Dissidence. Rehnquist, O`Connor and Chief Justices argued that a lethal seizure analysis should strike a delicate balance between the public interest and the nature of the interference with the person in question. The dissent argued that burglary was a serious crime and that its use could be considered justified. The dissent criticized the majority for making a decision that would allow police to be questioned without giving officers proper direction on how to proceed in the future. Discussion. The court ruled that the state did not put forward a greater interest than the suspect`s life in enabling the use of lethal force. The court noted that several jurisdictions had expressly prohibited the use of lethal force to arrest peaceful suspects. In addition, the Court reviewed current law enforcement procedures and concluded that the use of lethal force to arrest suspected criminals was limited to violent crimes or criminals. The final point the Court concluded was that the traditional customary rule authorizing the use of such force was outdated and unnecessary because of advances and new societal conceptions of the use of force. The United States Armed Forces defines lethal force as “violence that is likely to cause or that a person knows or ought to know would pose a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.” [2] [1] In the United States, the use of lethal force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful if the officer has reason to believe that the person poses a substantial risk of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others. The use of lethal force by law enforcement authorities is also lawful if it is used to prevent the escape of a fugitive offender if the officer believes that the escape would pose a significant risk of serious bodily harm or death to members of the public.
The common law allowed officers to use any force necessary to arrest a crime, but this was evident in Tennessee v. Garner in 1985, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that “lethal force … shall not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has reason to believe that the suspect poses a significant risk of death or serious bodily injury to himself or others. [1] It is emphasized that the Fourth Amendment must be interpreted in light of the common law rule, which permitted the use of any force necessary to arrest a fugitive criminal, but not a misdemeanor. As Hale states in Pleas of the Crown published posthumously: Although Graham expanded the concept of adequacy to make it applicable to any use of lethal or other force, Garner did not replace it. Garner has set and remains the standard for law enforcement assessment of the use of lethal force. The analysis of the lethal force rule in the context of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments mandates makes it clear that the use of lethal force against a nonviolent fugitive offender is unconstitutional.
However, if the court finds that the fugitive offender rule does not violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments and overturns the Sixth Judicial Circuit, opponents of lethal force have two options: accept the court`s decision or find a new constitutional theory to challenge the laws. It can be argued that the murder of the fugitive criminal, who has not committed a violent crime and does not pose a threat of violence, violates the Ninth Amendment. Even if I agreed that the Fourth Amendment was violated in the circumstances of this case, I would not be able to agree with the Court`s opinion. The court ruled that lethal force could only be used if the suspect Using lethal force to prevent the escape, Hymon acted under the authority of a Tennessee law and in accordance with the direction of the Department of Police. The law provides that thirty-five years ago, Tennessee v. Garner dramatically changed the legal landscape regarding the use of lethal force by LEOs, paving the way for a uniform standard given the circumstances. It is not disputed that Ricard`s escape posed a serious risk to public safety, and. The police acted reasonably by using lethal force to stop this risk.
The use of lethal force by a civilian is generally justified if he or she has reason to believe that he or she or another person is in imminent danger of death or serious injury. [1] Justification and affirmative action vary from state to state and may include certain property crimes, crimes against children, or the prevention of sexual assault. Without in any way denigrating the importance of these objectives, we are not convinced that the use of lethal force is a sufficiently productive means to achieve it to justify the killing of non-violent suspects. See Delaware v. Prouse, op. cit. cit., p. 659. The use of lethal force is a self-destructive means of apprehending a suspect and thereby setting the criminal justice system in motion.
If successful, it guarantees that this mechanism will not be set in motion. And while it can be assumed that the significant threat of lethal force leads to the arrest of more suspects alive by discouraging escape attempts,9 the currently available evidence does not support this thesis. 10 The fact is that a majority of police departments [471 U.S. 1, 11] in this country have prohibited the use of lethal force against nonviolent suspects. See pp. 18 and 19 below. While criminal law enforcement officials have renounced the use of lethal force to arrest non-dangerous offenders, there are serious reasons to doubt that the use of such force is an essential feature of the power of arrest in all crimes. See Schumann v.
McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 472, 240 N. W. 2d 525, 540 (1976) (Rogosheske, J., partially different). The applicants and the complainant have not convinced us that shooting harmless fugitive suspects is so important that it outweighs the suspect`s interest in his own life. This article was co-authored with Ken Davis, a partner at LoRusso Law Firm who handles a variety of LEO cases. Previously, he was a career police officer and retired after 29 years of service with the rank of major in the Cobb County Sheriff`s Office in Georgia. During his career as an LE, Ken has held positions such as Deputy Prison Guard Commander, Criminal Police Chief, Internal Affairs Commander, Training Commander, and Academy Director. He is Georgia POST certified as a Senior Instructor, Firearms Instructor and Defensive Tactics Instructor.