Tennessee V Gardner (1985)

Answer

Case Brief on Tennessee V Gardner (1985)

Facts

                Tennessee v Gardner (1985) presents two consolidated cases against different defendants which involves the same incident. During a police chase, an officer (Elton Hymon) resulted to the death of a 15-year-old referred to as Edward Eugene Garner after shooting him to prevent his escape by jumping over the fence. Garner was a burglary suspect. The officer confessed that before shooting Garner, he did not see any evidence that the boy was armed and hence only figured that he was unarmed. The bullet that resulted to Garner’s death hit him at the back of his head thus resulting to his emergency visit to the hospital before dying at a shorter time later (Tennessee v. Garner., n.d.).

                With an aim of seeking justice, Garner’s father turned to the courts to seek damages for the violation of his son’s set constitutional rights. In this case, the district court entered judgment for the defendants based on the fact that the Tennessee law authorized the officer’s actions. Notably, the Tennessee statute provides an indication that if an officer of the law has been provided with an intent notice to arrest a person suspected of a criminal activity and the suspect later decided to resist or flee, then the officer is at liberty to utilize all the necessary and possible means to carry out the arrest (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 1985). Therefore, it is evident that the police officer was acting under the guidance of this directive. Additionally, the court also felt that the boy assumed the risk of being shot after he made the decision to escape recklessly. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals of U.S for the Sixth Circuit reversed this while maintain a position that taking the life of a suspect on the run is considered as a “seizure” as depicted under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the Court of Appeals maintained that the seizure in question would only be considered as reasonable in the events where the suspect threatened the officers’ safety or that of the members of the community.

Apprehension through the use of a deadly force is considered as a seizure as subjected to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness. To determine if the seizure was reasonable, the intrusion extent of the rights of the suspect as presented under the Amendment was to be balanced against the interests of the government which is effective in enforcing the law. The balance in question provides a demonstration that notwithstanding the probable cause factor of seizing the suspect, an officer of the law may not always achieve this action by killing the suspect. It is constitutionally unreasonable for an officer to rely on the deadly force usage to prevent felony suspects from escaping an arrest despite the existing circumstances (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 1985).

In this case, the Fourth Amendment should not be implemented in the light of the common rile which allows the usage of whatever force necessary with an aim of effect the arrest of a suspects criminal on the run. The transformation noted in the technological and legal context provides a depiction that the rule is highly distorted to an extent that it fails to be recognized in the events when it is legally applied. However, the court concluded in a 6-3 decision that the Tennessee laws was unconstitutional as it permitted the use of deadly force with an aim of preventing the unarmed suspect’s flee.