Tennessee v. Garner

What Happened

On the night of October 3, 1974, Memphis police officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright responded to a “prowler inside” call. When they arrived at the house, a neighbor told them she’d heard glass breaking next door. Officer Wright radioed dispatch while Hymon went around back. He saw someone running across the yard. At the chain-link fence at the edge of the yard, Hymon could see it was a young man — later identified as 15-year-old Edward Garner. Hymon was “reasonably sure” the kid was unarmed. He could see Garner’s face and hands in the moonlight.

Hymon yelled “police, halt.” Garner crouched at the base of the fence, about to climb over. If he made it over the fence, Hymon believed he’d lose him in the dark. So Hymon shot him. The bullet struck Garner in the back of the head. He died on the operating table. Ten dollars and a purse stolen from the house were found on his body.

Officer Hymon was acting under Tennessee law and Memphis Police Department policy, both of which authorized the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of any fleeing felony suspect. Garner’s father brought a § 1983 suit against the officer, the police department, the city of Memphis, and others, alleging that the shooting violated Garner’s Fourth Amendment rights.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court held 6-3, in an opinion by Justice White, that deadly force against a fleeing suspect is a “seizure” subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. The common-law rule allowing deadly force against any fleeing felon — which dated back centuries to when all felonies were punishable by death — was unconstitutional.

The Court applied the Fourth Amendment balancing test: the government’s interest in effective law enforcement must be weighed against the individual’s interest in his own life. “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” 471 U.S. at 11.

But the Court didn’t ban deadly force entirely. It drew a bright line: “Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.” 471 U.S. at 11. Deadly force is permitted only when “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” 471 U.S. at 3.

The Court added a practical requirement: “if feasible, some warning should be given” before using deadly force. 471 U.S. at 11–12.

What It Means in Practice

Garner is the foundational case on police use of deadly force. It establishes the constitutional floor: officers may not kill someone just because that person is running away, even from a felony. The suspect must pose a serious danger.

Together with Graham v. Connor, Garner provides the complete framework for excessive force analysis. Garner addresses deadly force; Graham addresses all force during seizures. Both apply the Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” test, but Garner’s rule is more specific: deadly force requires a threat of death or serious physical injury.

In practice, Garner comes up most often in police shooting cases. When an officer shoots a suspect who is running away, the central question is whether the officer had probable cause to believe the suspect posed a serious threat. Relevant factors include whether the suspect was armed, whether the suspect had just committed a violent crime, whether the suspect had threatened anyone, and whether a warning was feasible.

How You Can Use It

Garner is essential for any claim involving deadly force against a fleeing suspect:

• The suspect-must-be-dangerous rule. If the suspect posed no immediate threat and no threat to others, deadly force is per se unreasonable. Full stop.
• Key quote: “Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.” 471 U.S. at 11.
• Warning requirement. If the officer gave no warning before shooting, emphasize that Garner requires a warning “if feasible.” 471 U.S. at 11–12.
• Crime severity matters. Garner was fleeing from a nonviolent burglary. The less serious the crime, the harder it is to justify deadly force. An unarmed teenager running from a property crime cannot be shot.
• Template: “Under Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985), deadly force may not be used to prevent a suspect’s escape unless the officer has ‘probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.’ Here, [suspect] posed no such threat: [he/she was unarmed, fleeing from a nonviolent offense, and had not threatened anyone].”

How It Can Be Used Against You

Defendants will try to bring their case within Garner’s exception:

• “The suspect was dangerous.” The officer will claim the suspect appeared armed, had committed a violent felony, or had made threatening gestures. Even where the suspect turned out to be unarmed, the officer will argue that the belief was reasonable at the time.
• Reframing the threat. Officers may point to the danger of ongoing flight — that a fleeing suspect might carjack someone, might be armed, might hurt a bystander. The defense will try to create a “threat” narrative even when the immediate facts don’t support one.
• Scott v. Harris expansion. After Scott, courts have recognized that Garner doesn’t create a rigid “deadly force” on/off switch. The defense will argue that Garner’s balancing test permits deadly force whenever the totality of circumstances makes it reasonable, not only when the suspect is personally armed and dangerous.

How to counter: Focus on what the officer actually knew at the moment of the shooting. What had the officer seen? Was the suspect armed? Was a violent crime in progress? Had the suspect threatened anyone? Strip away the post-hoc rationalizations and reconstruct the scene as it actually was. If the officer shot a fleeing person in the back without a warning, and that person was unarmed and fleeing from a nonviolent crime, Garner squarely prohibits the use of deadly force.