Tennessee V Garner Case Study

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

Garner, they first looked at whether the shooting itself was legal. Once they saw that state law allowed it, they had to decide if the law that allowed it was constitutional. According to the Saint Louis University Law Journal, the supreme court decided, “If the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officers or others, deadly force cannot be used. But when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm . . . it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force…” This ruling meant that the shooting of Edward Garner was unconstitutional. The officer who shot Garner still couldn’t be sued, because he was following the laws that were in place at that time. However, the state of Tennessee could. Tennessee lost the case because they violated the fourth amendment by creating this

Garner, 1986). The suit stated that Garner’s constitutional rights had been violated, and this case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). The Supreme Court ruled that the Tennessee statute that authorized the use of deadly force against an unarmed feeling felon to prevent escape was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court recognized that when deadly force was used to effect an arrest it was considered a seizure and subject to the guidelines of the fourth amendment. The Supreme Court admitted the state had an interest in effecting an arrest, but the use of deadly force went beyond the reasonableness standard of the individuals right to life as he was unarmed (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). The majority also confirmed that Hymon’s use of deadly force was unreasonable based on Garner’s physical size and age coupled with the fact he was not armed so, hence he posed no threat to the officer or others (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). The majority also found the Memphis police department’s use of deadly force policy to be more restrictive than that of the statue and a growing trend of other police departments had implemented much more restrictive policies (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). In lieu of the courts decision the state of Tennessee revised their statute to include language that mirrors the courts interpretation of this case (Tennessee v. Garner,

Garner, the suspect's father brought forth that his unarmed son was wrongfully shot by a police officer as his son was fleeing from the burglary of an unoccupied house. He proposed a wrongful death action under the federal civil rights statute against the police officer who fired the shot, the police department and others.

Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985) that under the Fourth Amendment a Police Officer could not legally seize, take, a potential suspect’s life through the use of deadly force unless circumstances warranted it. It was deemed that only if the officer had probable cause to believe the defendant had committed a violent crime, was a danger to the community, or a threat to the officer would the officer have the authority to utilize deadly force to stop the suspect. The United States Supreme Court further decided that the Tennessee statute was invalid in regards to giving Officer Hymon authorization to use deadly force in the instance of Edward Garner. The United States Supreme Court stated that the Tennessee statute originated from a time when many more crimes were punishable by death than are in present times. Thus it could no longer be interpreted literally in light of changes to the criminal justice system. Due Process for all citizens is protected by the precedent set in this case; stating firmly, as it does, that only in instances where an officer has probable cause to believe a violent crime has occurred or has the potential to happen may said law enforcement officers use deadly force to deter, or prevent it while apprehending suspects. As stated under the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights each and every American has protection from unjust

In the closing statement, Ta-Nehisi Coates provides us a statement inquiring that “police are turning to police brutality to solve situations where it's not needed then leading them to overuse their power. The use of excessive physical assault or verbal assault during police procedures, such as apprehending or interrogating a suspect should never be acceptable. Deadly force is not always excessive force. However, when deadly force exceeds the force that is necessary to create a safe environment, it is considered police brutality. This is emphasised in Ta-Nehisi essay when said “his father called the police, who apparently arrived to find the 19-year-old wielding a bat. Interpreting this as a lethal threat, one of the officers shot and killed LeGrier and somehow managed to shoot and kill one of his neighbors, Bettie Jones.” this situation could have been conducted differently Though the officer over used his authority and instead of simply calming the man down governing both the father and son he chose to kill which wasn't rational .

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

Eric Garner was a 43 year old African American man who was also fatally injured by a law enforcement officer. A police officer in Staten Island, New York claimed Garner was selling illegal cigarettes, and then the officer placed Garner in an illegal choke hold. A bystander was able to record the event on his/her smartphone. Although the officer placed Garner in an illegal chokehold, the officer was not charged with any crimes. The officer was only put on modified duty, and his supervisor was stripped of her gun because of failure to supervise.

On his person were 10 dollars and a purse from the house he just stole from. The father filed a lawsuit on the officer and the court found that since there was no immediate danger to that officer or the public the deadly force was unconstitutional. Added to that, a police officer may not seize an unarmed nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.

Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he

Beginning in late summer, this country became bombarded with stories in the news about police officers involved in some types of controversy. The controversy that started it all was an incident that happened in Ferguson, Missouri. Since August, there has been much discussion and public debate over whether a police officer’s use of deadly force against an unarmed teenager was justified. On August 9, 2014 a young man named Michael Brown was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson after he was stopped for walking in the middle of the street. Was the shooting of an unarmed teenager in Missouri an example of police using excessive force? Who decides what force is recommended or when it becomes excessive? To determine both these questions, we first must define what constitutes specific circumstances as excessive force. Officer Darren Wilson was not guilty of using excessive or lethal force if he felt his safety or the safety of others were in danger or if Michael Brown had surrendered peacefully and without resisting arrest.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

Procedure:     Garner’s father brought the action the police officer took in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, looking for violations that were made of Garner’s constitutional rights. The complaint was alleged that the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After a three day trial, the District Court entered judgement for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon’s actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

The Court apprehended that conducting a DNA buccal test as a part of the arrest process and it does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the test serves from a state that does not require a warrant for a search. The Court apprehended that determining an arrestee's character and criminal background is an essential part of the arrest process and that a DNA test is just as lawful as fingerprinting. Determining a suspect’s criminal background serves the legitimate state interest of determining what level of risk the person positions in the community and what circumstances should be established on his or her discharge from

The facts are that the police pushed past Victor’s mother to enter her home. Victor’s mother did not give them permission to enter her home to conduct a search or to seize any evidence. The police searched for and arrested Victor, searched his room, and seized shell casings. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. As well as part I, article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution- Every subject hath a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. Therefore, all warrants to search suspected places, or arrest a person for examination or trial in prosecutions for criminal matters, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order, in a warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no warrant ought to be issued; but in cases and with the formalities, prescribed by law. It is the right of citizens not to have their homes entered and searched unless a warrant has been issued. Since the police officers who pushed their way into Victor’s mother’s house were not invited in, they needed to have obtained a warrant before forcing entry, apprehending Victor and seizing empty shell casings in Victor’s