Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses …

For the state machinery, police is an inevitable organ which would ensure maintenance of law and order, and also the first link in the criminal justice system. On the other hand, for common man, police force is a symbol of brute force of authority and at the same time, the protector from crime.

Sir Robert Peel

Garner – The Fleeing Felon Rule. In Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Tennessee statute that permitted police to use deadly force against a suspected felon fleeing arrest.

Factors that Influence Police Discretion

• The Background of the officers – Law enforcement officers bring to the job all their previous life experiences.
• Characteristics of the suspect — Demeanor, style of dress and grooming may influence police discretion.
• Department Policy- This is not entirely subject to control by official policy, but can influence it.

The so-called “fleeing felon” rule instructs courts and law-enforcement personnel about whether, and when, police may use deadly force to stop a suspect who is attempting to escape arrest.

What was the historical “fleeing-felon rule”? a. It said officers could use deadly force against any felon who tried to flee.

Fleeing and eluding occurs when a driver does not pull over when a police officer flashes their lights and siren or engages in other maneuvers to avoid the officer.

1989

Graham v. Connor ruled on how police officers should approach investigatory stops and the use of force during an arrest. In the 1989 case, the Supreme Court ruled that excessive use of force claims must be evaluated under the “objectively reasonable” standard of the Fourth Amendment.

The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors for determining when an officer’s use of force is objectively reasonable: “the severity of the crime at issue”, “whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others”, and “whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to …

Under the Supreme Court decision Graham v. Connor American Law enforcement’s use of force is considered a 4th Amendment seizure. Under the 4th Amendment all citizens are “to be secure in their person… against unreasonable seizures,” and must be judged by reference to the 4th Amendment “reasonableness” standard.

The 1989 Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor established an objective reasonableness standard for when an officer can legally use force on a suspect and how much force can be used. The test is whether or not a reasonable officer on the scene, faced with the same circumstances, would use the same physical force.

Several scholars have characterized the Court’s consent jurisprudence as focusing not on true voluntariness but on the reasonableness of police conduct, which they argue is appropriate because the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness.”

Graham test

The Supreme Court ruled that police use of force must be “objectively reasonable”—that an officer’s actions were reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, without regard to his underlying intent or motivation. Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others.

A reasonableness standard is often a benchmark used in court when reviewing the decisions made by a particular party. The reasonableness standard is a test that asks whether the decisions made were legitimate and designed to remedy a certain issue under the circumstances at the time.

The test is whether the police officer believed it was necessary to use deadly physical force and whether such belief was objectively reasonable, based on the facts and circumstances known to the police officer at the time the decision to use deadly force was made. C.G.S.

The use of force, in the context of law enforcement, may be defined as the “amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject”. Use of force doctrines can be employed by law enforcement officers and military personnel on guard duty.

Broadly speaking, the use of force by law enforcement officers becomes necessary and is permitted under specific circumstances, such as in self-defense or in defense of another individual or group.

The term excessive force specifically refers to situations where law enforcement officers exceed the amount of force necessary against another person in an attempt to defuse a situation or to protect others or themselves from danger or harm.

In order to prove that excessive force occurred, the officer must have used force maliciously or sadistically and with the purpose of causing harm. This is a harder threshold for plaintiffs to meet when compared with the Fourth Amendment standard.

Garner (471 U.S. 1) placed restrictions police use of deadly force. The ruled that: “deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

300.2.1 USE OF FORCE TO EFFECT AN ARREST. Any peace officer that has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.

Reports indicate that in some departments encourage the use of excessive force and reward officers for engaging in violent behavior against suspects. Police officers should maintain their commitment to protecting and serving, but too often, this takes a backseat to biases, fears or pressures to act violently.

Police officers are generally allowed to use reasonable force to take a person into custody. If officers use unnecessary force, they can be subject to serious repercussions, including criminal prosecution and civil liability (in the form of lawsuits by victims).

The U.S. Navy teaches a six-step model: Officer presence, Verbal commands, Soft controls, Hard controls, Intermediate Weapons, and Lethal force.

The use of either can render a person unconscious and can be lethal. A Post survey of the 65 largest U.S. police departments found that 46 prohibit chokeholds in their use-of-force policies, while 44 prohibit carotid holds in those policies.

In the United States, the use of deadly force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful when the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others.