On the eve of October 3, 1974, two Memphis, Tennessee police officers responded to a burglary in process call, according to Tennessee v. Garner (1985). The officers, Wright and Hymon responded to the call. Upon arriving to the scene, a neighbor had advised the officers that she had heard glass crashing and that she suspected someone had broken in next door. According to police records, Officer Wright was notifying dispatch of their situation and what had been reported thus far. During Officer Wright’s notification to dispatch, Officer Hymon went around to the back of the house. After arriving to the back of the house, he is alleged to have heard the slamming of a door and saw a figure running across the yard. Records show that Officer Hymon, took out his flashlight and scoured the immediate vicinity. He located a subject which was later identified as Edward Eugene Garner, whom Officer Hymon thought was an adult. At that time, it was undetermined if Garner had a weapon or not, as his hands were not visible. Garner then is reported to have made an attempt to flee the …show more content…
Garner, 1985). Approximately eleven years after the incident, the case of Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that on the facts of this case, the amount of force used against Garner constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of Garner’s fourth amendment rights. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court and deemed that the Tennessee statute, at the time, that authorized police use of deadly force against fleeing felons was unconstitutional. The justification for the courts finding of the unconstitutionality of the Tennessee statute was that it allowed officers to use deadly force against a person who was deemed as an unarmed