i believe, taken someone into custody and called a code f

and there is an exhibit 106, there is the graham v. connor. now the authorized use of force in the state of minnesota exists primarily from a state statute. >> correct. >> in terms of the police department policy, it has to be consistent with the graham v. connor practice, correct. >> yes. >> it is fair to say that there's more to the analysis of graham v. connor then simile of the severity of the crime and immediacy of the threat or the active resistance. >> yes. >> in fact with the ultimate police department policy says here is because the test of reasonableness under the fourth amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, proper application requires careful attention to the fact and circumstances of each particular case including those three factors, correct, not limited to those three factors. >> correct rated. >> after the policy discusses those three factors, the policy goes on to read that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable. >> correct. >> on th

these are specific factors identified by the supreme court in the case of graham v connor that we use really in that second phase of analysis. the second step, remember, is assessing the threat presented by the individuals actions. and to understand graham v connor, you have to kind of understand what we mean by threat. first, when we are talking about the threat that an individual may present, it's not some abstract notion. it's not the general threat or consensual, it is specific. the threat of something. >> somebody that is running away and they present a threat of escape or a threat of assaulting an officer or the like. and further, we can define the threat and know the threat exists when the individual has the physical ability and the opportunity and apparent intention to cause whatever specific harm we are analyzing. so, for example imagine someone who's just standing there with nothing in their hands. they don't have the physical ability to hit an officer with a tire are in. so there is a threat to be hit with a tire iron, there is no ability of a threat. imagine somebody that

. >> how do you analyze that graham v. connor factor? >> in my experience, the higher risk an arrest may be, like say an armed bank robber, you know, armed bank robber, you would pull your gun, order them to the ground to take them into custody. you know their danger, their threat level right off the bat, whereas i can't imagine how many times i've been exposed to, personally, or have seen other officers dealing with a simple thing as a traffic stop or a jaywalking violation or some minor offense, and they end up in a fight for their life just because of the conduct of the individual they're contacting. >> okay. so, in terms of the severity of issue, is it always what was the initial response, in your -- or is it something that evolves over time? >> well, the initial response, of course, is important, but it's really how the person you're interacting with as a law enforcement officer responds to you. >> okay. and that's -- does that go into the second graham factor? >> it does, the imminent threat. >> right. and can you just explain the

>> under 609 we operate under use of force graham v connor. >> if i could explain 217. >> let's see. first go back to 5-303. 5-303 authorizes force, is that right? and you mentioned 609.06 statute authorizing force under certain circumstances? >> yes. >> and the phrase used for the authorization of force is what type of force? >> reasonable. >> and that force can be authorized under certain circumstances, is that right? >> yes. >> all right. so now if you would go to the next page, talks about the circumstances under which a police officer is authorized properly to use force. highlight that. what are the circumstances under which an officer is authorized to use force? >> an officer is authorized to use force affecting lawful arrest, executing a legal process, enforcing an order of the court, and any other duties imposed upon that officer. >> and that term reasonable force is further dylan rate -- delineated in the policy. >> yes. >> and look at under objection reasonable forges, could you please read that definition? >> yes, the amount and type of force that would be considered ratio

. >> the graham versus connor factor -- let me have a second. he talked yesterday and today about the graham v. connor factors. you have done thousands of use of force reviews. you are comfortable discussing graham versus connor? >> yes, i am. >> i would ask -- >> objection. can we have a sidebar? >> sure. my seminars are a great tool to help young homeowners who are turning into their parents. now, remember, they're not programs. they're tv shows. you woke up early. no one cares. yes. so, i was using something called homequote explorer from progressive to easily compare home insurance rates. was i hashtagging? progressive can't help you from becoming your parents, but we can help you compare rates on home insurance with homequote explorer. guess what. the waiter doesn't need to know your name. what do we want for dinner? guess what. burger... i want a sugar cookie... wait... i want a bucket of chicken... i want... ♪♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. it's so busted, you can't use this part of the screen. definitely cracked every phone i've owned. (vo) you br

that's part of the graham v. connor framework as certainly has been adopted into generally accepted police practices. >> using your four-step analysis to identify relevant facts and circumstances that would have been apparent to a reasonable officer on the scene, would you please summarize for the jury, based on your review, what information would have been available to a reasonable police officer in the defendant's position prior to his arrival at the scene that day? >> yes. so, the reasonable officer on the scene standard is an objective one. we don't just adopt an officer's idiosyncratic objectives. we take a reasonable officer and put them in the actual officer's position and say what would the reasonable officer have seen, heard or believed. in this case, prior to the reasonable officer in the defendant's position arriving on scene, he would have been aware that there was a call, i believe, dispatched about counterfeiting that the individual was described as possibly intoxicated. the individual later identified as

. >> graham v. connor. >> what were the samples ultimately tested by mss labs. >> we tested the samples that were requested by medical camp teeth examiner to be tested so we attested examples that were lame labeled as possible blood and also tested on urine that was collected at the autopsy. >> in terms of the testing that was performed at this lab, where those test pursuant to standard operating procedures at the lab. in the process was followed, all of those tests. >> yes. >> getting to the results from that testing, one for the notable findings from the testing pretty. >> most notable testings was the presence of fentanyl and 11 nanograms of - and the the breakdown product of fentanyl, and concentration of 5.6 nanograms per liter and in addition we found with an editing and 19 - >> each of the substances, 15180 you have indicated that these were the results from the hospital in this case is that right pretty. >> that is right pretty. >> so let's start with methamphetamine, what is it. >> so methamphetam

. >> one of the factors that you discussed in terms of the graham v. connory of the crime they were responding to. right? >> yes. >> and ultimately in terms of that, is it -- do reasonable police officers frequently encounter a situation starting out as a mild offense but elevates to something more serious? >> it's certainly possible. i don't think there's any reason to suggest that there were facts or circumstances of that here. >> if the officers who were initially on scene were struggling with an individual resulting in dispatch stepping up two additional officers code three that would at least imply that there was something more serious than just a counterfeiting? >> not necessarily. >> resulting in a dispatcher stepping up the call to code three? >> yes. >> and so, again, reasonable police officers in addition to relying on their training provided it meets professional standards, they also can rely on the experience? >> with the same caveats, yes. >> provided the prior experiences meet with professional standards? >> right. again, there's a difference be

. >> and ultimately into the gray graham v. connor. when the officer is at the scene. >> we document force. correct pretty. >> now again, you've had an opportunity to review a lot of the minneapolis police department's training materials. >> nine. >> some you found useful in some you didn't. it would be fair to say that year in review of those materials were more focused on defensive tactics and use of force training policies and things of that nature. >> correct. >> and i am presuming it the more recent materials would be more informative to you and informing your opinions. >> yes. on the term of the incident. >> and using the workforce director listed the programs that the officer derek chauvin took. >> yes. >> and you're familiar with according to those records that derek chauvin phase one defensive tactics in the year 2020, march of 2020 rated and did you review that training from march of 2020 pretty. >> i believe it is, yes pretty. >> we can take this down here. [inaudible]. >> i'm just trying to witness pretty can you see what i

. >> and glam raham versus connor factor -- if i could just have a second -- you've talked yesterday and today about the graham v con authornor factors are comfortable discussing graham versus connor? >> yes, i am. >> and i'd ask -- >> can we have a side bar? >> looks like we've jumped into another quick side bar. let me get over to chief ramsey. your reaction to what we've been listening to. >> well, so far, i mean, he clearly has a great deal of expertise in this particular area. you know, i think that it also points out best practices. it is not just about minneapolis, minute. there are certain standards especially as it relates to use of force that are pretty much universal. so i think that that is pretty much established through his testimony thus far. >> and we're right back in. let's jump back in to it. >> within the minneapolis police department policy, i'd ask the court to -- i would like you to publish exhibit 106. there is at exhibit 106, the in-cooi incorporation of gramt swrer suc graham versus connor. >> yes. >> and it exists primarily from a state statute? >> yes . >> and then that state statute h