Deadly Force Case Study

As a police officer here in Memphis this case is discussed in the academy and many have various viewpoints as to how this case changed police response to crime for the better as well as for the worse. Prior to this case it was not uncommon for deadly force to be used in a broad array of situations including property crimes such as burglary. Public sentiment up until this point was largely in support of the police and their need to stop the “bad guy”, a sort of don’t do the crime if you are not prepared for the possibility of being killed. The state and city legal codes stated that deadly force could be used to effect an arrest of a fleeing felon but did not go into details as to other necessary requirements to employ deadly force, the only
This ruling was appealed and eventually overturned by the Court of Appeals finding that this case violated the 4th amendment protections, finding that the use of deadly force is an absolute seizure of one's person and is subject to the same necessary reasonableness requirements. This finding is extremely important as it changes a legal standard for all police in the United States after the Supreme Court hears the case and delivers its affirmation of the Appeals Court response in 1985. Since 1985 police have followed the guidelines in law that resulted from the Supreme Court findings. The fleeing felon laws would now require the felon to be “violent” felon which posed a direct threat to the public or other police. The officer would be required to be able to articulate why he or she believed this suspect to be a threat and why they were believed to be a violent felon. The high court also found that no factual evidence existed at that time to support the argument that the threat of deadly force against fleeing felons would result in less fleeing felons and more successful arrests. The court found this policy is only more likely to end in deceased suspects without the benefits of criminal justice