Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Facts: Police were called to stop a suspected burglary. When the police arrived, 15-year-old
Victim—Edward Garner—was seen fleeing the scene of the alleged burglary. The shooting
police ofticer, Elton Hymon, admitted to having seen no weapon on Garner with the aid of a
flashlight and was “reasonably sure” that Garner was unarmed. Ofticer Hymon ordered him to
stop, but Garner continued fleeing and attempted to leap over a fence to escape at which point
he was shot by Hymon in the back of his head. Garner was taken to the hospital where he died
a short time later. Garner’s father sued seeking damages for violations of Garner’s constitutional
rights. The district court held that the ofticer’s actions were authorized by the Tennessee statute.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The State of
Tennessee appealed.
Issue: Whether the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed
suspected felon is constitutional.
Holding: Yes. Such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the
ofticer has probably cause to believe that the suspect poses a signiticant threat of death or
physical injury to the ofticer or others.
Rationale:
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 court
must weigh the nature of the intrusion of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights against the
government’s interests which justitied the intrusion. The State of Tennessee failed to prove that
its interest in effective law enforcement by shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect outweighs the
suspect’s fundamental interest in his own life.
The Tennessee statue authorizing ofticers to use deadly force is constitutionally reasonable only
if they have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious harm to their
government interest for using it. This case also claritied and modernized American citizens’
rights against unjust seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
