Tennessee V. Garner 1985

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

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, 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,

Excessive force being used by officers has been an ongoing issue since law enforcement was created. During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, it has been made aware that minorities were a target for the law enforcement of that time. The 1967 murder cases of “Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner against the sheriffs of Neshoba and Lauderdale County” at that time was huge seeing as everyone involved in the case got off without any charges (Wynter). After years have gone by and the 41st anniversary of their deaths has happened, someone was convicted. All this time, no one would speak up against the police of these counties in fear of being brutally murdered just like the three men that was in their care. The injustice of it did not make sense

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

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 .

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union Court cases over time have come forth and altered the course of this country and even the world. While this case didn’t really affect the world, Jones v. North Carolina brought forth an important question on prisoner’s rights. Jones v. North Carolina was a court case in 1977 that brought forth the debate if workers in prisons have the right to join a labor union. The details of the court case and thoughts on if the court was justified in their ruling will bring to light of what sort of value as a human being do prisoners have.

Does the Alabama statute 16-1-20.1, allowing a period of silence for meditation or voluntary prayer violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause that is applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment?

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.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting discrimination. With the condition to receive preclearance stated in section 5 of the Act from the Department of Justice before making any changes affecting the voting process, also came four other prohibitions. The prohibition of literacy test or other similar test or devices as a prerequisite to voter registration is one prevention. The requirement of jurisdictions with significant language minority populations to provide non-English ballots and oral voting instructions is another. Third is the prohibition of vote dilution, which is the remapping of districts to suppress the minority vote. The final provision was one of the most controversial of the Act. It established the federal oversight

not the use of fatal force was indeed necessary to use upon an unarmed civilian, and if not, it

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 use of deadly force in extreme situations goes back several hundred years when it was first admitted as a right during the early nineteenth century as sheriffs realized that they needed to kill certain threatening individuals in order to protect others. Thousands of police officers were killed during the recent decades and this raises an alarm regarding the authority to use deadly force. Individuals criticizing this right have to acknowledge that police officers fight with the purpose of preserving a peaceful world and are constantly exposed to criminals who are unhesitant about

Ever since the Ferguson police shot and killed Michael Brown, the media constantly gives attention to this type of phenomenon. The use of deadly force or excessive force by an officer has always been challenged and will continue to be challenged if the media keeps feeding the people with these stories. The media always points the finger at officers but do not take in consideration the facts of the case. Therefore, I am going to look at the Plumhoff v. Rickard case and give the actual facts of this case.

The legal sufficiency of the policy can be called into question anytime force is used. This was first demonstrated in 2000. The state’s policy was revised to explicitly address two subjects. The first issue addressed the act of officers shooting at moving vehicles. This was in response to two controversial shootings that occurred in 1998. Both incidents involved officers firing on moving vehicles after they engaged in high-speed chases for traffic violations. Use of force is not authorized for moving vehicles unless the officer ''reasonably believes: (1) there exists an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another person; and (2) no other means are available at that time to avert or eliminate the danger'' (Halbfinger, 2000).