Which case established that deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon is permissible only when the suspect poses a threat or there is a significant risk of harm?

Which case established that deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon is permissible only when the suspect poses a threat or there is a significant risk of harm?

• A. Illinois v. Lafayette
• B. Terry v. Ohio
• C. Tennessee v. Garner
• D. Michigan v. Long

Answer: (C)

The principle tested is that deadly force used to stop a fleeing suspect must be justified by the level of threat posed. Tennessee v. Garner specifies that you can’t shoot to prevent someone from escaping simply because they are fleeing. Deadly force is permissible only if there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others, or there is an imminent risk of escape that could lead to such harm. This ruling makes the standard objective and safety-focused, tying the use of deadly force to clear, serious danger rather than to the act of fleeing itself. Terry v. Ohio is about stop-and-frisk based on reasonable suspicion, not about using deadly force to prevent escape. Michigan v. Long deals with protective searches during vehicle stops and extends Terry in that context. The question’s scenario directly reflects the rule from Tennessee v. Garner, which is why it’s the best answer.

The principle tested is that deadly force used to stop a fleeing suspect must be justified by the level of threat posed. Tennessee v. Garner specifies that you can’t shoot to prevent someone from escaping simply because they are fleeing. Deadly force is permissible only if there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others, or there is an imminent risk of escape that could lead to such harm. This ruling makes the standard objective and safety-focused, tying the use of deadly force to clear, serious danger rather than to the act of fleeing itself.

Terry v. Ohio is about stop-and-frisk based on reasonable suspicion, not about using deadly force to prevent escape. Michigan v. Long deals with protective searches during vehicle stops and extends Terry in that context. The question’s scenario directly reflects the rule from Tennessee v. Garner, which is why it’s the best answer.