Fourth Amendment Limits Analysis

¶ … Tennessee v. Garner. The case involved the excessive use of force with regards to felony cases. The decision of the court and the reasons given will also be looked into. The agreements and disagreements that followed will also be discussed.

Court Decision

At the end of the trial the court granted a motion in favor of the police department and the city. The court also found for the other defendants on all issues. When the plaintiff appealed, the Sixth circuit upheld parts of the district court's verdict, but dismissed the cases against individual defendants. The upper court in its decision remanded with respect to a Supreme Court decision in the case of Monell v. Department of Social Services, in which the court held that municipalities could be subject to liability the U.S. Code title 42, section 1983 (Blume, 1984). The district court was further instructed to weigh whether the city was entitled to immunity since its policies had been put in place in accordance to state legislations. If not, the court needed to weigh whether the use of fatal force to apprehend non-dangerous fleeing felons was permissible under the constitution.

On remand, the district court found that the State's deadly force legislation was not unconstitutional. Since the court also found that the plaintiff had not been denied or deprived of any constitutional right, it did not reach a verdict on the issue of immunity. Another appeal was filed at the Sixth Circuit (Blume, 1984). The upper court found that the state of Tennessee's deadly force legislation violated the 4th and 14th amendments of the constitution. In March 1984 a certiorari was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court also recently heard oral arguments.

Agree/Disagree

In the matter of constitutionality of states' deadly force statutes, identifying the interests of the state and assigning a weight to them is the main challenge in incorporating the balancing test. Recognizing this challenge, one court identified the protection of the security of the public and the preservation of the integrity and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as key priorities for the government. Another priority was the protection of police officers from unreasonable risks. Other commentators noted that other legitimate government priorities were the protection of personal property, negative effect of the crime on the individual and the community, and maintenance of the effectiveness of the arrest process. Conversely, the identification of the interests of individuals has posed less of a challenge (Lewis, 1986). As the constitution explicitly grants and case law acknowledges, an individual's interest(s) primarily include an interest in liberty, life, and property. Thus it boils down to two views: first, is that people see the protection of public safety as a priority; second, is that an individual's constitutional rights should be a priority in this matter. I do agree with the decision of the district court since it supports the idea of public safety as paramount.