Deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects is constitutionally unreasonable.

Deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects is constitutionally unreasonable.

• A. Illinois v. Lafayette (1983)
• B. Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
• C. Michigan v. Long (1983)
• D. Popple v. State

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is that using deadly force to prevent the escape of every fleeing felony suspect is not allowed under the Fourth Amendment. Courts have held that a blanket rule permitting deadly force against all fleeing felons is unconstitutional. Deadly force may be used only when there is a real, immediate danger: the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to others, or the suspect is actively posing such a threat. This principle was developed and refined in the 1980s through cases that rejected the idea of a universal “fleeing felon” rule and insisted on threat-based, necessary-for-survival standards. The key takeaway is that the force must be tied to the actual danger presented, not applied indiscriminately to all felons.

The main idea here is that using deadly force to prevent the escape of every fleeing felony suspect is not allowed under the Fourth Amendment. Courts have held that a blanket rule permitting deadly force against all fleeing felons is unconstitutional. Deadly force may be used only when there is a real, immediate danger: the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to others, or the suspect is actively posing such a threat. This principle was developed and refined in the 1980s through cases that rejected the idea of a universal “fleeing felon” rule and insisted on threat-based, necessary-for-survival standards. The key takeaway is that the force must be tied to the actual danger presented, not applied indiscriminately to all felons.