What does the case Tennessee v. Garner establish about the use of deadly force?

The case of Tennessee v. Garner establishes that law enforcement officers can use deadly force against unarmed and fleeing suspects only if the officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others. This ruling emphasizes the need for an assessment of the threat level before deadly force is employed.

The decision arose from a situation where a police officer shot a fleeing suspect who was unarmed. The Supreme Court determined that the use of deadly force was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, noting that it is not permissible when the suspect does not pose an immediate threat. This precedent ensures that officers are held to a standard that requires a justifiable and compelling reason to use deadly force, fostering accountability and protecting individuals' rights.

This nuanced approach to the use of force is crucial for law enforcement officers, setting clear limitations based on the level of threat posed by the suspect. The ruling serves to protect not only the officers but also the rights of civilians, ensuring that lethal force is a last resort rather than a first response.