Tennessee v. Garner

Background

A 15-year-old boy, Edward Garner, ran from a nighttime burglary scene in Memphis. An officer ordered him to halt; when Garner began to climb a fence to flee, the officer shot and mortally wounded him. Tennessee law then allowed officers to “use all the necessary means” to effect an arrest, and the officer relied on that statute and police policy. Garner’s father sued under a federal civil-rights law; lower courts split, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether deadly force may be used to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. It balanced the suspect’s interest in life against law enforcement needs. The majority held that officers may not shoot to stop a fleeing suspect unless it is necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. Where feasible, a warning should be given. The Court found the Tennessee statute unconstitutional as applied to unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspects but said the statute could be constitutional when applied to dangerous suspects.

Real world impact

The decision limits when police can shoot a fleeing suspect and affects state laws and department policies that broadly allowed deadly force. It leaves municipal liability questions for further proceedings and confirms the Fourth Amendment governs such shootings. The ruling depends on on-the-scene facts and is not a blanket ban on deadly force against dangerous suspects.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Rehnquist, dissented, arguing the Court ignored the historical common-law rule and the serious danger of nighttime burglary and would have upheld the officer’s actions.