Tennessee v. Garner impact: LEOs use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felon. Which is true?

Prepare for the NLETC Comprehensive Exam. Use flashcards and multiple choice questions with hints and explanations. Excel in your assessment!

Multiple Choice

Tennessee v. Garner impact: LEOs use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felon. Which is true?

Explanation:
The key idea is how the Fourth Amendment governs when deadly force may be used to stop a fleeing felon. Tennessee v. Garner held that police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others. In other words, deadly force is justified only in those extreme, imminent-threat situations; it’s not allowed merely because someone is fleeing. Non-lethal means should be used if feasible. So the statement is true because it reflects this limitation: deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon is permissible only when there is a significant threat. It’s not dependent on daylight or on the suspect being armed.

The key idea is how the Fourth Amendment governs when deadly force may be used to stop a fleeing felon. Tennessee v. Garner held that police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others. In other words, deadly force is justified only in those extreme, imminent-threat situations; it’s not allowed merely because someone is fleeing. Non-lethal means should be used if feasible.

So the statement is true because it reflects this limitation: deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon is permissible only when there is a significant threat. It’s not dependent on daylight or on the suspect being armed.

Subscribe

Get the latest from Examzify

You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy