What is the term used by SCOTUS when assessing the balance between government force and citizens' rights?

The term used by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) when assessing the balance between government force and citizens' rights is "Objective Reasonableness." This concept primarily arises from the case Graham v. Connor, where the Court established that the use of force by law enforcement must be evaluated based on what a reasonable officer would have perceived at the moment of the incident, considering the totality of the circumstances.

Objective Reasonableness is crucial because it emphasizes the perspective of the officer in a tense and rapidly evolving situation. This standard is designed to protect officers from hindsight bias, allowing them to assess their use of force based on what they knew at the time rather than how events unfolded after the fact. It incorporates principles of reasonableness and necessity, ensuring that the use of force is not excessive in relation to the perceived threat.

In contrast to other potential answers, terms like "Interest Balancing," "Proportional Response," and "Reasonable Suspicion" do not specifically capture the judicial standard by which the Supreme Court evaluates law enforcement actions in regard to the Fourth Amendment. Interest Balancing refers more broadly to weighing competing governmental and individual interests, Proportional Response typically pertains to military or tactical situations, and Reasonable Suspicion