Tennessee v. Garner (1985) established that deadly force may not be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon unless the suspect poses a threat or is likely to cause harm.

Tennessee v. Garner (1985) established that deadly force may not be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon unless the suspect poses a threat or is likely to cause harm.

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

Answer: (B)

The question tests understanding of the limits on using deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect. Tennessee v. Garner established that police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon unless there is a real, specific threat: the officer must have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or to others, or that the suspect has committed a violent crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious harm, and the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent escape. In other words, deadly force isn’t automatically justified against anyone who runs; it must be tied to an imminent threat or serious risk. This case changed the old approach that allowed deadly force against any fleeing felon, aligning policing with the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard. Practically, if a suspect is merely fleeing without posing a significant danger, deadly force would not be justified under this ruling.

The question tests understanding of the limits on using deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect. Tennessee v. Garner established that police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon unless there is a real, specific threat: the officer must have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or to others, or that the suspect has committed a violent crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious harm, and the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent escape. In other words, deadly force isn’t automatically justified against anyone who runs; it must be tied to an imminent threat or serious risk.

This case changed the old approach that allowed deadly force against any fleeing felon, aligning policing with the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard. Practically, if a suspect is merely fleeing without posing a significant danger, deadly force would not be justified under this ruling.