TENNESSEE v. GARNER, (1985) A Tennessee statute provides that if, after a police officer gives notice of intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all means necessary to effect the 'arrest'. Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed defendant Garner's son while, after being told to stop, the son fled at night over a fence into the back yard of a home who was suspected of burglary. The officer used deadly force despite being “reasonably sure” the suspect was unarmed and thought he was 17 or 18 years old and of small build. The father subsequently filed an action in Federal District Court seeking damages under 42 USC 1983 for alleged violations of his son's constitutional rights. The district court found that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed the situation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay GRAHAM v. CONNOR, (1989) Signer Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend Berry to accompany him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Upon entering the store and seeing the number of people in front of him, Graham ran out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Interviewee Connor, a city police officer, became suspicious after seeing Graham hastily enter and exit the store, followed Berry's car and made an investigative stop, ordering the two to wait while he found out what was success in the store. Reserve police officers interviewed arrived on scene, handcuffed Graham, and ignored or rebuffed attempts to explain and treat Graham's condition. During the encounter, Graham suffered multiple injuries. He was released when Connor learned that nothing had happened in the store. What are these important decisions for criminal procedure? Tennessee v. Garner The Court's opinion ranges widely toward adopting an entirely new standard for the constitutionality of using deadly force to apprehend fleeing criminals. Therefore, the Court has “thrownly set aside,” Payton v. New York, supra, at 600, a long-standing law enforcement practice that predates the Fourth Amendment and continues to receive the approval of nearly half of state legislatures. I cannot accept the majority's creation of a constitutional right Graham v. Connor. In this case, petitioner apparently decided that it was in his best interest to disavow the continued applicability of substantive due process analysis as an alternative basis for recovery in pre-arrest excessive force cases. Keep in mind: This is just one example . Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay It is for this reason that the Court would have been better off leaving the matter for another day. I expect that uses of force that are not patently unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment will only rarely raise substantial due process concerns. But until I am faced with a case in which that question is raised openly and its merits are submitted to the adversary's presentation, I do not join in precluding the use of substantive due process analysis in pre-arrest cases.