In the case Tennessee v. Garner the case is about officers shooting an unarmed suspected felon. The case was brought to court because the family had thoughts that the victim's constitution rights were in violation by the officers shooting an unarmed suspect. Although, the family probably did not know that if an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm either to the police officer or others, it has not been considered unreasonable to prevent escape by using the force of deadly harm. Some of the facts in the case is that the police were doing their routine job and get a call of a burglary taking place and the cops handle the call as normal. The suspect was leaving the scene of the crime. …show more content…
The primary issue is this case was whether law enforcement officials could use deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed suspect that is already known as a felon under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. The ruling of the Court of Appeals affirmed. The reasonableness of search and seizure had to become determined by looking at the manner of search and seizure in how it became carried out. If a Law officer has a reason to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious bodily harm, either to an officer or others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Judge Rehnquist, O’Connor and the Chief of Justice dissented arguing that a fatal seizure analysis should become conduct a careful balance between the public interest and the nature of the intrusion on the individual in question. The dissent argued that burglary was a serious felony and that force used could become found to become for justification purposes. The dissent criticized the majority for crafting a decision that would allow second guessing of police without providing the officers with adequate guidance on how to proceed in the