Tennessee vs Garner
casebrief
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
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