Deadly Force Case Study

As a police officer here in Memphis this case is discussed in the academy and many have various viewpoints as to how this case changed police response to crime for the better as well as for the worse. Prior to this case it was not uncommon for deadly force to be used in a broad array of situations including property crimes such as burglary. Public sentiment up until this point was largely in support of the police and their need to stop the “bad guy”, a sort of don’t do the crime if you are not prepared for the possibility of being killed. The state and city legal codes stated that deadly force could be used to effect an arrest of a fleeing felon but did not go into details as to other necessary requirements to employ deadly force, the only
requirement was the officer identify himself and that the suspect be responsible for a felony crime of any sort (Tennessee v. Garner, No. 83-1035, 1985).
In the Garner case a Memphis police officer responded to a “prowler inside call” at night and after being directed to the location of occurrence by a neighbor, find a male suspect fleeing from the residence, he is slight of frame and appears to be young and unarmed according to the responding officer. After verbal identification is given by the officer and the suspect continues to attempt escape, the officer shot the suspect as he attempted to jump a fence. After review it was found that the police officer acted within the confines of the law and departmental policy until the suspects father brought forth a lawsuit against the City of Memphis, the MPD, the Director of the Police and the city Mayor for violations of constitutional rights in the Garner case.
Initially brought before the District Court in Tennessee it was found that the police officer's actions were within the law as it was currently written and found no violation of constitutional rights in the case.
This ruling was appealed and eventually overturned by the Court of Appeals finding that this case violated the 4th amendment protections, finding that the use of deadly force is an absolute seizure of one's person and is subject to the same necessary reasonableness requirements. This finding is extremely important as it changes a legal standard for all police in the United States after the Supreme Court hears the case and delivers its affirmation of the Appeals Court response in 1985. Since 1985 police have followed the guidelines in law that resulted from the Supreme Court findings. The fleeing felon laws would now require the felon to be “violent” felon which posed a direct threat to the public or other police. The officer would be required to be able to articulate why he or she believed this suspect to be a threat and why they were believed to be a violent felon. The high court also found that no factual evidence existed at that time to support the argument that the threat of deadly force against fleeing felons would result in less fleeing felons and more successful arrests. The court found this policy is only more likely to end in deceased suspects without the benefits of criminal justice
proceedings.
It is a positive finding by the Supreme Court in my opinion as a 9 year police officer. I find no hesitation in agreement with these findings. If I, as an appointed representative of the law cannot articulate a direct threat to myself or others through threats or actions by the suspect I cannot constitutionally engage in deadly force. This has served me well in patrol as I have encountered multiple cases of fleeing felony suspects and had to mentally work through my legal response to their resistance to apprehension.