Tennessee v. Garner | |
---|---|
Argued October 30, 1984 Decided March 27, 1985 | |
Full case name | Tennessee v. Edward Garner, et al. |
Citations | 471 U.S. 1 (more) 105 S. Ct. 1694; 85 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 195; 53 U.S.L.W. 4410 |
Case history | |
Prior | Garner v. Memphis Police Dep't, 710 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1983); cert. granted, 465 U.S. 1098 (1984). |
Holding | |
Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | White, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens |
Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Burger, Rehnquist |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV |
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."[1]
It was found that the use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.[2]: 563–7 Legal scholars have expressed support for this decision stating that the decision had "a strong effect on police behavior" and specifically that it can "influence police use of deadly force."[3]