Tennessee vs Garner

Topics: Police, Deadly force, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Pages: 8 (3123 words) Published: January 1, 2013
Brief Fact Summary. The officers in question shot an unarmed suspected felon. This case was instituted by the victim’s family alleging that the victim’s constitutional rights were violated by the officers. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If an officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm either to fellow officers or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Facts. The police were summoned to stop a suspected burglary. As the police arrived, Victim was seen fleeing the seen of the alleged burglary. An officer saw Victim, and could see that Victim possessed no weapon, and yelled at him to stop. Victim continued to climb the wall to escape at which point he was shot and killed. Victim’s father brought this action seeking damages for a violation of the Victim’s constitutional rights. The judge found the officer’s actions were constitutional. The Appellate Court reversed and the State appealed. Issue. Whether law enforcement officials can use deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed suspected felon under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. justi

A Tennessee statute provides that, if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old, and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 497 U. S. 7-22. (a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 471 U. S. 7-12. (b) The Fourth Amendment, for purposes of this case, should not be construed in light of the common law rule allowing the use of whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon. Changes in the legal and technological context mean that that rule is distorted almost beyond recognition when literally applied. Whereas felonies were formerly capital crimes, few are now, or can be, and many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies. Also, the common law rule developed at a time when weapons were rudimentary. And, in light of the varied rules adopted in the States indicating a long-term movement away from the common law rule, particularly in the police departments themselves, that rule is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute. There is no indication that...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay on Garner v. Tennessee
  • Tennessee V. Garner Essay
  • Tennesee vs. Garner Essay
  • “Use of Deadly Force” Tennessee V. Garner, Et Al Essay
  • Essay about Tennessee V Garner
  • Tennessee v Garner Essay
  • Essay on Dunlap vs. Tennessee Valley Authority
  • Tennessee Williams and Works, a Look at Illusion vs. Reality Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free