Which case emphasized that an officer's conduct must match that of an average officer to be considered reasonable?

The chosen case, Graham v. Connor, is pivotal in assessing the reasonableness of an officer's conduct during an arrest or use of force. This case established the "objective reasonableness" standard, which dictates that an officer's actions must align with what a typical officer would do under similar circumstances.

The Supreme Court outlined that when determining whether an officer's use of force was reasonable, courts must evaluate the situation from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, taking into account the circumstances they faced at the moment. This includes considerations such as the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

In contrast, the other cases listed focus on different aspects of law enforcement and constitutional rights. Brower v. County of Inyo pertains to the use of deadly force in a vehicular pursuit. Tennessee v. Garner deals with the constitutional limitations on the use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing suspects. Miranda v. Arizona addresses the procedural rights of suspects during custodial interrogation. Each of these cases is significant in its own right but does not specifically emphasize the comparative standard of an officer's conduct relative to