Tennessee v. Garner
| Tennessee v. Garner | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||
| Argued October 30, 1984 Decided March 27, 1985 |
|||||||
| Full case name | Tennessee v. Edward Garner, et al. | ||||||
| Citations | 471 U.S. 1 (more)
105 S. Ct. 1694; 85 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 195; 53 U.S.L.W. 4410
|
||||||
| Prior history | On certiorari from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | ||||||
| Holding | |||||||
| Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if 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. | |||||||
| Court membership | |||||||
|
|||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||
| Majority | White, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens | ||||||
| Dissent | O’Connor, joined by Burger, Rehnquist | ||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |||||||
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape 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.”
Facts And Procedural History
At about 10:45p.m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis police officers Leslie Wright and Elton Hymon were dispatched to answer a burglary call next door. Officer Hymon went behind the house as his partner radioed back to the station. Hymon witnessed someone running across the yard. The fleeing suspect, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-foot-high (1.8Â m) chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner’s face and hands, and was reasonably sure that Garner was unarmed. The police testified that they believed Garner was 17 or 18 years old; Garner was in fact 15 years old. After Hymon ordered Garner to halt, Garner began to climb the fence. Believing that Garner would certainly flee if he made it over the fence, Hymon shot him. The bullet struck Garner in the back of the head, and he died shortly after anambulance took him to a nearby hospital. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the burglarized house were found on his person.
Hymon acted according to a Tennessee state statute and official Memphis Police Department policy authorizing deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The statute provided that “if, 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.”
Garner’s father then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the City of Memphis, its mayor, the Memphis Police Department, its director, and Officer Hymon as defendants. The District Court found the statute, and Hymon’s actions, to be constitutional. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a “seizure” for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.
Majority Opinion
Justice White wrote for the majority, first agreeing with the Sixth Circuit’s determination that apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure, then framing the legal issue as whether the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure. In order to determine the constitutionality of a seizure, White reasoned, the court must weigh the nature of the intrusion of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights against the government interests which justified the intrusion.
The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect’s interest in his own survival.
White examined the common law rule on this matter and its rationale. At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon. At the time when this rule was first created, most felonies were punishable by death, and the difference between felonies and misdemeanors was relatively large. In modern American law, neither of these circumstances existed. Furthermore, the common law rule developed at a time before modern firearms, and most law enforcement officers did not carry handguns. The context in which the common law rule evolved was no longer valid. White further noted that many jurisdictions had already done away with it, and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public.
On the basis of the facts found by the district court, Hymon had no reason to believe that Garner was armed or dangerous. The Court ordered the case remanded for a determination on the liability of the other defendants.
Dissent
In her dissent, Justice O’Connor highlighted the fact that police officers must often make swift, spur-of-the-moment decisions while on patrol, and argued that the majority did not properly consider this aspect of the case. Moreover, burglary is a serious crime which often leads to rape and murder, and the Tennessee statute represents the state legislature‘s judgment that such crimes may require the use of deadly force in order to protect the public against those who commit such crimes. She also disagreed that a suspect’s interest in his own life necessarily allows the right to flee from the scene of a crime when pursued, thereby escaping due process.
So what happens to the police officer who shot and killed the fleeing 15 year old kid?
I know of a Evansville EPD officer (retired now) that shot a fleeing guy in the back and paralyzed him for life. Did he do the right thing or not?
Was the person armed? Was it likely he would cause harm to a third party? In this instance, we can’t tell. In the Wooters murder, the answers to those questions seem to indicate the suspect should not have been shot. His “weapon” was a small knife, and his gestures indicated a surrender to me. He raised his hands as he got out of the car. There were plenty of officers close enough to taze him or simply physically subdue him. In the three seconds before the shots were fired he was not told to “halt”. He was just shot by three officers, instead of tazed. I’d be very interested to know the dimensions of the knife he “wielded.”
“I’d be very interested to know the dimensions of the knife he “wielded.—
Is there a particular blade dimension, caliber of firearm, or heft of club that should be required before an officer is allowed to feel threatened by it? Might be a challenge to get a person to cooperate long enough for the police to accurately measure said object so they can determine an appropriate level of force. Just sayin’.
I have first hand knowledge of what a ‘tiny’ box-cutter (blade is less than 1.5 inches long, about an inch wide) can do to a person. It’s a horror show.
Notice LKB’s use of the word “murder”. She’s.already made up her mind no matter what the facts are. Her bias always shows through in her opinions.
The correct term is “shooting”. Whether it was justifiable or not is to be determined. And yes, I do believe the Prosecutors Office and the Police Merit Commission need to review and rule on this officer involved shooting.
It looked like murder to me.
Murder by three cowards.
From what I understand, if the police tell you to empty what is in your hands, even if they can see it is just a cell pone, car keys, etc. , they can legally shoot you.
Not sure if the is covered under Tennessee vs Garner or an Indiana state law, but that was the justification for the sniper shooting Brian McKnight when he did not drop a cell phone from his hand after a 2 hr stand off with the police.
Afterwards, the Chief Brad Hill, stated “There are people who have cell phones that look like guns’.
I guess there could be little old ladies with bombs in their purses, but highly unlikely.
I sometimes wonder if there isn’t a power and violence philosophy driving much of this.
“From what I understand, if the police tell you to empty what is in your hands, even if they can see it is just a cell pone, car keys, etc. , they can legally shoot you. ”
Then you misunderstand.
If I am CLEARLY holding a newborn kitten, and that is CLEARLY all I’m holding, no policy or court in the nation would find it legal that I get shot for not dropping it on command. A newborn kitten is not a lethal weapon, nor is it capable of causing great bodily harm. Ditto car keys or a cell phone.
The real world being messy and all, it is very often NOT clear what a person is holding. A police officer chases a shady character into a dimly lit alley and said shady character suddenly won’t get their hands out of their pockets. When they finally DO pull their hands, they are holding a dark object and refuse to drop it. Even if they say “Relax, it’s just a phone!” is it REASONABLE for the officer to think they might not be telling the whole truth? Yes. If they continue to refuse to comply, would it be legal for an officer to use deadly force because the totality of circumstances (bad lighting, shady character who ran from the cops and is now refusing to follow commands, indistinct black object in hand that may or may not be a weapon…) indicate that there might be an immediate danger to the officer or others? Almost certainly yes.
“I sometimes wonder if there isn’t a power and violence philosophy driving much of this.”
Absolutely! In this case a person threatened to ‘kill some cops’ (this, according to witnesses at TGI Friday’s), stole a police cruiser at knifepoint, led police on a high-speed chase through a crowded commercial area, then stepped out of said cruiser still holding a knife. Mr. Wooten’s overt acts of violence and threats of violence directly caused the use of violence by police officers.
How could Wooten have carried that out when he was standing next to that police car ?
Oh, I get it. He dared threaten me back at the O’Charley’s so now I get to kill him. What if he was drunk ? How many drunks could you kill for getting mouthy. I don’t think the police are like that in every state, but then they are better men.
Shooting Brian McKnight with an item that later was admitted to be a cell phone is acceptable ?
Only people jaded with a open bias toward police hubris would try to defend such things.
Only jaded police officers or their ridiculous supporters would not see the wrong done in the Wooten incident.
Your bent, and arrogant to the point of evil. I’m not going to bother arguing with you on what is so obviously a viewpoint jaded beyond being anything decent, fair or courageous as a police officer any more. Now it is oppression with laws not supported by the majority of the people.
The police: “I get to shoot you for my own safety if I cannot see what is in your hand”.
U mad, bro? Just having a conversation.
As far as this….
“I get to shoot you for my own safety if I cannot see what’s in your hand. ”
Well, yeah, in many cases that’s legally exactly right. A cop doesn’t have to be 100% certain that the person is holding a lethal weapon if the totality of circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe they may be in imminent danger.
That obviously upsets you, but you should direct your anger towards the Supreme Court, not little ol’ me.
The Supreme Court has passed laws that many of the public would like to see repealed.
I won’t bother describing how judges and courts, even the Supreme Court of the U.S., can be skewed or even bought.
Too may times, our court decisions have become the result of politics, not what it obviously right, not government ‘by the people, and for the people’, any more.
Yes, that perversion of government upsets me, as it should any other responsible U.S. Citizen.
Well, the Supreme Court doesn’t technically pass laws, the Legislative Branch does that.
But I’ll certainly agree that members of the judiciary can be bought, and I’ll also certainly agree that most SCOTUS decisions have numerous people who disagree with them.
As mentioned above, Brad Hill and all others CLEARLY stated that they saw a cell phone in Brian McKnight’s hands that he had been communicating with his brother own who had persuaded him to surrender, that he failed to drop after 3 demands for him to drop it, and that was the justification they gave for him being shot. The power and violence philosophy was the he was shot in revenge for shooting at police officers 2 hrs earlier, but was trying to surrender. That’s the kind of shit the police get away with.
You’re full of crap:( “kitten’, ‘shady character’, etc. ) jaded beyond being rational.
Anon, I’m not trying to be combative, but literally nothing in your above post is accurate, including the poor guy’s name who got shot by EPD (it’s Eugene C. McKnight, not Brian McKnight. Brian McKnight is a Grammy winning R & B singer.).
Here’s a link to a recent court decision concerning the shooting you’re talking about:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150320D57/McKNIGHT%20v.%20CITY%20OF%20EVANSVILLE
Lots of good information in there, check it out. It provides a pretty clear glimpse into how our legal system decides if an officer-involved shooting is justified or not.
What is in that weblink is not consistant with the statements made by Brad Hill and EPD officers at that time. I remember it specifically.
Who cares where it is Brian or Eugene. We both know who we are talking about.
As for Wooters, if you can’t see the wrong in the way he was shot down, you are sick.
The police have turned themselves in to s half-ass revenge oriented execution squad, who could otherwise apprehend people than kill them, and not all of them deserve it.
Well, I looked at your case file, and I did learn something.
I learned that Evansville Police Officers will alter their testimony to protect the reputation of the depart, their careers, and the city from a lawsuit. What is in that case file is not consistent with what was said at the time of the shooting.
I don’t think ‘Our Father’s’ and ‘Hail Mary’s’ are going to get them out of this one.
What police officer is going to say he was not sure about anything regarding a shooting he did,
while facing legal scrutiny over his actions ?
How do laws like this get passed, may be the real question.
God bless our Police………………
Comments are closed.