Tennessee v. Garner
Doctrine Established:Constitutional Limits on Deadly Force Against Fleeing Felons
Why is Tennessee v. Garner significant?
This landmark case held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. The decision effectively abolished the common law fleeing felon rule, which had permitted police to use deadly force against any fleeing felon. It fundamentally reshaped the law governing police use of force.
Why This Case Matters
This landmark case held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. The decision effectively abolished the common law fleeing felon rule, which had permitted police to use deadly force against any fleeing felon. It fundamentally reshaped the law governing police use of force.
Facts
Memphis police officers responded to a burglary call. Officer Elton Hymon arrived and observed Edward Garner, an unarmed fifteen-year-old, fleeing the scene by climbing a backyard fence. Hymon was reasonably sure Garner was unarmed and saw no evidence of a weapon. Nevertheless, under Tennessee's fleeing felon statute, Hymon shot Garner in the back of the head to prevent his escape, killing him. Garner had stolen a purse containing ten dollars.
Procedural History
Garner's father brought a Section 1983 action alleging that the use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court found the statute constitutional and entered judgment for the defendants. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit.
Issue
Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a police officer to use deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon.
Holding
The Court held that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon is constitutionally unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. The Tennessee statute authorizing deadly force against any fleeing felon was unconstitutional.
Reasoning & Analysis
Justice White, writing for the majority, applied the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard to the use of deadly force, treating the shooting as a seizure of the person. The Court balanced the government's interest in effective law enforcement against the suspect's fundamental interest in his own life. The Court found that the common law fleeing felon rule had developed in an era when all felonies were punishable by death and most felons were dangerous, but that modern conditions were different: most felonies are nonviolent, and police have other means of apprehension. The Court held that while the government's interest in preventing escape is legitimate, it does not justify the use of deadly force unless the suspect poses a threat to the safety of the officer or the community. The officer's belief that the suspect was unarmed and non-dangerous made the use of deadly force unreasonable.
Dissent
Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist, dissented, arguing that the majority's rule was unworkable and would endanger police officers by requiring them to make split-second judgments about a fleeing suspect's dangerousness. The dissent contended that the common law fleeing felon rule was a reasonable means of law enforcement that should not be displaced by the Court.
Key Quotes
“A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.”
“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”
“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.”
Legacy & Impact
Tennessee v. Garner is one of the most consequential criminal justice decisions of the twentieth century. It fundamentally changed police use-of-force policies nationwide, requiring departments to adopt restrictive deadly force policies. The case effectively ended the common law fleeing felon rule and established the framework that police use of deadly force is a Fourth Amendment seizure subject to reasonableness analysis. It has been cited in virtually every subsequent case involving police use of force, including Graham v. Connor.
Exam Relevance
Tennessee v. Garner is tested in both criminal law and constitutional law courses. In criminal law, it appears in questions about the use of deadly force, self-defense by law enforcement, and the limits of the fleeing felon rule. Students should be able to articulate the Court's balancing test and apply it to hypotheticals involving police use of force against suspects with varying levels of dangerousness.
Study Tips
- 1Remember the rule: deadly force against a fleeing felon is permitted only when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.
- 2Understand the historical context: the common law fleeing felon rule developed when all felonies were capital offenses, making the use of deadly force proportionate to the punishment.
- 3Connect this case to the Fourth Amendment reasonableness framework and Graham v. Connor's objective reasonableness standard for police use of force.
- 4Be prepared to discuss the policy implications of restricting police use of deadly force, including officer safety, community trust, and racial disparities.