Supreme Court ruling on the use of deadly force, and would have a significant impact on future cases where non-deadly force was used. Prior to the Garner case being decided, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Hymon’s actions amounted to a seizure, and his actions were subject to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment that requires all seizures be reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this conclusion and ruled that Hymon used excessive force when he “seized” Garner by shooting him. The Court’s ruling held Tennessee’s use of force law as unconstitutional by allowing deadly force to be applied to all fleeing felon incidents, but it was not unconstitutional in that should an officer have probable cause to believe a suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others, and set the standard for judging future police use of force
Supreme Court ruling on the use of deadly force, and would have a significant impact on future cases where non-deadly force was used. Prior to the Garner case being decided, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Hymon’s actions amounted to a seizure, and his actions were subject to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment that requires all seizures be reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this conclusion and ruled that Hymon used excessive force when he “seized” Garner by shooting him. The Court’s ruling held Tennessee’s use of force law as unconstitutional by allowing deadly force to be applied to all fleeing felon incidents, but it was not unconstitutional in that should an officer have probable cause to believe a suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others, and set the standard for judging future police use of force