The trilogy of cases consists of Tennessee v. Garner (1985), Graham v. Connor (1989), and Saucier v. Katz (2001). "Garner" and "Graham" established the general approach to defining constitutional constraints on law enforcement's use of force, stating that such force constitutes a seizure under the fourth amendment and is to be objectively evaluated for reasonableness. The "Katz" decision impacted the way courts analyze civil rights lawsuits brought under Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code. After the "Katz" decision, there were numerous cases that evaluated whether police uses of force fell in the "hazy border" between the clearly excessive and the clearly constitutional as defined in "Katz." "Brosseau" was the U.S. Supreme Court's vehicle for addressing this issue. The case before the Court was an appeal by Brosseau to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to deny her summary judgment in the lawsuit brought against her by Kenneth Haugen, who was wounded by Brosseau when he sought to flee from her execution of an arrest warrant for drug and other nonviolent offenses. The Court held that although Brosseau's use of force was constitutionally questionable, it was in the "sometimes hazy border between excessive and acceptable force;" therefore, she was entitled to qualified immunity. This finding indicates that if an officer's use of force is not overtly excessive and unreasonable, then qualified immunity must be granted the officer against civil liability for the action. 27 notes