In Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court explained: "Because 'the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application,' Bell v. Wolfish (1979) 441 U.S. 520, 559, however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, supra, 471 U.S., at 8-9 (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifies a particular sort of . . . seizure')." (Graham v. Connor, supra, 490 U.S. at p. 396.) In Graham, the United States Supreme Court continued: "The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments--in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving--about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, however, the 'reasonableness' inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.)" (Id at pp. 396-397)