The Turning Point of Policing Tactics: The Story of Tennessee v. Garner

Delving into the field of policing in America, one cannot help but notice the ripple effect caused by the pivotal Tennessee v. Garner case in 1985. Even if the case title doesn't immediately ring a bell, its consequential impact on the principles governing the application of lethal force by law enforcement officers has undeniably left a lasting imprint on law enforcement regulations and public opinion.

Set your mind to a late evening in Memphis, Tennessee. A law enforcement officer, responding to a burglary alarm, sights a young man, Edward Garner, making an escape.

In the heat of the moment, the officer, fearing that Garner might elude arrest, resolves to shoot, despite a strong suspicion that the youth is unarmed. Garner doesn't survive the gunshot, giving birth to a lawsuit that escalates all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

This case stirred an uncomfortable question: Is it appropriate for an officer to exercise deadly force to halt the escape of an unarmed fugitive? Before this incident, Tennessee legislation authorized officers to "use all the necessary means to effect the arrest" of a fleeing suspect.

Get quality help now

WriterBelle

Verified writer

Proficient in: Law

4.7 (657)

“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

But is this ethically right? Is it lawful? Above all, does it abide by the Constitution?

The Supreme Court, after thoughtful consideration, ruled that utilizing deadly force to halt the escape of an unarmed suspect infracted the individual's Fourth Amendment rights, which shield citizens from "unreasonable searches and seizures." The verdict stated that an officer cannot justify deadly force unless there's reasonable cause to think the suspect represents a substantial risk of causing death or severe physical harm to the officer or others.

What makes the Tennessee v. Garner case genuinely compelling is the sophisticated discussion of the balance between a law enforcement officer's responsibility to uphold the law and a person's fundamental liberties. It forces us to contemplate the worth of a human life within the realm of law enforcement and the extent to which an officer should (or should not) go to catch a suspect.

Following this significant judgment, law enforcement agencies nationwide have been compelled to reevaluate their use-of-force policies. More emphasis is now placed on de-escalation strategies and prioritizing non-lethal methods of apprehension. This case has been a cornerstone for debates on law enforcement, particularly in the current era, as the nation wrestles with broader concerns about police behavior and responsibility.

Moreover, the Tennessee v. Garner case magnifies the ever-evolving nature of the U.S. legal structure. Interpretations of constitutional rights are not rigid; they transform based on societal context and the individual case circumstances. It is a robust reminder that the Constitution, while a historical document, remains deeply ingrained in directing contemporary discussions and verdicts.

Reflecting on this case, one's thoughts invariably return to Edward Garner, the 15-year-old whose unfortunate death ignited a nation-wide scrutiny of law enforcement protocols. While no actions can undo his death, the legacy of his case has indisputably stimulated a more discerning approach to law enforcement in America.

Though the Tennessee v. Garner case happened decades ago, it hasn't faded into oblivion. For legal scholars, law enforcement officers, civil rights campaigners, and ordinary citizens, it's a stark reminder of the ongoing pursuit of a more equitable and balanced society. We've made considerable progress since 1985, but the conversation around police behavior, rights, and accountability remains as relevant today as it was back then.