Tennessee v. Garner, (1985) is a landmark Supreme Court case that required the court to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspect. During this time the officer in question was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statue and Police Department policy. The statue stated, “[i]f, 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.” The department policy allows the use of deadly force in the case of burglary, but is more restrictive than the statue. This case never saw action after the incident until the suspect’s father brought the issue to the Federal District Court …show more content…
The court agreed with the Sixth Circuits determination that the use of deadly force is a seizure where they continued to explain the justifications. The constitutionality of a seizure needs to be weighing in the nature of the suspects Fourth Amendments rights against the interest that is led by the government. They found that the use of deadly force is the most intrusive type of seizure because it deprives them of their life. The court began its discussion on the constitutionality of the Tennessee Statue. The court argued that the use of deadly force is not in the interest of the individual or of the society. Justification for killing the suspect does not exist. It is not better that the suspect dies then let them escape. When a suspect poses no immediate threat the possibility of not apprehending the suspect does not justify the use of deadly force. The use of deadly force is a means when the suspect is violent or poses a threat however when there is not threat of serious harm it is not constitutional. They ruled the Tennessee statute unconstitutional against unarmed suspects and ruled that a police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him to death. Yet the court looked at the common law rule, which allowed the use of whatever force was necessary to arrest a fleeing felon, not a …show more content…
The dissenting opinion finds that the majority also ignored Payton v New York, which is a longstanding police practice that predates the Fourth Amendment while also receiving support from more than half of the state legislators. By the state legislatures judgment the use of deadly force is reasonable to protect the public from those who commit the crimes. The idea that a suspect of a burglary is able to flee, if unarmed, to avoid capture at the scene of a crime instead of a police officer using force is not accepted by the dissenting. If an officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect during a nighttime burglary, orders them to halt, and then fires his weapon when the suspect begins to flee, is acceptable. The majority was believed to have gone too far in invalidating the common law rule and police