471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985)
On October 3, 1974, at approximately 10:45 p.m., Memphis Police Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright responded to a prowler inside call at a residence in Memphis.1
Upon arrival, a woman standing on the porch of the adjacent house gestured toward the house and told the officers she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking in next door.2 While Officer Wright radioed the dispatcher, Officer Hymon went behind the house, heard a door slam, and saw Edward Garner running across the backyard.3
Garner stopped at a six-foot-high chain link fence at the edge of the yard.4 With the aid of a flashlight, Hymon saw Garner's face and hands, observed no sign of a weapon, and was reasonably sure that Garner was unarmed.5 Hymon called out police halt and took a few steps toward Garner, who then began to climb the fence.6 Convinced that Garner would elude capture if he made it over the fence, Hymon shot him in the back of the head.7 Garner was taken by ambulance to a hospital where he died on the operating table, and ten dollars and a purse taken from the house were found on his body.8
At the time of the shooting, Hymon was acting under the authority of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-7-108, which provided that if after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant he either flees or forcibly resists, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.9 The Memphis Police Department policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute but still permitted the use of deadly force in cases of burglary.10 The incident was reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearms Review Board and presented to a grand jury, neither of which took any action.11
Garner's father brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Officer Hymon, the Police Department, its Director, the Mayor, and the City of Memphis for asserted violations of Garner's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.12 After a 3-day bench trial, the District Court entered judgment for all defendants.13 It then concluded that Hymon's actions were authorized by the Tennessee statute, which in turn was constitutional.14 The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the Tennessee statute authorizing the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect was unconstitutional and that the Memphis Police Department's policies on the use of deadly force were unconstitutional.15 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.16
Whether a police officer's use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment?17
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force to seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.18
The officer's use of deadly force constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.22
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by The Chief Justice And Justice Rehnquist
Justice O'Connor dissented on the ground that the public interest in the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals is significant.23 She argued that the Tennessee statute reflects a legislative judgment that the use of deadly force is sometimes necessary to apprehend a dangerous felon.24 The Court should not substitute its own judgment for that of the legislature.25
She would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.26 The facts of this case demonstrate the wisdom of the Tennessee statute because Edward Garner had broken into a house at night and fled when the police arrived.27
Whether a Tennessee statute authorizing the use of deadly force against any fleeing felony suspect is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment as applied to an unarmed and nondangerous suspect?28
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against an apparently unarmed and nondangerous fleeing suspect.29
Yes. The statute authorizes the use of deadly force against any felony suspect who refuses to halt when commanded to do so.30 As applied to Garner, who was unarmed and nondangerous, the statute fails to satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements because it is not narrowly drawn to limit the use of deadly force to situations posing a threat of serious physical harm.31
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional as applied to this case.32