Tennessee v. Garner Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Tennessee v. Garner | 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Police officers’ use of deadly force against unarmed suspects is an intensely debated issue today, but the courts have been contending with this issue for decades. In the nineteen eighty-five case of Tennessee versus Garner, the Supreme Court first addressed the question of whether such deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment.

Edward Garner, who was 15 years old and around 5 feet, 5 inches tall, burglarized another person’s home at night. A neighbor called Memphis police officers to report the burglary. One of the officers went to the backyard and saw Garner run from the back door to the fence. The officer ordered Garner to stop, but Garner started to climb the fence to escape. Despite not seeing a weapon on Garner, the officer fatally shot Garner. A Tennessee statute authorized police officers to use all means necessary to capture a fleeing felon who refused to comply with an officer’s order to stop. The Memphis Police Department specifically had trained its officers that they could shoot a fleeing burglar who refused an officer’s command to stop.

Garner’s father filed a civil rights lawsuit against the officer, the City of Memphis, and its police chief and mayor, seeking money damages. The elder Garner alleged that the officer, who acted pursuant to departmental policy, violated the Fourth Amendment by fatally shooting the younger Garner when he posed no threat to the officer or the public. A federal district judge dismissed the lawsuit against all defendants, holding that the officer, who acted consistently with the Tennessee statute, didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the officer violated the Fourth Amendment but held that he and the other individual defendants were shielded from liability for money damages under the qualified immunity doctrine based on the state statute. However, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of the city and remanded for the district court to address whether a municipality could claim qualified immunity. On appeal, the State of Tennessee intervened to defend the state statute upon which the city’s policy was based. After their loss in the Sixth Circuit, the state and city sought review by the United States Supreme Court.

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[coolbeans]

You could say Edward Garner was an

*Angsty Teen*

[pinkytoedestroyer]

I will not sleep peacefully until I know if the voiceover is the same guy that voices for FNaF.

[try]

we should fix all this with a controlled shock

[Yonlrz]

"Uh oh! Looks like Freddy and his gang are here to teach you about your fourth amendment!"

[Suitsnstylesguy]

Uh Oh! It looks like Freddy and the Gang are going to have to teach you about the 4th Amendment!

[garcklesr.]

You sound exactly like the guy from FNaF: Sister Location

[reece]

I like how the animation doesn’t reflect the actual victim of the shooting. An unarmed black child.

[Dunder_Duck]

Five Nights at Freddy's is real life 😱😱

[AutiSims]

It sounds like he didn’t want the exotic butters

[gamingmoth]

This is actually incorrect. Tennessee VS Garner doesn’t pertain to “Unarmed Suspects”, it’s about “Fleeing Suspects”. Basically if police have good reason to believe that a fleeing suspect could be a threat to the life of someone else (like another officer, a bystander, a victim or the officer themselves), then lethal force is allowed to prevent said suspect from escaping. But the other hand, if a suspect is not a threat to the life of someone then lethal force is not allowed.

Here are 2 different examples… If someone had stolen a bunch of batteries and is running away then lethal force is not allowed. But if a fleeing suspect turns around and fires a few shots before continuing to run then lethal force is allowed. There are many other examples of what would be allowed and what would not be allowed, but I’d say that’s the basics.

[sethandthecrew]

The funny thing about this is this takes place during the Fnaf time line 😭

[dutchvanderlinde]

Was waiting for him to say "Here at Freddy Fazbears Pizzaria-"

[Milk_Weeks]

Eggs Benedict
Angsty teen
Casual bongos
Exotic butters

[Yomamadeeznutts]

That one TikTok is going to cause a mess

[ifaunic]

“Uh oh. It seems like Funtime Foxy doesn’t want to say hi to us today. Let’s exercise our 2nd amendment right with a controlled shot.”

[lcufey]

uh oh, looks like they need to put the judicial review to good use. let's motivate the supreme court with a *controlled shock.*

[jadexslayer]

Is it necessary to use the guy in fnaf

[glynnmartyg]

Sounds like we need to instill some justice with a controlled shock