Tennessee v.

Garner
Abstract
This paper examines the case of Tennessee v. Garner. The prosecution concerned the
unlawful usage of force in criminal situations. The court's judgment and the
explanations provided for it will also be investigated. The subsequent settlements
and disputes would be addressed as well.
Court’s Decision
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a petition in favor of the police
force and the county. In both points, the court ruled in favor of the other claimants.
When the appellant challenged, the Sixth Circuit retained portions of the lower
court's decision but rejected the claims against specific defendants. The upper court
remanded with regard to a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Monell v. Department
of Social Services, in which the court ruled that governments could be held liable
under U.S. Code title 42, section 1983. (Blume, 1984). The district court was also told
to consider whether the city was entitled to protection unless its measures were
implemented in compliance with state laws. If not, the court would consider whether
the usage of lethal force to arrest non-dangerous escaping felons is allowable under
the constitution.
On remand, the circuit court determined that the state's lethal force law was not
illegal. Since the court had determined that the appellant had not been denied or
stripped of any civil privilege, it could not decide on the matter of immunity. Another
petition was lodged with the Sixth Circuit (Blume, 1984). The Supreme Court ruled
that Tennessee's lethal force law exceeded the 4th and 14th amendments of the
United States Constitution. The US Supreme Court awarded certiorari in March 1984.
The Court has recently held oral arguments.
Do you agree/disagree?
The biggest obstacle of applying the balance test in determining the constitutionality
of states' lethal force laws is defining the state's priorities and assigning a weight to
them. Recognizing this dilemma, one court stated that the government's top goals
should be public safety and the fairness and efficiency of the criminal justice system.
Another goal was to keep police officers safe from unnecessary threats. Other
observers recognized that other valid government concerns included the security of
personal property, the detrimental impact of violence on individuals and
communities, and the preservation of the arrest process's efficacy. Individual interest
detection, on the other hand, has shown to be less difficult (Lewis, 1986). An
individual's interest(s) mainly involve an interest in rights, existence, and land, which
the constitution expressly grants and case law recognizes. Thus, it comes down to
two points of view: the first is that citizens prioritize public safety; the second is that
an individual's civil rights should be prioritized throughout this matter. I comply with
the district court's ruling because it emphasizes the importance of public protection.
People v. Oquendo is an example of a case in which the court accepted non-
mirandized claims made by Oquendo. The comments were made after 5 hours in
detention in answer to concerns regarding the location of a pistol (Wright, 2013). The
court argued that the public risk in this case, a missing loaded pistol left in an open
location, could not be readily identified without the suspect's assistance. The
accused in Allen v. Roe raised the same argument as in the Oquendo case: his non-
Mirandized comment could not be accepted since too much time had elapsed
between the commission of the crime and his detention. The Ninth Circuit clarified
that the missing gun in this case warranted the admission of such claims focused on
public protection, and the risk of a missing gun would not diminish with time (Wright,
2013).

References
Blume, J. (1984). Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository | Cornell University
Law School Research. Deadly Force in Memphis: Tennessee v. Garner. from
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/273/
Lewis, G. (1986). Tennessee vs. Garner: Invoking the Fourth Amendment to Limit
Police Use of Deadly Force. Pace Law Review, 6(4). from
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1569&context=plr
Wright, J. (2013). Applying Miranda’s Public Safety Exception to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:
Restricting Criminal Procedure Rights by Expanding Judicial Exceptions. Columbia Law
Review, 113, 136-155. from http://columbialawreview.org/boston-bombers-
miranda-rights_wright/