Tennessee Vs Garner

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,

The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences without parole enforced upon persons aged fourteen and younger found guilty of homicide. The court declared unconstitutional a compulsory sentence of life without parole for children. The states have been barred from routinely imposing sentences based on the crime committed. There is a requirement for individual consideration of the child life circumstance or the defendant status as a child. The court rejected the definite ban on life sentences without parole. This is because in some cases the instances may be uncommon, but jurors

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.

This case is important to anyone working in law enforcement because of the objective reasonableness standard that it established via the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case also reversed a four-factor test regarding use of force that was used to test if the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or was applied with malice to cause harm. The Supreme Court in 490 U.S. 396 (1986) determined that the four factor test did not cover all possible situations and only the decision making skills of a human being can adequately determine the appropriate use of force.

The Supreme Court case, Packingham v. North Carolina (2016) debates whether convicted and registered sex offenders should be limited in their social media usage on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, which are most predominantly populated by minors. The constitutionality of North Carolina’s criminal law is being debated as it considers it a felony for any person registered as a sex offender in the state of North Carolina to have an account on social media sites such as Facebook, or any social media platforms that allow minors to have an account. The current North Carolina law is unconstitutional as it limits a clear example of free speech, and does so in a very broad and unjustified way,

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 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.

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

On the night of October 3rd, 1974 at approximately 10:45 p.m. Edward Garner was shot by Officer Hymon in an attempt to stop him from escaping a crime scene. Garner died on the operating table due to the gunshot wound on the back of his head. His crime was burglary and he was found with a mere ten dollars and a purse. The case was argued on October 30th, 1984 and a decision was made on March 27th, 1985. The father of Edward Garner believed his son’s constitutional rights were violated by the defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, and the Mayor of the city of Memphis. With a 6-3 decision, the Justices’ decided that Officer Hymon was acting justly under the fourth amendment that states that deadly force is constitutional as long as it is “reasonable”. I believe Officer Hymon was acting in good faith and simply fulfilling his duty to protect the public and stop criminals from escaping punishment.

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 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.

Supreme Court's verdict on pretext traffic stops in Whren v. United States, racial hostility between white law enforcement and African American citizens is as insidious as ever. Statistics of unarmed African American men killed by police officers are seemingly alarmingly universally. In spite of the national quarrel against discrimination by police officers, the U.S. Supreme Court has lately made a choice that will expand police judgment. The fickle political background that sets the matter of “racial profiling” has directed local and state police agencies across the nation to start collecting information about traffic and pedestrian stops (Engel et al., Vol. 19, 2002). The disagreement over this topic is plagued by the uncorroborated notion that all race-based judgment by law enforcement is motivated by the type of person the police officers' are. Potential profiling would further show the role of how the agency has an influence on how the police officers distribute traffic violations as pretext. To further show the connection among civilians and police

On July 17th of last year Eric Garner was stopped by the police to be confronted about selling untaxed loose cigarettes illegally. Eric Garner verbally resisted arrest by arguing with the cops about the terms of his arrest. After bickering for a few minutes the cops proceed to perform a chokehold like maneuver, which acted as a catalyst toward the imminent death that would come of Garner. Prior to Garner’s encounter with Daniel Pantaleo his aggressor and rest of the NYPD cops, he already had several health issues such as diabetes and asthma. Consequently, this sparked a powder key of mammoth proportions, with outbreaks of destructive riots and protests. Furthermore, two notable contrasting interpretations of this controversial case are those of CNN’s news article titled “Key figures in Eric Garner case speak out one year later” written on July 17, 2015 by David Shortell which leans more toward the side of Garner, as they uncovered information on how unjust and insufficient the police and EMT protocol followed, on the other hand there is the article by Breitbart that is greatly in favor of police officer Pantaleo titled “The Actual Facts of The Eric Garner Case” Written on December 3rd, 2015 by Ben Shapiro.

It is a right that is imbued into ourselves from the very moment that we begin to exist, and ends with our dying breath. Enforcers have always had the most dangerous of jobs, living under the constant threat of their lives being at stake. When one such enforcer faces a situation such as the one stated s/he is allowed by the laws of all established governments to protect himself/herself from imminent danger, and take the life of the suspect if necessary.