TENNESSEE v. GARNER. (1985). Tennessee’s statute says that if a officer has given notice of a crime suspect’s arrest, the suspect can flee or resist. An officer in Memphis shot and killed Garner’s son. He fled from Garner’s house by jumping over a fence. Although the officer was “reasonably certain” that the suspect was not armed, he believed that he was either 17-18 years old or of small build. In an attempt to recover damages under 42 U.S.C., the father sued Federal District Court. For alleged violations to his son’s constitutional rights, the father filed a Federal District Court action. The District Court ruled in favor of the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
GRAHAM V. CONNOR, (1989). Petitioner Graham was a diabetic who asked Berry to drive him there to get orange juice. This would counter the insulin reaction. Graham was shocked to see the large number of people in front of him and hurried to ask Berry to take him to his friend’s house. After witnessing Graham hurrying to enter and leave the shop, Connor, a local police officer, was suspicious. He stopped Berry’s vehicle and ordered them to wait until he discovered the truth. Respondent backup police officers arrived and arrested Graham. Graham sustained numerous injuries in the incident. After Connor discovered that there had been no crime in the store, Graham was released. These decisions are important for criminal procedure.
The Supreme Court case of Tennessee versus Garner centered around the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the right of people against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Court’s opinion adopts a broad standard for constitutionality of deadly force used to apprehend fleeing felons. Payton, supra, 600 is an old police practice that was approved by nearly half of all the state legislatures. Graham v. Connor, which is a constitutional rights amendment by the majority, I reject. In this instance, petitioner decided that it was best for him to disavow substantive due-process analysis as an alternative basis of recovery in prearrest cases involving excessive force.
This is why the Court should have decided to leave this question unanswered for another day. I think that it is rare that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t allow for force to be used that is not clearly unreasonable. This will likely raise substantive due-process concerns. I will not accept that substantive due procedure analysis is prohibited in prearrest cases unless I am confronted with the question directly.
