NCJ Number
193787
Date Published
2001
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This paper reviews the implications for the police use of deadly force of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), which held that the use of deadly force on an unarmed fleeing felony suspect is unconstitutional.
Abstract
The case involved a burglary suspect who was killed by police as he fled. The district court held the shooting justifiable under Tennessee law, which allowed the use of deadly force on a suspected felon if there was no other means to prevent the suspect's escape. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed this decision on the grounds that the Tennessee statute violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by authorizing the killing of an unarmed, nondangerous, fleeing felon to prevent his escape. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision, holding that the Tennessee law violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures. The Court held that deadly force would be justified only if "it is necessary to prevent the escape and 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." This paper's critique of the Supreme Court's decision and standard for police use of deadly force argues that the standard is much too restrictive, ambiguous, and unrealistic, in that it imposes an impossible burden on an officer to determine in a split second whether a fleeing felon is dangerous to the officer or to others. Further, there are no criteria set by the Court for determining whether there is "probable cause" for an officer to believe a fleeing suspected felon is dangerous. Such a standard makes it likely that officers will let all felons escape who cannot be chased down on foot or in a car or otherwise restrained by nonlethal means. 109 notes