Tennessee V. Garner Case

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

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.

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

What citizen can defend himself in court if they are shot dead by a law enforcement officer even before apprehension? The case of Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985) is a highly significant case in our nation’s criminal justice history. This case establishes a current day guideline for how a citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights and a law enforcement officer’s pursuit of a suspect may legally intersect. By interpreting the word seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to include the seizing of the defendant’s life. Tennessee v. Garner established that the use of deadly force might only become applied by law enforcement in instances where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect to be a danger to either the public

The Fourth Amendment is about search and seizure. This amendment is mostly about having one’s own privacy. The amendment has been implemented to protect against unlawful searches and seizure by the federal law enforcement and also by the state. The Fourth Amendment protects the U.S citizen’s right of privacy from invasion. Today, the topic of privacy is frequently and heatedly discussed. As a person who wants to be aware of my rights, I and also the U.S. citizens need to know this amendment better, to know the histories of the amendment, the evolvements of its interpretation and how it plays the role in Supreme Court.

In the late 1700's the 4th Amendment was written because of strong objections to the Writs of Assistance or general warrants. The Writs Assistance gave officials the right to enter any home and seize belongings without a reasonable cause. (Grolier Encyclopedia) The 4th amendment was ratified in the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1771. This amendment protects the people's right to privacy and security. (Encarta Online)

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was ratified in 1791 and is an important amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment is “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” (Charles Wetterer). The issue of searching and seizing first originated in Britain in the mid-1700’s where British officers had general warrants to search citizens. While this became an issue for citizens in Britain, it became apparent also in the colonies where British soldiers were searching with only general warrants. Many citizens believed it was an invasion of privacy. So after independence from Britain, and the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was produced. George Mason, an important political figure in Virginia, had written the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and he and other delegates believed the primary purpose of the government was to protect the rights of its citizens. To further that, he believed citizens had the right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures. Once the idea of the Bill of Rights came into play, the Fourth Amendment was also created. The Fourth Amendment actually guarantees two things: You cannot search or seize unless you have a warrant and a

The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791.

Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of certain papers, books, documents etc. Rules are not violated in it. There must be probable reason because in order to arrest a particular person without a search warrant. It possesses an oath or affirmation from the government. It has two fundamental rights as Right to privacy and Right to freedom. Search occurs when it has a correct reason that was obligated by the government people. Private individuals are violated from this amendment. A seizure happens the owner must has a right documents with him on his own property, if not the documents is seized and the person gets arrested. Sometimes the property belongs to other possessor but in mistake reasonable person gets involved in the task. The banning of unreasonable searches can violate many things to be happen.

• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

The Tennessee vs. Garner case in 1985 reiterated the unlawful nature of deadly force when used by law enforcement officers. A few years later, the justification of excessive force transpired during the Graham vs. Connor case in 1989. In this case, the concept of "reasonableness" was explored when a police officer followed a man’s car because of personal suspicions. Berry Graham was handcuffed and questioned. In the midst of the arrest, Graham experienced discomfort due to his diabetic condition. He simultaneously acquired several cuts and bruises because of the excessive force being used on him. His pleas were ignored, and he proceeded to file a lawsuit claiming that the force that had been used on him violated his fourteenth amendment rights regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The court justified the practicality of the case and declared that the officer’s force was appropriate regarding the circumstances of the situation. This decision emphasized the powers that law enforcement officers have regarding the amount of force they must use to execute their duties.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution applies to a person and their home by providing protection against unreasonable seizures and searches. While it provides protection, not every search and seizure can be deemed unreasonable unless it is classified as per the law, by determining whether there was: a) the level of intrusion of the individuals Fourth Amendment, and b) whether or not it pertains to the government’s interest, such as safety of the public.

Facts:          On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over