The Supreme Court in the US struck down a Tennessee State law that had permitted the usage of deadly force on alleged fleeing felony culprits. The decision found out that apprehending such a fleeing suspect through the use of deadly force amounts to seizure subject to justification requirement under the Fourth Amendment hence declaring such laws unconstitutional. The court suggested that the proper rule allowing the deadly application of force should apply when the alleged criminal is a substantial risk to life or severe physical injury. In the case, the petitioner argued that his son’s rights were violated by police shooting and killing him. The argument was dismissed at the Federal District Court hence prompting appeals up to the Supreme Court. This paper discusses the case and the ruling into details and its significance.
Key words: Deadly force, felony, Supreme Court ruling, Fourth Amendment, Tennessee v. Garner.
Introduction
On 17th March 1985, the United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision which established the assessment for legal application of deadly force by police officers while dealing with fleeing felony suspects. The case popularly known as Tennessee v. Garner remanded and reversed the District Court ruling on the same matter. Using the Fourth Amendment, the court articulated that the shooting of the escaping individual was a seizure. It also decided that the action taken by the officers would have only been constitutionally if it was reasonable enough to do so. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the Tennessee State law, prompting the state to petition the case at the Supreme Court in an attempt to defend its law. The case is fundamental since it set the grounds for other courts to make rulings about similar cases.
The case became important historically especially in the principle of objective reasonableness in police brutality cases. The courts charged with the task of establishing the reasonableness of a police officer’s approach regarding the usage of deadly force on escaping suspects have since been led by the ruling. The ruling by the Supreme Court established the rule of law that if the police officer had reasons to consider that the apparent criminal is a serious risk likely to harm colleague officers or other people; it is constitutionally reasonable to avert the escape using a deadly force. The ruling attracted significant media coverage owing to the increased cases of police shootings in the US. The issue over the incident and the ruling has always remained when the police officers should use deadly force on a fleeing felony suspect. The use of deadly force on such suspects by law enforcement officers and the general police brutality has remained a hotly contested issue with some criticizing the ruling and others supporting it.
Background of the Case
In October 1974, police officers Wright and Hymon were requested to respond to a housebreak in progress (Blume III 1984). They were serving at Memphis Police Department. On arrival at the scene, a woman by the door informed the officers how she heard of a glass break while someone was breaking into the next door house. One of the officers, Hymon went around the house leaving his colleague, Wright on the radio call. At the backyard, he saw somebody running from the back side of the house the woman was claiming to have been broken into. After flashing his light on the subject, he saw the individual ducked beside the fence approximately forty feet away. Hymon ascertained that the suspect was not armed since he was able to clearly see his face and arms thus reasonably confirming that he was unarmed (Powell, 1984). The individual was ordered to stop, but he assumed the directive and endeavored to escape. The officer was reasonably persuaded that if the person made jumped over the fence, it would have not been possible to arrest him, therefore, he decided to fire at him thus striking his head form the back. The suspected criminal, a 15 year-old boy who was recognized as Edward Garner, later succumbed to the injuries from the bullet on the operation table after being rushed to the hospital by the aid of an ambulance. The most unfortunate part of the incident was that the suspect was unarmed.
In the incident, the police officer, Hymon acted pursuant to the Tennessee State law and the policy provided for by the Memphis Police Department. According to the policy, the law enforcers are allowed and trained to apply deadly force to apprehend an escaping felony suspect after exhausting all other sensible means of arresting the suspect. The death of Garner prompted his father, to file a case against the Memphis Police Department, the City, Hymon, and Police Director on the grounds of civil rights action at the Federal District Court. In the suit, the plaintiff argued that the officer violated his son’s constitutionally provided rights by shooting and killing his son. He also argued that the other respondents –Director of Police, Memphis Police Department and the City failed to provide due care regarding the conduct of their officer –Hymon hence leading to the death of Garner. The family of Garner was seeking damages for the violation of his rights established on the basis of the United State Constitution. According to the lawsuit, all the respondents in the case were supposed to be equally held responsible for Garner’s death. The trial occurred in August 1976 at the Federal District Court. After the end of the accuser’s case, the jury approved a motion for a fixed decision favoring Memphis Police Department and the City who were the respondents (Powell, 1984).
Moreover, on petition, the Sixth Circuit confirmed the section of the lower court’s ruling discharging the allegations against all of the respondents. However, it was remanded by the court that an intervening verdict by the Supreme Court that held municipalities should be subject to liability based on US Code, title 42 1983; regarding the city. Therefore, the lower jury was directed to deliberate if the city was permitted to competent immunity since its laws were set under the state regulation (Doe et al., 1994). The court was also instructed to establish whether the application of deadly force to apprehend unarmed fleeing felony suspect was permissible constitutionally.
The District Court then found out that the scenario of Tennessee deadly use of force to capture the suspect was neither unconstitutional on the face of it nor the way it was applied. In essence, the District Court found out and decided that the suspect, Garner was not dispossessed of his constitutional right hence upholding the statute and Hymon’s actions (Doe et al., 1994). Therefore, the verdict did not stretch to the immunity case. Following that decision by the District Court, another appeal was filed at the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals established that the use of deadly force in Tennessee incident desecrated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution thus reversing the decision.
Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Decision
The main issue in the case was when and why a law enforcer should apply deadly force regarding the prevention of an escaping unarmed suspected felony on the basis of the Fourth Amendment. The court stated that using deadly force on an alleged fleeing felony criminal amounts to a seizure on the basis of the Fourth Amendment. In essence, the shooting and killing should be considered as a dispossession of life and liberty which is granted by the Constitution. The Supreme Court also established that the police officer must have had credible cause to consider that Garner posed a major risk of death or severe physical injury to him or another person before using deadly force against him.
According to the Supreme Court, the Tennessee State law was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed its officers to apply deadly force on apparent fleeing felon offenders, especially, in Garner’s case in which he was apparently unarmed. The court used the Fourth Amendment in coming up with the verdict. To establish whether a confiscation is sensible, the level of violation of the suspected offender’s rights have to be essentially weighed alongside the interest of the government in having an effective law enforcement. Such a balancing act establishes that nevertheless the credible cause to seize a suspect, killing is not always the option. Therefore, the application of deadly force against all fleeing felony suspects in whatever scenario undermines the government’s interest in having effective law enforcement hence constitutionally unreasonable. Moreover, the greatest argument point, in this case, was the officer’s continued action on the suspect despite reasonably establishing that he was unarmed and posed no threat to life or serious injury on him or any other person. Even though burglary is a serious crime, the breaking into the house at night would not have necessarily meant that the young man was dangerous.
The Significance of Tennessee v. Garner
Since the landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court that city laws allowing law enforcement officers application of deadly force to arrest escaping, non-dangerous crime suspects should be abolished, the decision has had a significant impact on the subject. Research indicates a reduction in homicides committed by law enforcement officers especially in states that declared such laws unconstitutionally unreasonable after the Tennessee v. Garner verdict (Tennenbaum, 1994). These reductions go beyond the killing of fleeing felony suspects to also the general police shootings. Therefore, the Garner shooting became the influential court case for present standards of how and why law enforcers can reasonably apply deadly force on suspects (Walker and Fridell, 1992). The ruling framed the arguments about the merits of various cases, for example, when Michael Brown was allegedly seriously shot by a law enforcement officer and when Freddie Gray apparently died of a backbone damage after being arrested by Baltimore police officers.
Conclusion
The application of deadly force by law enforces has continued to the present day with many Americans denouncing civilian killings by police. They have accused law enforcement officers of shooting unreasonably, and more often exhibiting race in such scenarios. These claims are statistically supported by studies indicating that police officers shoot African-Americans at a higher rate compared to whites. Before the landmark ruling of Tennessee v. Garner, many states would consider the deadly use of force for felony suspects legitimate. The garner decision has illustrated that a court verdict can strongly affect the behavior of police officers and other law enforcers. Despite studies indicating a reduction in police-initiated homicides, there is need to establish whether the states have complied with the Tennessee v. Garner decision to revoke their unconstitutional policies. Such a research will enhance the awareness of the kind of laws and regulations that can impact the conduct of law enforcers regarding the usage of deadly force on alleged criminals. Finally, the ruling set precedence for many cases in both lower and higher courts over similar case.
References
Blume III, J. H. (1984). Deadly Force in Memphis: Tennessee v. Garner. Cumb. L. Rev., 15, 89.
Doe, D. H. V. J., Hicks, A. V., Gilliard, B. V., Bertine, C. V., Aguillard, E. V., Coyne, F. H. P. C. V., " Kemp, M. V. (1994). Washington " Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. City.
Powell Jr, L. F. (1984). Tennessee v. Garner.
Tennenbaum, A. N. (1994). The Influence of the" Garner" Decision on Police Use of Deadly Force. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 241-260.
Walker, S., " Fridell, L. (1992). Forces of change in police policy: The impact of Tennessee v. Garner. Am. J. Police, 11, 97.
