Tennessee V. Garner Essay

Back on October 3, 1974 at approximately 10:45pm two Memphis police officers were on patrol and received a complaint from dispatch to respond to a burglary in progress (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). Officers Leslie Wright and Elton Hymon took the call and responded to the location in question (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). After arriving, a neighbor told the two officers she heard glass breaking next door and “they” were breaking into the home (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). While officer Wright radioed back to dispatch the situation, officer Hymon proceeded to the backyard of the home (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). Hymon then heard a door slam and seen a person running across the lawn towards a chain link fence, later identified as Edward Garner

The U.S. Supreme Court adopted alternative 3. The court believed that the fourth amendment gave police enough power to “freeze” suspicious

Whether a law enforcement officer was justified in acting in the absence of a warrant depends on the “totality of circumstances.” The United States Supreme Court uses a “careful case-by-case” approach to determine whether circumstances rose to the required level of exigency. Recognized exigent circumstances that justify warrantless entry may include, but are not limited to: entering to provide emergency aid to someone inside, pursuant to an immediate threat to officer safety, in “‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect,” “to put out a fire and investigate its cause,” and to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence of a serious crime. While circumstances that present the requisite exigency to justify a warrantless search differ, “in each

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

The 4th amendment, search and seizure causes a lot of problems. Search and Seizure is the rights that police have when they enter in a home. The standard for conducting a warrantless search, probable cause, is the same standard necessary for a warrant to issue. An illegal search or illegal seizure is a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, and any evidence seized must be excluded from trial. Normally police need a search warrant to enter into a home unless they get the consent to enter in the home without one they normally don't go go into a home without anything. A terry pat is when a police officer can detain or conduct a reasonable search for weapons where the officer has the reason to believe the person is armed. Auto stops is

In 2005, Albert Florence was admitted to a New Jerseyś Burlington County Jail for a minor offense and was thoroughly searched. According to Florence, his 4th Amendment was violated, and the searches conducted against him were unreasonable. He was forced to disrobe, squat while naked, shower in front of security, and prove that there was no contraband stored in or under his genitals. After Florence 's release from jail, he sued the government and went to the federal trial court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner (Albert Florence). However, the Third Circuit reversed, deeming that searches done in jail were constitutional due to the fact that they were promoting and protecting safety. The law states that “Strip search, including a digital rectal search, of a prisoner who allegedly refused to cooperate and injured a guard in resisting was reasonable and justified by a legitimate interest in maintaining order and security.” After the Third Circuit 's reversal the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. After viewing the precedent cases, the Supreme Court ruled that searches were lawful and did not in any way revoke 4th Amendment rights.

As Tennessee was rising up from the ashes of the civil war and the Reconstruction Period. Prosperity was in the air and they were leading the New South out and into the next century. The Tennessee Centennial Exposition, held in Nashville, was opened on 1 May 1897, which was eleven months after the original date it was supposed to be celebrated. What they were celebrating was Tennessee’s one-hundredth anniversary of statehood. The Tennessee Centennial Exposition showed exhibits on their educational and social achievement. They, the Americans, came together despite their differences and made this event a success. (7-8)

The use of unreasonable force is constitutionally excessive and violates the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-96 (1989). There is no per se rule in determining whether an officer’s actions are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Scott, 550 U.S. at 383. The courts typically balance “the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8 (1985)). However, courts, considering the totality of circumstances, balance the following factors to determine if an officer used force is unreasonable: (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Because force can be unreasonable even without physical blows or injuries, the analysis under Graham allows the court to determine objectively the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. MacPherson, 630 F.3d at 826.

Respondent was halted by Border Patrol Agent Stoddard while driving on an unpaved street in a remote territory of southeastern Arizona. A puqrsuit of his vehicle uncovered more than 100 pounds of pot, and he was accused of ownership with purpose to appropriate. The Federal District Court denied respondent's movement to smother, refering to various certainties that gave Stoddard sensible suspicion to stop the vehicle. The Ninth Circuit turned around. In its perspective, truth particular weighing of circumstances or other multifaceted tests brought instability and capriciousness into the Fourth Amendment examination, making it important to plainly delimit the elements that an officer may consider in making stops, for example, this one. It then held that few elements depended upon by the District Court conveyed almost no weight in the sensible suspicion math and that the remaining variables were insufficient to render the stop allowable.

the weapons voided the defendant's fourth amendment, stating officer McFadden had no probable cause to stop them. The motion to suppress was overruled on the basis that McFadden had the benefit of experience. The prosecution the argued that the search incident to the stop was legal because it was purely for the officer’s protection. The court then made a point to distinguish an investigative stop from an arrest, and a frisk from a full search. It was established that McFadden had the right to pat them down due to a reasonable belief that Terry and Chilton could be armed. After the court denied the motion to suppress Terry and Chilton pled guilty and waived their jury trial. Terry and Chilton appealed, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed it,

Mapp’s conviction was overturned, and 5 Supreme Court justices found that the states were in fact bound to exclude any evidence that was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. The court justices felt that if evidence obtained through a violation of the 4th Amendment, was admissible, and then there would be no assurance against any type of unreasonable search and seizure, making the 4th Amendment essentially meaningless. After this decision, any evidence that was obtained through illegal searches would be inadmissible in the courts of every

Their reasoning was Officer Nolan did not have probable cause to stop the defendant and the gun to be “suppressed.” The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning but disagreed that a “high crime area” and a flight from Wardlow is justifiable to a “terry stop.” The Illinois Supreme Court found the “stop and arrest” to have “violated the Fourth Amendment.” The United States supreme court “granted certiorari” and reversed the decision.

Terry vs. Ohio is a Supreme Court case which ruled on the legality of Stop and Frisks. The case eventually rules that Stop and Frisks do not violate a suspect’s fourth amendment right. The facts of this case surround the defendant, John Terry, who was frisked by Officer Martin McFadden. McFadden was watching Terry, along with one other man, with reasonable suspicion that he was planning on robbing a store. McFadden approached them, stopped them and proceeded to frisk them.While frisking Terry, McFadden found a gun. Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivers the court’s opinion which expresses the rule for the legality of Stop and Frisks. A Stop and Frisk does not infringe on a suspect’s fourth amendment rights if the need to search is greater than

In this case, the Supreme Court set a standard for force police officer can lawfully use on a suspect. In reality, Graham, a diabetic patient, had asked Berry, a friend, to drive him to a convenience store to buy orange juice, which he needed to control his condition. Seeing a long line in the store, Graham asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Based on his suspicion, an officer made an investigative stop and ordered Graham and Berry to wait while he determined what happened in the store. Other officers arrived on the scene, and a force was used, in which Graham sustained multiple injuries.

The Fourth Amendment impacts law enforcement officers on the use of force when seizing a suspect. In pursuit or making contact with a suspect law enforcement officers sometimes have to make split second decisions under tense and uncertain situations. The cases above provides “reasonableness standard”. This deferential standard is to prevent most second-guessing of an officers judgment on the use of force. Based on circumstances and the reasonableness of an officers use of force there is no violation to ones fourth amendment rights.