Key Takeaways

1. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) established that law enforcement officers may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect unless there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
2. The decision struck down a Tennessee statute that permitted deadly force against any fleeing felon, holding that such use of force constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
3. Tennessee v. Garner fundamentally reshaped police use-of-force policies nationwide, requiring departments to adopt protocols that ensure deadly force is employed only when absolutely necessary and constitutionally justified.

Introduction

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), stands as one of the most influential Supreme Court decisions regarding law enforcement's use of deadly force. The case addressed the constitutional boundaries of police actions during the apprehension of fleeing suspects, particularly in situations where the suspect is unarmed and not posing an immediate threat. The ruling not only invalidated a longstanding Tennessee statute but also set a precedent that continues to shape police conduct and policy across the United States.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of Tennessee v. Garner, its background, the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and the case’s enduring impact on law enforcement and constitutional law. For legal professionals and researchers, understanding the nuances of this case is essential for navigating issues related to the Fourth Amendment and police use of force.

Background of Tennessee v. Garner

The Incident

On the night of October 3, 1974, Memphis police officers responded to a reported burglary. Upon arrival, Officer Elton Hymon observed a suspect, 15-year-old Edward Eugene Garner, attempting to flee over a backyard fence. Believing Garner to be unarmed and suspecting him of a non-violent property crime, Officer Hymon nonetheless shot Garner in the back of the head with a hollow-point bullet as he climbed the fence. Garner died shortly thereafter.

The officer acted under the authority of a Tennessee statute that allowed police to use “all the necessary means” to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon. The statute made no distinction between violent and non-violent felonies, nor did it require the officer to assess the threat posed by the suspect before using deadly force.

Legal Proceedings

Garner’s father filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the shooting violated his son's constitutional rights. The District Court ruled in favor of the police, relying on the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied in this context. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to decide whether the use of deadly force in this situation constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Read the full opinion at Justia

The Legal Question

The central question before the Supreme Court was:

Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit the use of deadly force by law enforcement to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect?

This question required the Court to balance the government’s interest in effective law enforcement against the individual’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Majority Opinion

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect is constitutionally unreasonable. Justice Byron White authored the opinion, which emphasized that the apprehension of a suspect by the use of deadly force is a “seizure” subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

The Court stated:

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. 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 to do so."
— Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

The ruling made clear that deadly force may only be used if:

• The officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Dissenting Opinions

Chief Justice Warren Burger, joined by Justices Rehnquist and O’Connor, dissented. The dissent argued that the majority’s ruling unduly restricted law enforcement and failed to give sufficient weight to the government’s interest in apprehending suspects, particularly in the context of rising crime rates.

The Fourth Amendment and the Reasonableness Standard

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner recognized that the use of deadly force by law enforcement constitutes a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Reasonableness Test

The Court applied a “reasonableness” test, weighing:

1. The nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests (i.e., the taking of life).
2. The governmental interests at stake, such as preventing escape and promoting public safety.

The Court concluded that, absent probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat, the governmental interest does not outweigh the individual’s right to life.

FindLaw summary of the case

The Tennessee Statute and the Fleeing Felon Rule

The Statute

The Tennessee statute at issue, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-108 (repealed), authorized police to use “all the necessary means to effect the arrest” of a fleeing felon. This codified the common law “fleeing felon rule,” which had its origins in English law, where all felonies were punishable by death.

The Supreme Court’s Critique

The Court noted that the fleeing felon rule was outdated, as modern law no longer treats all felonies as capital offenses. The Court emphasized the need to distinguish between suspects who pose a real threat and those who do not, rather than treating all felons as equally dangerous.

The Court’s decision invalidated the Tennessee statute, requiring states to revise laws and policies to comply with constitutional standards.

Oyez case summary

Impact on Law Enforcement Policies

Nationwide Policy Reforms

Tennessee v. Garner prompted a nationwide reassessment of police use-of-force policies. Law enforcement agencies were required to revise protocols to ensure deadly force is used only when there is probable cause to believe a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury.

Many departments adopted policies that:

• Prohibit the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects who are not armed and do not pose an immediate threat.
• Require officers to consider the totality of circumstances before using deadly force.
• Mandate documentation and review of all incidents involving the use of deadly force.

Official DOJ guidance on use of force

Training and Accountability

Police training programs were updated to reflect the constitutional standards set by Garner. Officers are now trained to assess the threat posed by a suspect, use de-escalation techniques, and consider alternatives to deadly force whenever possible.

Additionally, the ruling increased accountability by making it clear that officers who use deadly force unreasonably can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating constitutional rights.

FLETC training resource PDF

Relationship to Graham v. Connor

Further Defining Reasonableness

Tennessee v. Garner laid the groundwork for evaluating police use of deadly force. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), further clarified the standard for all uses of force by law enforcement under the Fourth Amendment.

Graham v. Connor established that all claims of excessive force, whether deadly or not, should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, considering the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the moment.

Combined Impact

Together, Garner and Graham provide the legal framework for assessing police use of force:

• Garner: Deadly force is only permissible if the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury.
• Graham: The reasonableness of any use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with the benefit of hindsight.

Read more about Graham v. Connor at Oyez

Continuing Influence and Ongoing Debates

Police Reform and Public Discourse

Tennessee v. Garner remains central to debates about police reform and the appropriate use of force. Advocates for reform often cite Garner when pushing for stricter standards and greater accountability in law enforcement. The case is frequently referenced in litigation, policy development, and public discussions surrounding police shootings, especially those involving unarmed individuals.

Criticisms and Challenges

Despite its significance, Garner has faced criticism from some law enforcement officials who argue that it unduly restricts police discretion, potentially endangering officers and the public. Conversely, civil rights advocates argue that the decision does not go far enough in protecting individuals from excessive force.

Recent Developments

In recent years, high-profile incidents of police use of deadly force have led to renewed calls for reform. Many states and municipalities have enacted laws and policies that go beyond the minimum requirements set by Garner, further restricting the circumstances under which deadly force may be used.

OJP article on fleeing felon rule

Practical Implications for Attorneys and Law Enforcement

For Attorneys

Attorneys handling cases involving police use of force must be well-versed in the standards set by Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor. Key considerations include:

• Whether the officer had probable cause to believe the suspect posed a significant threat.
• The totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crime, the suspect’s behavior, and available alternatives.
• The reasonableness of the officer’s actions at the moment force was used.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs in civil rights cases often rely on Garner to challenge the constitutionality of police actions, while defense attorneys may argue that the officer’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.

For Law Enforcement

Law enforcement agencies must ensure that their policies and training programs comply with the constitutional standards articulated in Garner. This includes:

• Clear guidelines for when deadly force may be used.
• Training on threat assessment and de-escalation.
• Mechanisms for accountability and review of use-of-force incidents.

Failure to adhere to these standards can result in civil liability, loss of public trust, and, in some cases, criminal prosecution.

Quimbee summary of Tennessee v. Garner

Case Legacy and Modern Application

Enduring Precedent

Nearly four decades after it was decided, Tennessee v. Garner remains a cornerstone of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. It is routinely cited in federal and state courts, law enforcement training materials, and policy documents.

Influence on State Laws

Many states have revised or repealed statutes that previously allowed deadly force against any fleeing felon. Current laws generally require a showing that the suspect poses a danger before deadly force can be justified.

Ongoing Legal Evolution

The legal landscape continues to evolve as courts interpret and apply Garner to new situations, including cases involving new technologies (such as tasers and body cameras) and changing societal attitudes toward policing.

Digital Commons @ DU article on the case’s legacy

Conclusion

Tennessee v. Garner fundamentally transformed the legal standards governing police use of deadly force. By holding that the use of deadly force to apprehend unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspects is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court set a clear constitutional boundary for law enforcement. This decision has had a profound and lasting impact on law enforcement policies, police training, and civil rights litigation.

Legal professionals, law enforcement officers, and policymakers must understand the principles established in Garner to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to protect both public safety and individual rights. For deeper research and up-to-date legal analysis on this and related topics, visit Counsel Stack.

Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Tennessee v. Garner and its legal implications. It is not legal advice and does not address all nuances or jurisdiction-specific applications. For specific legal questions, consult a qualified attorney or conduct thorough research using official sources.