Which case law concerns excessive force claims related to handcuffing too tightly and failing to double-lock?

• A. Gousse v City of Los Angeles
• B. Terry v Ohio
• C. Miranda v Arizona
• D. Baskin v Smith

Answer: (D)

Excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment are evaluated for objective reasonableness in how force is used during an arrest, including restraints. When someone is handcuffed, the way those restraints are applied counts as use of force. If the cuffs are cinched too tightly, causing pain or injury, and especially if the officer fails to double-lock—which prevents the cuffs from tightening further—the restraint can be seen as unreasonable. Baskin v. Smith addresses exactly these scenarios, holding that overly tight handcuffing and not double-locking can support an excessive force claim. The decision highlights that improper restraint that risks or causes injury is actionable under constitutional standards.

By comparison, Terry v. Ohio focuses on the legality of stop-and-frisk based on reasonable suspicion, Miranda v. Arizona covers rights during custodial interrogation, and Gousse v City of Los Angeles involves different aspects of police conduct. So Baskin v. Smith is the case that most directly deals with handcuffing tightness and double-locking in the context of excessive force.