Introduction: According to the rules of the Memphis, Tennessee Police Department and the law of Tennessee, a police officer can use deadly force in apprehending a fleeing felon after exhausting all reasonable efforts to apprehend him. The police department authorizes a police officer to enforce the shoot-to-kill policy instead of just wounding the felon. Is this act constitutional? The aim of this paper is to explain to the readers why the police officers in the Tennessee v. Garner case violated the Constitution by using deadly force against Garner. Thesis: Are the Memphis police officers liable for using deadly force against Garner, the fleeing felon? Yes, the Memphis police officers are liable for employing the shoot-to-kill policy in killing Garner.
Summary of the case:
On October 3, 1974, a fleeing felon had a fatal shot by one of the Memphis police officers named Hymon, who responded to the call of a woman about an ongoing burglary in her neighbor’s house. Shortly, the suspect named Edward Garner who was 15 years old died in the hospital. However, the police officer acted under the state law with support from the Police Department which authorizes the police officers to apply deadly force in arresting a felon who tries to escape the crime scene, after using all efforts to get him. The police department allows the officers to kill, than just wounding the lawbreaker. Later, Garner’s father alleged that officer Hymon violated the Constitution under the 4th, 8th, and 14th amendments for intentionally shooting Garner and killing him. However, the state court ruled on the side of Hymon including other defendants, such as the City and the Memphis Police Department on the grounds that they were acting pursuant to the state law. On appeal, the Supreme Court intervened and held that municipalities are liable under the US Code. The high court instructed the state court to determine if the application of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felons who did not commit an act of violence was constitutional. When the state court ruled that Garner’s rights were respected, the case was brought to the 6th Circuit Appellate Court. At this point, this court found that deadly force violated the 4th, 9th, and 14th Constitutional amendments (Blume, 1984).
Explanation on how this case relates to the use of force
Backed up by the state law and the rules of the Memphis Police Department, the police officers who ran after the fleeing suspect were ready to shoot and kill him without warning shots on the air and without any intention just to wound him. The problem is that the police department authorizes, trains, and instructs the police officers to use deadly force to arrest a fleeing felon who does not carry anything to commit violence. The police department even instructs the officers to follow the shoot-to-kill order, just like pursuing hardened criminals. In the end, although the state law grants a motion in favor of the defendants, the Federal law held that the use of deadly force for non-violent felons who are fleeing the scene of the crime is unconstitutional (Johnson, 2007).
Conclusion: The Sixth Circuit Appellate Court ruled that he Memphis police officers and other defendants are guilty of using deadly force or shoot-to-kill policy of the police department in killing Garner. Under the 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments of the Constitution, the killing is held unconstitutional. Specifically, the 4th amendment limits the power of any government to arrest people (Tighe, 1985). The 9th amendment states that applying deadly force to a suspect who is not a subject of violence and who did not commit any act of violence violates the 9th amendment. The writer of this paper believes that a review of the Memphis state law and the policy of the police department is necessary to avoid the same incident.
References
Blume, John H. (1984). Deadly Force in Memphis: Tennessee v. Garner. Cornell Law Faculty
Publications. Paper 273. Retrieved from: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/273
Johnson, Brian. (2007). Crucial Elements of Police Firearms Training. Library of Congress. ISBN-13:978-1-923777-30-7.
Tighe, Frank. (1985). Tennessee v. Garner: Fourth Amendment Limitations. Loyola University
Chicago Law Journal. Vol. 17.
Retrieved from: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1896&context=luclj
