Tennessee Vs Garner Case Study
Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the
United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of death or serious physical injury to others. It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger. The Federal District Court rejected the legal action, upholding the constitutionality of the officer’s action and the statute …show more content…
Under the Tennessee statute; if, after notice of the intention to arrest of the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest, the officer was cleared to use deadly force. Using deadly force is considered a seizure making it subject to the reasonableness of the Fourth Amendment, which makes the use of deadly force constitutional only when a felon threatens the safety of the officers, the public, and the officers have notified the felon that they will shoot to kill. The court decided that whenever an officer restrains the freedom of someone to walk away, then he has seized them. For that reason, because restraining a person is considered a seizure, the use of deadly force is subjected to the reasonableness requirement described in the Fourth Therefore, if deadly force is used to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, then it is constitutionally unreasonable. So, if a felony suspect is unarmed and not dangerous, then the use of deadly force cannot be used. However, if the officer has probable cause that the
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the
United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of death or serious physical injury to others. It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger. The Federal District Court rejected the legal action, upholding the constitutionality of the officer’s action and the statute …show more content…
Under the Tennessee statute; if, after notice of the intention to arrest of the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest, the officer was cleared to use deadly force. Using deadly force is considered a seizure making it subject to the reasonableness of the Fourth Amendment, which makes the use of deadly force constitutional only when a felon threatens the safety of the officers, the public, and the officers have notified the felon that they will shoot to kill. The court decided that whenever an officer restrains the freedom of someone to walk away, then he has seized them. For that reason, because restraining a person is considered a seizure, the use of deadly force is subjected to the reasonableness requirement described in the Fourth Therefore, if deadly force is used to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, then it is constitutionally unreasonable. So, if a felony suspect is unarmed and not dangerous, then the use of deadly force cannot be used. However, if the officer has probable cause that the