Dealing with errant criminals may be extremely difficult and might require the use of extra force to achieve the aim. This is indispensable especially if the criminal does not want to surrender or is trying to flee from the police officers or authorities. This paper seeks to analyze the impact of the Tennessee v. Garner, et al in the general search and seizure. There is many disturbing revelation based on the general statistics before and after the amendment and the application of the rule. According to the under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The constitutional right is in conflict with the Tennessee statute. The statute provides “after a police officer has given notice of intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.” The number of homicides committed by the Tennessee police officers is still on the increase. On the other hand, the statute is questionable based on the 4th amendment of the US constitution.
The case ofU.S. Supreme court Tennessee vs. Garner involves Memphis police officer who shot to kill an appellate-respondent who was fleeing and failed to halt when asked to stop. While the officer was reasonably sure that garners son was not armed, and bellow the age of 18. The father of the suspect decided to bring an action to federal district court in search for damages as provided by 42 U.S.C. 1983. He said that his son’s constitutional rights were violated. However, while theDistrict Court held that the police officer's actions were justified and constructional, the decision was reversed by The Court of Appeal.
The Tennessee statute that allows for the use of deadly force is extremely unconstitutional. For example, the suspect was fleeing, which is within the statute, but the suspect was not armed. It is not appropriate to use force against an armed suspect. Such force is only appropriate if the police officer feels threatened or the suspect poses a considerable threat such as death or physical injury to either the police officer or public. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]
The fourth amendment
The Fourth Amendment provides that the then use of deadly force must be within the reasonable requirement of the amendment. Though deadly force is a form of seizure, the force must be within the regulations. However, it is essential to note that a seizure cannot be reasonable unless the violation of the right of the suspect balances with the government regulation for effective law enforcement. The balancing process argues that the police officer might not kill a suspect to seize. The escape of a felony suspect must not be prevented by use of deadly force as it is quite unreasonable constitutionally Pp. 7-12.
While the fourth amendment is developed in relation to case of felony, it should never be misconstrued to fit the common law. The Memphis statute allowed the use of force; however, it did not specify how much force or limit and nature of such force. This rule has been distorted by the legal and technological contexts beyond recognition. Then, felony was serious criminal offence, nowadays, felony is categorically defined as a misdemeanor, and the misdemeanors classified as a felony. Then weapons such as hand guns were exceedingly rudimentary unlike now.
The common law rule is now dubious indicium of the actual constitutionality of the Tennessee statute. On the other hand, though burglary is a major crime, Officer Hymen, was wrong to have believed that Edward garner was armed. He was sure that Edwards posed no threat. However, he shot Edward to restrain him from eluding seizure. Hyman was wrong to have assumed that an armed suspect (Edwards) was a threat to him or the woman whose house Edward burgled. This is not to say unarmed suspects are dangerous
For one, the fourth amendment was violated by officer Hymon, when he shot the suspect without know wing whether the suspect was alone, he did not know what had taken place, but just shot at the suspect under the belief that the suspect was escaping. He shot him before he eluded seizure. However, it is imperative to note that the conditions for reasonableness demanded by the fourth amendment were not met or considered, as it is difficult for the police officer to determine the reasonableness when the suspect is fleeing. It is not constitutionally impermissible to shoot burglary suspect trying to flee the crime scene. There are no constitutional provisions that support the decision of the Tennessee.
The police officer did not only violate the fourth amendment but also violated the eighth amendment that provides that suspects have a right to be tried by a jury. Nevertheless, this was rejected as it lacks premise. The due process claim is acceptable because according to the sixth amendment, the court argued that:
Statutes affecting the fundamental interest in life must be "narrowly drawn to express the legitimate state interests at stake.
A criminal suspected of having committed a crime is, ..And shot while fleeing or avoiding comprehension has no cognizable claim that he has been deprived of the sixth amendment of right t trial by a jury (Cunningham v. Ellington, 323 F.Supp. 1072, 1075-1076 (WD Tenn.1971) (three-judge court). Nevertheless, there is no proper indication that the deadly force was geared at punishing and not capturing the suspect. The eighth amendment lacks does not provide a valid claim form this Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 441 U. S. 538-539 (1979).
The Supreme Court acknowledged the sixth circuit verdict that "the facts, as found, did not justify the use of deadly force,"12 and held the Tennessee statute “unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against... unarmed, non dangerous suspect[s]."
The judgment of the district court against apellee-respondent was right and timely, however, the decision of the court of appeals decision should be reversed this is because, under the actual circumstances of this case, it is healthy to note that deadly force should only be used if the crime suspect:
"threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm
The Constitution of USA is a supremely civilized article. It holds its principles high, especially the principles of that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires that punishment is only made after trial according to the due process of law. The Court's majority opinion of the supreme in the case of Garner, and the minority opinion, all support the society’s concept of civilization by accurately setting up justice and promoting domestic serenity.
Edwards C, (1987). The Shot in the Back Case: Tennessee v. Garner. REVIEW OF law & social change [vol. xiv: 733] Justia
Garner v. Memphis Police Dep't, 710 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1983), affd sub nom. Tennessee v. Garner, 105 S. Ct. 1694 (1985). Findlaw
 ld. at 11, cited in Gamer, lOS S. Ct. at 170S.