Tennessee v. Garner

Tennessee v. Garner began with a burglary call in Memphis on the night of October 3, 1974. Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright were dispatched to a house after a neighbor reported hearing glass break and believed someone was breaking in next door. When the officers arrived, Wright radioed the dispatcher while Hymon went behind the house to investigate.

Behind the house, Hymon heard a door slam and saw someone running across the backyard. The person was Edward Garner. Garner stopped at a chain-link fence at the edge of the yard. Using a flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands. The officer saw no weapon and later said he was reasonably sure Garner was unarmed. He also believed Garner was young and slight in build.

Hymon called out, "police, halt," and moved toward Garner. Garner began climbing the fence. Believing Garner would escape if he made it over, Hymon fired. The bullet struck Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken to a hospital, where he died. Ten dollars and a purse from the house were found on his body.

The shooting was authorized by a Tennessee statute that allowed officers, after giving notice of an intent to arrest, to use all necessary means if a suspect fled or forcibly resisted. Memphis Police Department policy was somewhat narrower than the statute, but it still allowed deadly force in burglary cases. Garner's father sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, arguing that the shooting violated Garner's constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether the Fourth Amendment allows police to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect when the suspect is apparently unarmed and does not appear to pose an immediate threat.

The issue was not simply whether officers had probable cause to believe Garner had committed a burglary. The deeper question was whether probable cause to arrest also made it reasonable to seize a person by shooting him. The Court had to weigh the government's interest in catching fleeing suspects against the suspect's Fourth Amendment interest in life and bodily security.

The Supreme Court held that deadly force is a Fourth Amendment seizure, and that it must be reasonable. The Court ruled that police may not use deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect simply to prevent escape.

The rule from Garner is that deadly force may be used to prevent escape only when it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. The Court also said that, when feasible, some warning should be given before deadly force is used.

The Court did not say officers can never use deadly force against a fleeing suspect. It drew the line at threat. If a suspect threatens an officer with a weapon, or if there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime involving serious physical harm, deadly force may be constitutionally reasonable if it is necessary to prevent escape. But flight alone, even after a serious crime like burglary, is not enough.

For police work, Tennessee v. Garner means the justification for deadly force cannot be "he ran." The officer must be able to articulate facts showing a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. The legal focus is the danger posed by the suspect, not just the seriousness of the suspected offense or the risk that the person might get away.

Garner also matters for policy and training. Agency policy should not authorize deadly force against every fleeing felon as a category. Officers need to evaluate the facts in front of them: whether the suspect is armed, whether the suspect has threatened anyone, whether the underlying crime involved serious physical harm, whether escape would create a serious danger to others, and whether a warning is feasible.

In plain English, Garner changed the fleeing-felon rule into a threat-based rule. Deadly force is not a tool for stopping escape by itself. It is reserved for situations where the facts support probable cause that the person presents a serious physical danger.