Known by most law enforcement officers as “the fleeing felon case,” Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985) is much more than that. It was in Garner that the U.S. Supreme Court first applied the “reasonableness” standard to police use of deadly force, paving the way for the landmark decision of Graham v.
What was the significance of Tennessee v Garner?
Garner set a standard for how courts handle police shootings of suspects. It provided a uniform way for courts to address the use of deadly force, asking them to decide whether a reasonable officer would have believed the suspect to be armed and dangerous. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
What is the difference between Graham v Garner and Connor?
Connor (490 U.S. 386 (1989)) four years later. While Graham expanded the concept of reasonableness by making it applicable to all police use of force deadly or otherwise, it did not replace Garner. Garner set and remains the standard for evaluating law enforcement use of deadly force. The case behind Tennessee v. Garner Tennessee v.
What factors did the court consider in the Garner case?
The court considered several factors. First, the court focused on whether Garner posed a threat to the officers. He was unarmed and fleeing when an officer shot him.
Was the government justified in killing Garner?
The Court noted that Garner was unarmed. It concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances of the case, the Government was not justified in using deadly force against the unarmed Garner. The Court cautioned that the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect is not always unconstitutional.
How did Tennessee v. Garner affect law enforcement?
In 1985 the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee v. Garner severely restricted the circumstances under which law enforcement officers may use deadly force to arrest a suspect.
When was the Tennessee vs Garner case?
1985Tennessee v. Garner / Date decidedThe Tennessee v. Garner case was decided on March 30, 1985. The case stemmed from an incident in which Edward Garner was shot and killed by police 1974 while trying to escape even though Garner was unarmed.
Why is Tennessee v. Garner so important?
In Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Tennessee statute that permitted police to use deadly force against a suspected felon fleeing arrest.
What city was the first to hire and award the title of police officer to a woman in 1910?
In 1910, the Los Angeles Police Department appointed the first regularly rated policewomen, Mrs. Alice Stebbins Wells.
What was the outcome of Scott v Harris?
The Court rules that a police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.
Which U.S. Supreme Court decision established the exclusionary rule?
Ohio. In 1914, the Supreme Court established the 'exclusionary rule' when it held in Weeks v. United States that the federal government could not rely on illegally seized evidence to obtain criminal convictions in federal court.
What was the dissenting opinion in Tennessee v Garner?
The Tennessee statute was unconstitutional as far as it allowed deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed fleeing felon. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a dissent stating that the majority went too far in invalidating long-standing common law and police practices contrary to the holding.
What happened in the Terry vs Ohio case?
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime.
Why did the police shoot and kill Garner?
A state police officer shot and killed Garner as he was fleeing the scene of the crime. Despite knowing that Garner was unarmed, the police officer believed that he was justified in shooting him to prevent his escape. Garner's father brought a constitutional challenge to the Tennessee statute that authorized the use of deadly force in this situation. The state prevailed in the trial court, but the state appellate court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional.
Why was Hymon justified in shooting Garner?
The District Court concluded that Hymon was justified in shooting Garner because state law allows, and the Federal Constitution does not forbid, the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felony suspect if no alternative means of apprehension is available.
What court case did Hymon go to?
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted in good faith reliance on the Tennessee statute, and was therefore within the scope of his qualified immunity. 600 F.2d 52 (1979). It remanded for reconsideration of the possible liability of the city, however, in light of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), which had come down after the District Court's decision. The District Court was
What was the case against Officer Hymon?
The complaint alleged that the shooting violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It named as defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, its Director, and the Mayor and city of Memphis. After a 3-day bench trial, the District Court entered judgment for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the Mayor and the Director for lack of evidence. It then concluded that Hymon's actions were authorized by the Tennessee statute, which in turn was constitutional. Hymon had employed the only reasonable and practicable means of preventing Garner's escape. Garner had "recklessly and heedlessly attempted to vault over the fence to escape, thereby assuming the risk of being fired upon." App. to Pet. for Cert. A10.
Why was the Supreme Court's decision to allow shooting a non-violent felon?
Shooting a non-violent fleeing felon historically would have been permitted because it would have been the same result as if he had been caught and convicted. This is no longer the situation, and the Supreme Court adjusted the rule regarding the use of deadly force to account for it.
What did Garner's father challenge?
Garner's father brought a constitutional challenge to the Tennessee statute that authorized the use of deadly force in this situation . The state prevailed in the trial court, but the state appellate court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. Opinions.
How old was the suspect when the officer used deadly force?
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.
What amendment did Tennessee v. Garner use?
Prior to Tennessee v. Garner, law enforcement uses of force had been analyzed by the federal courts in the light of the Fourteenth Amendment ’s Due Process Clause. [3] Under such an analysis, the court would focus on four factors:
What was the landmark case in Tennessee v. Garner?
1 (1985) is much more than that. It was in Garner that the U.S. Supreme Court first applied the “reasonableness” standard to police use of deadly force, paving the way for the landmark decision of Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386 (1989)) four years later.
What was the case in Plumhoff v. Rickard?
Rickard 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014). In this case, officers shot 15 rounds ending a police chase that exceeded speeds of 100 miles an hour. Here again, the Court looked to the reasonableness of the officer’s actions as a Fourth Amendment seizure, holding
What state allowed the use of deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon?
At the time, Tennessee, like some nineteen other states, allowed the use of deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon. [1] . Garner’s father sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for civil rights violations.
Which amendment is used to analyze cases involving deadly force?
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Garner, all federal courts were required to analyze cases involving law enforcement use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. Lesser uses of force, however, continued to be viewed under the older due process standard from the Fourteenth Amendment.
How many states have codified the common law?
1. The opinion in Garner noted that "Some 19 states have codified the common-law rule" ( Garner at 16). 2. Courts may find laws unconstitutional “on their face,” or as written and applied to everyone, or “as applied,” where the basis of the law may be constitutional, but it is used in a way that is not. 3.
Which amendment states that police use of deadly force is a seizure of a person?
Instead of relying on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, however, the Court ruled that police use of deadly force should be viewed in light of the Fourth Amendment as a seizure of a person.
What did the court focus on in the case of Garner?
First, the court focused on whether Garner posed a threat to the officers. He was unarmed and fleeing when an officer shot him. “Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.”.
When did the Supreme Court rule on Garner's death?
Garner’s death sparked over a decade of court battles resulting in a Supreme Court ruling in 1985.
What did the Justices say about the preventing of police from using deadly force against an unarmed, fleeing?
The Justices concluded that preventing officers from using deadly force against an unarmed, fleeing suspect would not meaningfully disrupt police enforcement.
What amendment does a police officer have to use to shoot a suspect?
Updated May 05, 2019. In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force against a fleeing, unarmed suspect. The fact that a suspect does not respond to commands to halt does not authorize an officer to shoot the suspect, if the officer reasonably believes ...
What did Garner steal?
Garner had stolen a purse and $10. The officer’s conduct was legal under Tennessee law. The state’s law read, "If, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.".
What rights did Garner's father have?
The respondent, Garner’s father, alleged that the officer had violated his son’s Fourth Amendment rights, his right to due process, his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, and his Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The court only accepted the Fourth Amendment and due process claims.
Which amendment states that police officers can not use deadly force against a fleeing, unarmed suspect?
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force against a fleeing, unarmed suspect.
What is the case of Hymon v. Tennessee?
Appellee-respondent, the deceased's father, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal court against Hymon, the city of Memphis, and other defendants, for asserted violations of Garner's constitutional rights. The District Court for the Western District of Tennessee held that Officer Hymon's actions were justified by a Tennessee statute that authorizes a police officer to "use all the necessary means to effect the arrest," if "after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist." Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-7-108 (1982). As construed by the Tennessee courts, this statute allows the use of deadly force only if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a felony, the officer warns the person that he intends to arrest him, and the officer reasonably believes that no means less than such force will prevent the escape. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 173 Tenn. 134, 114 S.W.2d 819 (1938). The District Court held that the Tennessee statute is constitutional and that Hymon's actions as authorized by that statute did not violate Garner's constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed on the grounds that the Tennessee statute "authorizing the killing of an unarmed, nonviolent fleeing felon by police in order to prevent escape" violates the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 710 F.2d 240, 244 (1983).
Why did Hymon shoot Garner?
The District Court concluded that Hymon was justified in shooting Garner because state law allows, and the Federal Constitution does not forbid, the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felony suspect if no alternative means of apprehension is available. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A9-A11, A38. This conclusion made a determination of Garner's apparent dangerousness unnecessary. The court did find, however, that Garner appeared to be unarmed, though Hymon could not be certain that was the case. Id., at A4, A23. See also App. 41, 56; Record 219. Restated in Fourth Amendment terms, this means Hymon had no articulable basis to think Garner was armed.
How tall was Garner?
In fact, Garner, an eighth-grader, was 15. He was 5' 4" tall and weighed somewhere around 100 or 110 pounds. App. to Pet. for Cert. A5.
What did the District Court conclude about Monelldid not affect its decision?
While acknowledging some doubt as to the possible immunity of the city, it found that the statute, and Hymon's actions, were constitutional. Given this conclusion, it declined to consider the "policy or custom" question.
What statute states that a police officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest?
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.
When an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person?
Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2578, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). While it is not always clear just when minimal police interference becomes a seizure, see United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980), there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
Which amendment allows the use of force to arrest a fleeing felon?
It is insisted that the Fourth Amendment must be construed in light of the common-law rule, which allowed the use of whatever force was necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon, though not a misdemeanant. As stated in Hale's posthumously published Pleas of the Crown:
U.S. Supreme Court
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.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
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.
What statute states that a police officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest?
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.
When an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person?
While it is not always clear just when minimal police interference becomes a seizure, there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
Why is the use of deadly force a last resort?
The public interest involved in the use of deadly force as a last resort to apprehend a fleeing burglary suspect relates primarily to the serious nature of the crime. Household burglaries not only represent the illegal entry into a person's home, but also "pos[e] real risk of serious harm to others."...Moreover, even if a particular burglary, when viewed in retrospect, does not involve physical harm to others, the "harsh potentialities for violence" inherent in the forced entry into a home preclude characterization of the crime as "innocuous, inconsequential, minor, or `nonviolent.'" Solem v. Helm, (BURGER, C. J., dissenting). Because burglary is a serious and dangerous felony, the public interest in the prevention and detection of the crime is of compelling importance. Where a police officer has probable cause to arrest a suspected burglar, the use of deadly force as a last resort might well be the only means of apprehending the suspect.
How old was the suspect when the officer used deadly force?
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.
Why is the court silent on the use of deadly force?
The Court's silence on critical factors in the decision to use deadly force simply invites second-guessing of difficult police decisions that must be made quickly in the most trying of circumstances. Police are given no guidance for determining which objects , among an array of potentially lethal weapons ranging from guns to knives to baseball bats to rope, will justify the use of deadly force. The Court also declines to outline the additional factors necessary to provide "probable cause" for believing that a suspect "poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury," when the officer has probable cause to arrest and the suspect refuses to obey an order to halt…We can expect an escalating volume of litigation as the lower courts struggle to determine if a police officer's split-second decision to shoot was justified by the danger posed by a particular object and other facts related to the crime…
Is the use of deadly force against a felony a constitutionally unreasonable crime?
It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape . Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
Who was the decedent of the appellee respondent?
He heard a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The fleeing suspect, who was appellee-respondent's decedent, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence at the edge of the yard.
The Case Behindtennessee v. Garner
A Change in Standards For Deadly Force
- Prior to Tennessee v. Garner, law enforcement uses of force had been analyzed by the federal courts in the light of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Under such an analysis, the court would focus on four factors: 1. The need for the use of force; 2. The proportionality of the force used; 3. The extent of injury to the suspect; 4. The s...
Garner’Slegacy
- After the Supreme Court’s decision in Garner, all federal courts were required to analyze cases involving law enforcement use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. Lesser uses of force, however, continued to be viewed under the older due process standard from the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1989, the USSC issued its opinion in Graham v. Co…
Taking A Step Backward?
- WhileGarnerand its offspring have created a clear, simple, fair and well thought out standard, the conceptual underpinning of objective reasonableness has developed some very vocal critics. These critics are often untrained and ill-informed, with a political agenda, and are quick to judge police shootings based on little more than a snippet of video on the nightly news. They malign th…