Tennessee v. Garner impact: LEOs use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felon. Which is true?

Tennessee v. Garner impact: LEOs use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felon. Which is true?

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Only if the suspect is armed
• D. Only during daylight

Answer: (A)

The key idea is how the Fourth Amendment governs when deadly force may be used to stop a fleeing felon. Tennessee v. Garner held that police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others. In other words, deadly force is justified only in those extreme, imminent-threat situations; it’s not allowed merely because someone is fleeing. Non-lethal means should be used if feasible. So the statement is true because it reflects this limitation: deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon is permissible only when there is a significant threat. It’s not dependent on daylight or on the suspect being armed.

The key idea is how the Fourth Amendment governs when deadly force may be used to stop a fleeing felon. Tennessee v. Garner held that police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others. In other words, deadly force is justified only in those extreme, imminent-threat situations; it’s not allowed merely because someone is fleeing. Non-lethal means should be used if feasible.

So the statement is true because it reflects this limitation: deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon is permissible only when there is a significant threat. It’s not dependent on daylight or on the suspect being armed.