Tennessee V Garner Essay
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) is based on an incident that took place October 3, 1974. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a Memphis police officer, Elton Hymon, shot and killed an unarmed fifteen year old, Edward Garner, who was fleeing the scene of a home burglary at approximately 10:45 p.m.. The officer identified himself as the police and gave a command to halt. Garner stopped at the base of a chain-link fence, and then began to scale the fence when Hymon fired a shot, striking Garner in the back of the head which resulted in his death later at a local hospital. Hymon testified he saw no sign of a weapon and was “reasonably sure” and “figured” Garner was unarmed and if he scaled the fence, he would get away (Tennessee v. Garner, 1985, App. 41, 56; Record 219). Hymon believed he was justified in shooting Garner as stated in Tennessee Code Annotated 40-7-108 (1982), "[i]f, 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" and congruent with department
…show more content…
Supreme Court ruling on the use of deadly force, and would have a significant impact on future cases where non-deadly force was used. Prior to the Garner case being decided, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Hymon’s actions amounted to a seizure, and his actions were subject to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment that requires all seizures be reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this conclusion and ruled that Hymon used excessive force when he “seized” Garner by shooting him. The Court’s ruling held Tennessee’s use of force law as unconstitutional by allowing deadly force to be applied to all fleeing felon incidents, but it was not unconstitutional in that should an officer have probable cause to believe a suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others, and set the standard for judging future police use of force
Supreme Court ruling on the use of deadly force, and would have a significant impact on future cases where non-deadly force was used. Prior to the Garner case being decided, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Hymon’s actions amounted to a seizure, and his actions were subject to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment that requires all seizures be reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this conclusion and ruled that Hymon used excessive force when he “seized” Garner by shooting him. The Court’s ruling held Tennessee’s use of force law as unconstitutional by allowing deadly force to be applied to all fleeing felon incidents, but it was not unconstitutional in that should an officer have probable cause to believe a suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others, and set the standard for judging future police use of force