The article presents a comparison of the reasonableness tests applied by trial courts considering police officer conduct in evaluating a qualified immunity defense to charges of 1983 violations. An example of this was when a law enforcement officer denied a suspect his or her right to substantive due process while in custody. The author provides an overview of the Section 1983 legal remedy and civil liability and discusses case law analyzing the ongoing concerns regarding the uncertain scope and reach of the statute. The purpose of the qualified immunity defense is presented and the evolution of the objective reasonableness test used for 1983 litigation is presented through discussions of the Supreme Court decisions in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982); Malley v. Briggs (1986); and Anderson v. Creighton (1987). The resulting test is a two pronged test wherein the trial court must determine if the right allegedly violated by the police conduct has been clearly established and whether a reasonable police officer would have known that the action taken violated that right. Further case law evolution has established that the state of the law does not allow the presentation of evidence of the officer’s subjective intent in order to rebut the use of the qualified immunity defense by the officer. The Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness test is a balancing test where the trial court must balance an individual’s Constitutional rights and interests with the police interest in effecting seizures. The author notes that although there are three types of Fourth Amendment cases, search, deadly force, and excessive force, the reasonableness test is the same for each. The author contrasts the balance of individual rights interests involved in Fourth Amendment violations versus the societal interests in safety and government function in 1983 litigation. Court movement, however is not always consistent and cases that are decided differently from the standards identified by the author are also presented for discussion. In conclusion the author offers his belief that the two tests should remain distinct from one another based upon the important differences in the interests that must be balanced in the various case types. 8 notes, 25 references, appendix