Systems Paper
Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
The civil case has a background whereby the Supreme Court in the United States came with the decision that quotes the fourth amendment.. it translates into defining how the behavior of police officers can be defined in situations where the suspect is on the run. The case came in play after the occurrence of a situation where the police officer fired his weapon and killed Garner a suspect who was on the run and fleeing the crime location. Despite being unarmed the police officer made a decision to fire with main aim of stopping the suspect from escaping. “He saw no sign of a weapon, and, though not certain, was “reasonably sure” and “figured” that Garner was unarmed” (Tennessee v. Garner, 1985, para. 1). The shooting of garner led to legal battle instituted by his father with the aim of challenging the Tennessee statute which created authority for the application of excessive and deadly force in the cases where the suspects flee the crime scene. The use of deadly force by the security forces is a debatable decision because of the nature of the questionable killings and other police shootings in the United States (FindLaw, 2020). The national polices personnel are mandated to apply force provided it is applied under reasonable circumstances and within the legal boundaries.
The Tennessee statute creates a direction for the police officers to apply deadly force in situations where the suspect flees or resists after the officer gives notice or intention of arresting the suspect. The powers given to the officer includes doing whatever is necessary to ensure that the arrest is made possible. The shooting of Garner by the Memphis police officer led to the killing of unarmed burglar suspect. The officer put in excessive force especially with the knowledge that the suspect was not in possession of any weapon. The suspect’s father took the issue to the federal district court in search for damages for the violation his son’s constitutional rights. The federal district court upheld that the shooting actions of the police officer and the Tennessee statute to be constitutional and that the officer did not violate any rights. However after taking the case up to the Court Of Appeal it was held that the actions of the police were unconstitutional because of the unreasonable use of deadly force.
“The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless 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” (Tennessee v. Garner, n.d)
Therefore the statute that gives the authority to police officers to apply deadly force with the aim of preventing suspects from escaping was held to be in the violation of the fourth amendment. The violation comes in place because the fourth amendment does not authorize the use of deadly force except when it is deemed necessary due to the threats caused by the suspect. The case was appealed in the Supreme Court by Tennessee unsuccessfully because the outcomes of the court of appeal were upheld after the majority agreed to the opinions.
“This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable” FindLaw (2020, 1).
Criminal justice system that was most affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling
The Supreme Court’s ruling affected the criminal law system especially in the case where it emphasized how the fourth amendment of the constitution outlawed the unreasonable police seizures. The common law rule of the criminal justice system that allows the application of the deadly force for the suspects who are on the run was revolutionized. The cases of police committing homicides cases were subjected to critical examination by courts. The analysis of subsequent cases focused on establishing the degree to which force was required to be applied, the proportion of force used, and injury inflicted to the suspect and the intention of the officer. Tennenbaum (1994) noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling significantly impacted on the number of homicide cases done by police in their line of duty. The criminal justice system witnessed a reduction in the number of such cases that are committed by the police in application of the deadly force. The Garner decision by the Supreme Court represents the positive movement in the criminal justice especially in the police shooting cases.
The ruling offered direction in the criminal justice system on the definition of how deadly force can be utilized by police officers in their line of duty and while combating crime. The ruling created two conditions that can justify the application of deadly force and the y are: if the offence committed by the suspect involved extreme or deadly force and if the suspect poses a risk that can harm people or the police in situations when the apprehension may be delayed. The development of the forcible-felony rule defines the types of offences that can allow police to use the deadly force if they deem it reasonable. The standard of reasonableness is the core development in the criminal justice system and forms a major development created by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Analysis of operational policy that required to be changed
The Supreme Court ruling created a fore to initiate a change in the operation of the police policy in relation to the application of deadly force while apprehending suspected criminals. The Supreme Court ruling limited the circumstances in which the police officers would apply deadly force to capture suspects as is in the case of Tennessee v. Garner (Walker & Fridell, 1992). In the operational policy the police department needed to adjust the operational policy in assessing the reasonableness for the use of deadly force in apprehending suspects to ensure that they remain within the legal guidance of the fourth amendment. Tennessee v. Garner ruling required the adjustment of the police departmental procedures and policies to ensure that the common law rule was taken into consideration in the form of Garner decision. The Garner decision of 1985 (Peak, 2016) played a vital role in ensuring that the police agencies accelerated their efforts in aligning their operational policies with the law enforcement requirements to protect the rights of individuals. The decision by the Supreme Court is cause of change in operational policy in the police department to incorporate the legal requirement of reasonable cause for use of deadly force in capturing suspects. The federal courts were also subjected to the rule and were critically required to analyze the cases brought beforehand that concern the application of deadly force in the class of the fourth amendment reasonableness rule. The Garner decision created a shift in operational policies in police forces to curb the destructive power on escaping suspects by creating a legal rule that established the reasonable standard (Blume, 1984). The Garner ruling therefore created clarity in interpretation of the criminal law on the reasonable use of deadly force by police officers.
The hiring and training policies require to be subjected to change of slight adjustments to ensure that cases of police shooting are subsidized. The civil case of Tennessee v. Garner led to the inclusion of considering the level of training of police officers and the experience in hiring and process to ensure full understanding of the law (Shah, 2018). The ruling significantly affected the police training and led to the inclusion of the formal and informal police training which was specifically meant to alter expectations of police concerning attitudes and emotions. The rule acted as a regulation to the police killings through the interpretation of the police policies and procedures. The subsequent impact fell on the police training agencies that were forced to initiate change in training officers to create new capabilities initiated by the decision of the Supreme Court. the police trainers needed to adapt quickly and offer new training that enable police to respond to threats with reasonable force that do not expose them to the rule of application of deadly force.
Systemic effect the Supreme Court’s decision for the remaining components of the justice system
In the Supreme Court ruling, the common law rule in TENNESSEE statute was overturned and created systemic effect to ensure that police application of deadly force on escaping suspects is reasonable because of the threats posed. The fourth amendment of the constitutions aims to protect the constitutional rights and privileges of citizens against the unreasonable seizures. TENNESSEE v. GARNER (1985) was basically characterized by the use of excessive powers of the police to apprehend the suspect who did not pose risks to the police and the public. The systemic effect of the case on the criminal justice led to the indication of how states are liberal to characterize the level and extent of criminal law provided they are compliant with the constitutional provisions.
The constitution protects human rights hence noncompliance translates to infringement hence attracting of penalty. States have different safeguards concerning different actions that relate to law but the standard criminal law in the states are under the jurisdiction of federalism.
The fourth amendment of the constitution is component the offers a criminal method rather than the criminal substance in the states. Individuals are considered to have infringed on the fourth amendments only in the case where there is proof after an offence has been committed and only offers shelter for the litigating party. It does not create options of criminalizing the police officer who bypassed the requirements of the fourth amendment. The police officer ought to be held accountable for the abuse of the fourth amendment to create systemic social equality by creating an opportunity for all parties to give sufficient reason for action taken considered as infringements on the constitution. The Supreme Court ruling therefore created systemic order by providing a criminal rule of the limitation of the fourth amendment to be applied in provision of a legal basis for civil liability. Coroian Jr (2009) noted that the ruling defined the much force is justified as legal when the police uses deadly force in his line of duty.
How A Single Court Ruling Can Have Systemic Effects.
System effects occur after court rulings are made and are characterized by the fact that the collective opinion slightly differ with positions taken by one of minority groups. The system effects are more important but mostly remain less familiar in national and international context. The court rulings have resulting consequences to the interpretation of criminal cases by creating new methods in which judgments can be based on. The systemic effects create new orders in observing the appropriate interpretation of the constitution by the courts and for this case the law enforcement officers. The Garner ruling developed the foundation within the legal system and defined the extent of protecting human rights by people executing their official responsibilities as officers of the state. The systematic effects of the rulings can lead to compelling government officers to comply with standards set by the courts. The system effects of the court rulings need enough recognition to avoid cases of division and judges can use the effects strategically to improve the legal decisions and system (Vermeule, 2009). The smart decisions made by the courts create standards that alter existing statutes considerably to create consistency with the constitution.
The garner decision set off a post garner revolution in states where the there was a wave of altering statutory laws to include the ruling standard established by the decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The states ensured that the reasonable justification is attained for the police officers to execute their powers to apprehend suspects forcefully. The statutes can be altered to protect the constitutionality of states to attain balance in enforcement of the law. The systemic effect the garner decision focused on creating a balance between protections of constitutional rights of the public and securing the integrity of the criminal justice system. The constitution fails to take legal action in absence of a statute that clearly defines the criminality of the actions committed by people. Therefore the systemic effect creates proper definition of the law that pronounces the existence of a criminal in actions of people. Is therefore valid for a court ruling and statute to supplement the fourth amendment infringements and hold the law enforcers accountable for their actions against the suspects.
System-wide transformation caused by Court ruling in Tennessee V. Garner (1985)
The Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee V. Garner (1985) case initiated system wide change and transformation in police operations, policy and legal systems. the states adopted the rule set by the supreme court and streamlined the statutory law to incorporate the Garner decision. The case came up as a result of garner succumbing to the gunshot wounds inflicted by the police. The loss of life was as a result of the Tennessee’s statute that caused the police to shoot due lack of appropriate direction. The supreme court ruling has seen authorities to be involved in active training on the methods to address the policy issue to minimize tragedies in cases where the criminals poses no danger to the public and the officers. the Tennessee statute was unsuccessful in its application in the case hence the court ruling marked a system transformation in the state to ensure that the officers to not wield their deadly force powers in unreasonable cases on non-dangerous suspects.
The tendency of the police offices to rely on directions created by internal policies instead of state and constitutional guidelines was transformed after the ruling. The internal policies restrict the police to commit procedures that contravene the provisions of the constitution and the state. The Supreme Court ruling therefore led to the change of the mindset and this led to the reduction of the police homicide incidents. According to Simon, (1985) the garner decision by the Supreme Court created influence in constitutional and unconstitutional states with reduction in police homicide cases mostly significant in the unconstitutional states. The death of Garner represented a painful wrongful death that contravenes the civil rights statute in the hands of the police. The Garner types of shooting are considered unconstitutional since the ruling and there has been significant transformation in handling of suspects (Tennenbaum, 1994). According to Tennenbaum, (1994)the supreme court only restricted the use of deadly force and did not entirely limit its application as an indication of creating a policy for police to protect themselves if there is reason to do so. The case was an important course in transformation of police reforms in protection of human rights especially the definition of reasonable and unreasonable force
Conclusion
The Tennessee V. Garner (1985) created a foundation in protection of constitutional human rights by establishing the application of deadly force by the police in apprehending suspects. The deadly force exercised by the police before the incident mostly led to numerous homicide cases. However the Garner decision created an opportunity to established common law rule to act as a definition of use of deadly force in accordance with the fourth amendments. Despite creating a constitutional definition of use of deadly force, the rule dives an opportunity for the suspects to flee in such situation when being pursued by the police. The case has played a critical role in positively transforming the criminal justice system creating an opportunity for the fleeing suspects to stand trial at the expense of police killings