Facebook Pixel Code
x
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Tennessee V. Garner

This is a preview of the 7-page document
Read full text

The first trial was held in 1976 and in the end; te district court gave a motion for a verdict directed in favor of the city and its police department. O appeal, tere was an affirmation by the Sixth Circuit on aspects of the ruling by the district court in their decision to dismiss the case against individual defendants. Te court was however instructed to review if municipality had the liberty to be granted immunity because its policies were in tandem with state law and not so, rlook into deadly force while arresting unarmed fleeing felons was constitutionally acceptable.

Tis decision was informed by precedence in Monell v. Dpartment of Social Services, were municipalities could be found liable under the US Code 42 section 1983 (Fontana, 23). Uon remand, te district court found that deadly force as contained in the Tennessee statute was neither unconstitutional prima facie, nr as applied. Snce this lower court found no infringement on Garner’s constitutional right, imunity was not reached on the matter before it. Aother appeal was then taken to the Sixth where an appellate court established that the use of deadly forecast is contained in the Tennessee state laws was in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments to the US constitution.

Te US Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1984 (Blume, 24). Oficer Hymon’s actions were in accordance to local state laws and operational policies of the Memphis Police Department. Uder these laws and policies, a officer has the power to use deadly force in the process of apprehending an escaping suspect upon the exhaustion of other apprehension alternatives. Tey trained to shoot to kill in these circumstances and not wound to aid arrest.

O the basis of this training, terefore, i was an accident that Garner was killed and this formed the foundation of the plaintiff’s case. I the context of mandates under the 4th, 8h and 14th amendments, dadly force on non violent but fleeing suspects is unconstitutional (Hicks, 75). I the event that the court finds the fleeing felon rule is not in violation of the 4th or 14th amendments and a reversal is done by Sixth Circuit, tose against use of deadly force have the following options to explore: Acept the ruling of the court or establish a constitutional theory that can be used to hit back at the laws.

I is arguable that by killing a fleeing felon who has not committed a violent crime and poses no threat of...

This is a preview of the 7-page document
Open full text

Related Topics

Close ✕
Tracy Smith Editor&Proofreader
Expert in: Law, Archaeology, Sociology
Hire an Editor
Matt Hamilton Writer
Expert in: Law, Media, Gender & Sexual Studies
Hire a Writer
preview essay on Tennessee V. Garner
WE CAN HELP TO FIND AN ESSAYDidn't find an essay?

Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples

Contact Us