The Case Involving Garner against Tennessee - Research Paper Example

The Case Involving Garner against TennesseeThe case involving Garner against Tennessee is a 1985 is a case under the Fourteenth Amendment of the American constitution which allows law enforcement officers to use lethal force for purposes of preventing a suspect from escaping. This force is only allowed if the suspect is dangerous, and the officer can prove that their lives were in danger, or that of other people within the given circumstance. In this case, the police shot dead a fleeing teenager suspected of burglary after he defied orders to stop by the police (Pollock and Klotter, 2009).

The police were sure that the teenager was unarmed, but still they shot him relying on the Tennessee deadly force statute that authorized use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect. Garner’s father sued the police officers, the mayor of the city Memphis and the specific police against breach of Garners right provided for under the Fourteenth, fourth and eight Amendments (Levy, Karst and Winkler, 2000). He alleged that Hymon violated the rights of Garner when he shot and killed him. He sued the mayor of Memphis, and the police department because of their failure to effectively train Hymon and supervise him.

He denotes that this contributed to the behavior of Hymon that made him kill Garner. He specifically used the 1871 civil rights act, section 42 which protected citizens against anyone who breached their rights in accordance to the United States Constitution (Pollock and Klotter, 2009). The district court ruled in favor of the mayor, the police department and Hymon. The district court ruled that the Tennessee deadly force statute was constitutional, and Hymon did not deprive Garner of his constitutional rights.

On appeal, the court repealed the Tennessee deadly force statute, denoting that the law was unconstitutional, violating the fourteenth and the fourth amendment. The appeal court was particularly interested on the fact that fleeing suspect did not pose any danger to the police officers, or other people within the surrounding. The appeal court ruled that by killing a suspect who is unarmed, by officer violates the rights of such a person in regard to seizure outlined in the Fourth Amendment of the American constitution (Levy, Karst and Winkler, 2000).

The court, in the 1978 case involving department of Social services against Monell, denoted that it is possible to charge Municipal councils against liability. This was a case challenging the constitutionality of the maternity policies of the Education board of New York. This case applies to the Rambeaux case because it involves itself with the constitutional legality of using lethal force against fleeing suspects. References:Levy, L. W., Karst, K. L., & Winkler, A. (2000). Encyclopedia of the American Constitution (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.

Pollock, J. M., & Klotter, J. C. (2009). Criminal law (9th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, Anderson Pub.. Top of FormBottom of Form