The Tennessee v. Garner Case - Assignment Example

The Tennessee v. Garner Case The importance of the Tennessee v. Garner case was that it was a hallmark matter which required the attention, hearing and resolution through the highest court in the country. This was due to the fact that it touched on the constitutional provisions on the notion of what was considered to lie within the “margin of reasonable force.” It was critical because the law of the land or the state stipulated that under those circumstances, it was reasonable to use such force.

However, the appellee respondent questioned the veracity of those actions under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for alleged violation of fundamental rights of the deceased (Walker & Fridell, 1992). Issue The gist of the matter was on the constitutional interpretation on what reasonable force or the necessary means required to effect an arrest was. This scenario is critical because it puts constitutional interpretation at the center, seemingly because the rights of the deceased were violated, under supposed provisions of the law.

HoldingThe district court upheld the Tennessee statute, and confirmed as valid the actions of the officer to have used reasonable force to effect an arrest. However, the higher court reversed that decision and questioned the authenticity of lethal force, if it left the suspect without life. In effect, the decision of the district court was rendered null and void relative to the Fourth amendment as held in the constitution. ReasoningSubsequently, the right to arrest a person must not exceed the right to life of the same person especially if the suspect is not armed.

The officers must then strive to use alternative means that also protected the life and right of the suspects. This is to say that seizure ought to include actions such as restraining a suspect other than killing him or her. Case significanceThis was a landmark ruling which informed and guided the actions of officers in subsequent times. If one regressed the law under similar circumstance, then one would be held criminally accountable. This is to imply that police officers must use other means to seize an unarmed suspect without killing them.

ReferenceWalker, S., & Fridell, L. (1992). Forces of change in police policy: the impact of Tennessee v. Garner. Am. J. Police, 11, 97.