Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Tennessee v. Garner is the seminal U.S.
Does the Fourth Amendment permit a police officer to use deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed, nondangerous fleeing felony suspect?
The use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. Deadly force may not be used unless (1) it is necessary to prevent the suspect's escape and (2) the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. If feasible, a warning must be given before deadly force is employed.
No. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect. Tennessee's statute, authorizing deadly force under such circumstances, is unconstitutional, and the officer's use of deadly force in this case was unreasonable.
Tennessee v. Garner is a cornerstone of constitutional limits on police use of force. It replaced the broad common-law fleeing felon rule with a Fourth Amendment standard keyed to necessity and dangerousness, requiring probable cause that a suspect poses a significant threat before deadly force may be used and a warning when feasible. The decision reshaped state statutes and police department policies nationwide and provides the doctrinal backbone for civil suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging police shootings. Garner also sets the stage for Graham v. Connor's objective reasonableness test, together forming the foundation of modern police use-of-force jurisprudence.