Tennessee V Garner

Tennessee v Garner refers to using “all necessary means to effect the arrest” in the case of a suspect fleeing or forcibly resisting (FindLaw, n.d.). With this Tennessee statute, there are some stipulations (FindLaw, n.d.). There must be a belief that the suspect will act in a manner which would cause serious physical harm or death to others (FindLaw, n.d.). The amount of forced used must be in balance with the crime committed and how imminent harm is likely to occur (FindLaw, n.d.).
Two police officers in Memphis, Tennessee, Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright, responded to a call about a suspect who was burglarizing a home in the night (Quimbee, n.d.). The suspect, a young male of slight build, and unarmed, jumped over the fence of the property
he was burglarizing despite Officer Hymon demanding he stop (FindLaw, n.d.). Instead of Officer Hymon continuing pursuit and hopping over the fence, or even attempting to pull him off of the chain link fence, he instead chose to shoot and use deadly force upon the individual (FindLaw, n.d.). The suspect, Edward Garner, received a gunshot wound to the back of the head (Quimbee, n.d.). Garner was rushed to the hospital, where he later succumbed to his injuries (Quimbee, n.d.).
Edward Garner’s father chose to sue not only the officer who shot and killed his son, but also the police department who employed him, the director of the police department, city, and even the mayor at the time (FindLaw, n.d.). The lawsuit was filed for violating Garner’s civil rights. The initial ruling denied Mr. Garner’s motion and found in favor of each of the defendants (FindLaw, n.d.). Later, Garner’s father appealed, and this time, the courts ruled in favor of him, both reversing and remanding the case (FindLaw, n.d.).
A seizure is when a person’s freedom is restricted by an officer, and they are unable to leave on their own free will (FindLaw, n.d.). Under the Fourth Amendment, killing a suspect who has attempted to flee is also considered a seizure, but only when the force used is “reasonable” (FindLaw, n.d.). While burglary certainly a serious crime that should not be swept under the rug, to shoot an individual who is believed to be unarmed and will do no harm to the officer or public is unjust in nature.
Graham v Connor pertains to the amount of force an officer may legally use against a suspect (FindLaw, n.d.). This is determined on a case by case basis. In particular, it considers how an officer who
was not involved would react in said circumstances and the seriousness of the threat the offender posed. In November of 1984, Graham, a diabetic, was out with his friend when he sensed that his insulin was low (FindLaw, n.d.). To keep himself from getting sick, he asked his friend to drive him to a nearby convenience store to purchase orange juice to help offset the effects of his low insulin levels (FindLaw, n.d.). Graham entered the store and noticed a large number of people who were waiting to check out, and decided to instead go somewhere else where he could purchase something to jolt his insulin a bit quicker (FindLaw, n.d.). He left the store in haste, asking his friend to drive him elsewhere (FindLaw, n.d.). This was witnessed by an officer sitting across the street. Though Graham had committed no crime, his behaviour came off as suspicious to the officer, who followed the pair in his patrol car and pulled them over shortly after (FindLaw, n.d.). When William Berry, the driver, notified the officer that his friend, Graham, was a diabetic having insulin problems, the officer ignored Berry and radioed for assistance (FindLaw, n.d.). Graham removed himself from his friend’s vehicle, circled the patrol car, and then sat on the curb, passing out shortly after (FindLaw, n.d.). Graham was cuffed, unconscious. Despite insisting the officers check for a diabetic card in his wallet, the officers ignored him, forced him against the hood of his friend’s vehicle, and eventually put him into the patrol car (FindLaw, n.d.). The officers refused to allow Graham to drink the orange juice a friend went to purchase during the ordeal (FindLaw, n.d.). When the original officer had learned no crime had been committed, they took him home (FindLaw, n.d.). By that time, he had a broken foot, an injured shoulder, cuts and bruises on his wrists and forehead, and ringing in his ear, which became a permanent ailment (FindLaw, n.d.). Graham sued each of the officers individually, but the court found that the amount of force used at the time was acceptable (FindLaw, n.d.). The minimum amount of force is not always equivalent to what is acceptable, and anything more than the minimum use of force does not always equate to excessive force (FindLaw, n.d.).
In Brower vs Inyo County, one William James Caldwell Brower was killed whilst evading the police (FindLaw, n.d.). He was in possession of a stolen car, in which a high-speed chase ensued, attempting to escape police (FindLaw, n.d.). While driving at high speeds, Brower collided into a police roadblock, an 18-wheeler which was positioned across both lanes (FindLaw, n.d.). Directly in front of the 18-wheeler was a police car with its headlights beaming toward on-coming traffic, away from the truck it was positioned before (FindLaw, n.d.). The collision resulted in the death of Mr. Brower, to which his family responded by suing the police officers for violating Brower’s Fourth Amendment rights by using “brutal, excessive, unreasonable, and unnecessary physical force” (FindLaw, n.d.). Brower’s family insisted that the police had intentionally blinded Brower by having a police cruiser pointed toward traffic with the headlights on, concealed the 18-wheeler from sight by placing it just around the bend of a curve, and having said 18-wheeler block the entirety of the road that Brower was driving on (FindLaw, n.d.).
The Court found that the roadblock was not unreasonable in the circumstances presented, nor did a seizure taken place, as Brower had never had his movement inhibited prior to the collision with the roadblock (FindLaw, n.d.). This was due to the fact that at any time prior to his wreck with the 18-wheeler, he had plenty of ample opportunities to bring the vehicle do a complete stop while leading the officers on a police chase (FindLaw, n.d.). No intentional physical control was enacted, and thus, no seizure had occurred (FindLaw, n.d.). Only when Brower had physically crashed into the 18-wheeler blocking the road was he seized (FindLaw, n.d.). Regarding the Fourth Amendment, fault can be found if there is a misuse of police power, not when an accidental injury or death occurs (FindLaw, n.d.).