NCJ Number
118570
Journal
American Journal of Police Volume: 8 Issue: 1 Dated: (1989) Pages: 89-105
Date Published
1989
Length
17 pages
Annotation
This article on liability in police use of deadly force distinguishes between a pertinent Federal civil rights suit and a State tort action, reviews the constitutional amendments applicable in a Federal court action, considers the U.S. Supreme Court's posture on the use of deadly force, and discusses the impact of the Tennessee v. Garner decision on the police and later court decisions.
Abstract
Actions brought in Federal court must have proof of a deprivation of constitutional guarantee. Excessive force claims filed in State courts, however, are governed by State tort law. Four constitutional amendments are considered applicable in excessive force suits brought in Federal court. They pertain to the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the guarantee of due process of law, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. In keeping with democratic ideals and the protection of individual liberty, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that "it is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape." In "Garner," the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "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." If a police department establishes a defensible firearms policy, maintains an awareness of judicial precedent, and instills a sense of professionalism in its officers, litigation is not likely to succeed. 65 footnotes.