Tennessee Vs Garner Case Study

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

So, on the basis of the video evidence, it is quite clear that the New York police were responsible for the death of Eric Garner; that they used excessive force relative to the magnitude of the situation at hand; and that they failed to take Garner's own pleas with adequate seriousness. The result was what, conceptually, could only be called a homicide. This is the conclusion that was reached by an official medical examiner. The seriousness of the incident is clearly exacerbated by the fact that on the basis of Garner saying that he could not breathe, the police should have known that they were killing him.

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

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

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.

In 1985 the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee v. Garner severely restricted the circumstances under which law enforcement officers may use deadly force to arrest a suspect. In assessing the reasonableness of a deadly force seizure per the fourth amendment, the Court ruled that the need for a police intrusion had to be weighed against its risks, and determined that common law any-fleeing-felon statutes were unconstitutional. In a narrative give the facts, issues, and court holdings.

In 1962 the State legislature of Tennessee was determined by a law made in 1901 by setting the number of legislators for each county. Since putting the law in motion urban area had grown greatly in population. In addition to the population growth, Mayor Charles W. Baker of Nashville put in a suit, saying that the apportionment denied voters of urban areas equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The federal court refused the suit stating that they were not going to enter the “political thicket“ of State district, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

First and foremost Police officers are instructed during their grooming at the police academy to use deadly force when stopping a fleeing suspect, however Police Officers are also taught, but when there are no other options. As we have learned from a landmark case Tennessee V. Garner, That the use of lethal force by law enforcement in the United States is subject to the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner decision. Under “Garner, deadly force may be permissible if “the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has charged a criminal offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical injury”. Upon watching the video several times it appears to me that suspect Scott was not in

After all this was just starting to settle down another police involved killing happened in New York to an Eric Garner. This time the police did not shoot him; he died from heart related problems which people blame the police for his death after being placed in a chokehold until they could subdue him. In

Facts of the case: On October 3, 1974, at about 10:45 p.m two Memphis Police Officers, Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright were called out to answer a "Prowler call." Once they arrived at the scene, they saw a female standing on her front porch gesturing toward a nearby house. The female was gesturing of the robber in the nearby home. Elton Hymon then proceeded to go behind the house. He heard a door bang and saw Edward Garner run across the backyard. The escaping suspect, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence at the edge of the yard. With the assistance of a flashlight, Hymon could see Garner’s face and hands. He saw

In Augusta, Georgia the district court judge decided that the Miles family should pay $50 for a business license, in order to take Blackie the talking cat’s talents to the marketplace. According to Augusta business ordinance, there was no classification for speaking animals and instead it lists occupations, businesses and trades subject to the tax and amount to be paid. The conflict arises since blackie can speak for himself like a normal human being. The federal power rights to human beings should be respected. However blackie speaking talent does not make the cat a human being. According to amendment ten of the constitution, laws that have not been defined, that is, delegated or prohibited by the federal government may be formulated by states. Additionally the constitution may or may not provide protection in certain kinds of business. In our case, since miles business was not to harm or fraud the case would have prevailed in the federal aspect but since the constitution grants states to make rules then miles case did not prevail in Georgia.

employed. Control it through technology by reducing the smoke while allowing the industry to prosper. (116-117).

After this night in October 1974, when Edward Garner was shot and killed by Officer Hymon while he was fleeing the scene of the crime, Officer Hymon felt that he was justified in shooting him to prevent his escape even though he knew that Edward Garner was unarmed(Tennessee v. Garner). Officer Elton Hymon believed that his action was an acceptable because of a Tennessee statute that states that, if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees, or forcibly resists, “the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest” (Tennessee v. Garner). I believe that Officer Elton Hymon did not have to kill Edward Garner just

Since then, an estimation of 1000+ innocent people have been killed. Now, you can argue all day whether, or not the officer’s actions were just, but the facts are still the same. The police are not permitted to shoot unarmed, nonviolent suspects unless seriously injured, or threatened. In 1985, a case in Memphis appeared concerning the death of an African-American 8th grader. The child was shot fleeing a home burglary. In 1972, another case in St. Louis was won. This case argued that an 18 year old, Michael Mattis, was shot unjustly. Mattis was shot while him and another teenage accomplice were caught fleeing a burglary at a golf driving range. The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri Challenged the shooting as a violation of Mattis’ civil and constitutional rights. A few years later the ACLU won in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St.

He attempted to jump a fence when the officer shot him in the head and he died in the hospital later that night. Garner’s father sued because he