## Facts

- Memphis police responded at night to a reported burglary.
- Officer Elton Hymon saw Edward Eugene Garner, a “slight” 15-year-old, running across a yard and stopping at a six-foot chain-link fence.
- Using a flashlight, Hymon could see Garner’s face and hands and was “reasonably sure” Garner was unarmed.
- Hymon shouted “police, halt,” but Garner began climbing the fence to flee.
- Believing Garner would escape if he cleared the fence, Hymon shot him; the bullet struck Garner in the back of the head, and he died soon after.
- Ten dollars and a stolen purse were found on Garner’s body.
- Hymon acted under a Tennessee statute and a similar Memphis Police Department policy authorizing officers to use “all the necessary means” to effect an arrest after notice when a suspect flees or forcibly resists.
- Garner’s father brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the statute and the use of deadly force violated the Constitution.

## Issues

1. Whether shooting a fleeing suspect to stop escape constitutes a “seizure” governed by the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the Fourth Amendment permits deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing felony suspect.
3. What standard determines when deadly force to prevent escape is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court held that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a Fourth Amendment “seizure” subject to the reasonableness requirement.
- The Court held the Tennessee statute unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.
- The Court ruled that deadly force may not be used to prevent escape unless it is necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
- Applying that standard, the Court concluded the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer was reasonably sure Garner was unarmed and there was no showing of an immediate threat of serious harm.

## Legal Principles

- Use of deadly force to stop a suspect’s flight is a “seizure” within the Fourth Amendment.
- Fourth Amendment reasonableness requires balancing the individual’s interest in life and freedom from arbitrary force against the government’s interest in law enforcement and preventing escape.
- A categorical “fleeing felon” rule is constitutionally unreasonable; the common-law rule does not control Fourth Amendment analysis.
- Deadly force to prevent escape is permissible only when (1) it is necessary to prevent escape and (2) the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

## Conclusion

The Court held that deadly force is an extreme form of seizure and is generally unreasonable to stop the flight of an apparently unarmed, nondangerous suspect; it may be used only when necessary to prevent escape and supported by probable cause that the suspect poses a significant threat of serious physical harm.


Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)