Tennessee V. Earner Case

Payne was tried and convicted by the Tennessee Trial Court by a jury on two counts of first-degree murder and on one count of assault with intent to murder in the first degree. Payne was then sentenced to death for both murders and 30 years in prison for the assault. Payne appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court asserting that Mary Zvolanek’s testimony was “irrelevant,” and that her testimony violated his rights guaranteed by the 8th amendment as was applied in the cases of Booth. V. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989); however, the court concluded that Zvolanek’s testimony was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Following the Court’s decision, Payne appealed to the United States Supreme Court who heard his case.

In Tennessee v. Garner (1985) a Tennessee statue was under scrutiny due to it providing that if, after a law enforcement officer stated his or her intent to apprehend a suspect, the suspect attempts to flee or forcibly resists the officer has the right to do whatever necessary in order to apprehend the suspect. With this statue in place a Memphis police officer shot Garner’s son while he was fleeing from a home that he was suspected for burglarizing. The officer shot Garner’s son in the back even though he suspected that the individual was just a teenager who was unarmed and was of slight build. The district court ruled that the shooting was constitutional, whereas, the appeals court reversed the ruling. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that

The Supreme Court opinion regarding the actions the officer took in using excessive force was reasonable under the circumstances that Victor Harris had put other drivers and law enforcement officers in danger and concluded that Deputy Scott did not violate the constitutional rights by the use of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

The Tennessee vs. Garner case in 1985 reiterated the unlawful nature of deadly force when used by law enforcement officers. A few years later, the justification of excessive force transpired during the Graham vs. Connor case in 1989. In this case, the concept of "reasonableness" was explored when a police officer followed a man’s car because of personal suspicions. Berry Graham was handcuffed and questioned. In the midst of the arrest, Graham experienced discomfort due to his diabetic condition. He simultaneously acquired several cuts and bruises because of the excessive force being used on him. His pleas were ignored, and he proceeded to file a lawsuit claiming that the force that had been used on him violated his fourteenth amendment rights regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The court justified the practicality of the case and declared that the officer’s force was appropriate regarding the circumstances of the situation. This decision emphasized the powers that law enforcement officers have regarding the amount of force they must use to execute their duties.

Mr. Graham was later released when the officer establishes that nothing had happened in the store. Graham then sued the police department, claiming his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The Supreme Court later ruled that the police officers be held accountable under the Constitution and federal law for using excessive force on Graham. The court also ruled that such liability must base on the standard of objective sensibleness. (Carmen,

Procedure:     Garner’s father brought the action the police officer took in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, looking for violations that were made of Garner’s constitutional rights. The complaint was alleged that the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After a three day trial, the District Court entered judgement for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon’s actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

On the night of October 3, 1974 at 10:45pm Memphis police officer was dispatched to answer a burglary call. The call was from next door, and the police officers that answered the call was Leslie Wright and Elton Hymon. Officer Hymon went behind the house as the other officer radioed back to the station. The officer witness someone running across the yard. Edward Garner was the fleeing suspect. Garner stopped at the fence. Hymon used a flashlight, and he saw Hymon face, and hands. Hymon was sure that Garner was unarmed.The police testified that Garner was 17 or 18, but he was only in fact 15. Garner begin to climb the fence even though police had told him to stop. Hymon shot Garner because he believed Garner would flee if he did not. Garner was shot in the back and he died. The only thing he took was ten dollars and a purse, I think he would have took more if he had time to find more. Deadly force against a fleeing suspect is authorized under Tennessee State Statute

This case is important to anyone working in law enforcement because of the objective reasonableness standard that it established via the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case also reversed a four-factor test regarding use of force that was used to test if the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or was applied with malice to cause harm. The Supreme Court in 490 U.S. 396 (1986) determined that the four factor test did not cover all possible situations and only the decision making skills of a human being can adequately determine the appropriate use of force.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

You’re driving with your girlfriend and child, on your way home after a long day. You suddenly get pulled over by a cop. You do as the cop says, in addition, you decide it’s not best to argue back. You speak calmly and do as the cop says, yet they are afraid of you and think you will try something horrific. As soon as you’re about to show them your license, it is suddenly too late. You are shot and are no longer alive. It took 40 seconds for an ordinary traffic stop to turn deadly. This occurred to a man named Philando Castile. He was fatally shot by a cop when he was reaching for his license. Philando Castile informed him beforehand that he legally had a firearm in his car before they decide to shoot or arrest him. However, the cop said that he

Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985) that under the Fourth Amendment a Police Officer could not legally seize, take, a potential suspect’s life through the use of deadly force unless circumstances warranted it. It was deemed that only if the officer had probable cause to believe the defendant had committed a violent crime, was a danger to the community, or a threat to the officer would the officer have the authority to utilize deadly force to stop the suspect. The United States Supreme Court further decided that the Tennessee statute was invalid in regards to giving Officer Hymon authorization to use deadly force in the instance of Edward Garner. The United States Supreme Court stated that the Tennessee statute originated from a time when many more crimes were punishable by death than are in present times. Thus it could no longer be interpreted literally in light of changes to the criminal justice system. Due Process for all citizens is protected by the precedent set in this case; stating firmly, as it does, that only in instances where an officer has probable cause to believe a violent crime has occurred or has the potential to happen may said law enforcement officers use deadly force to deter, or prevent it while apprehending suspects. As stated under the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights each and every American has protection from unjust

The Fourth Amendment known as the Search and Seizure amendment was first passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 (Amendment IV SEARCH AND SEIZURE). When this amendment was first passed by Congress criminal defendants and family members of the defendant did not put much thought or value into this amendment because it was of little help to them. However, after a Supreme Court case in 1914 called Weeks v. United States, this amendment began to have more value for criminal defendants and their families (The Fourth Amendment and the “Exclusionary Rule”). For instance, one Supreme Court case known as Tennessee v. Garner that was argue on October 30, 1984 and decided upon on March 27, 1985, (Tennessee v. Garner) caused a large amount of

In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled a decision on the court case, Minnesota v. Dickerson. This court case followed the court ruling in 1968, which was the original stop and frisk case, Terry v. Ohio. In Terry v. Ohio, “The Supreme Court of the United States held that it is a reasonable search when an officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person that the officer reasonably believes could be armed. A typical beat officer would be unduly burdened by

It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon's actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.