Brief for Appellee-Respondent

121 pages
Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.
Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:
For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):
Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.
LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.
If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.
NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.
Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.
I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.
If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .
Impact area
- Criminal Justice
Topic
- Police Accountability
LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorneys
Organization
- LDF
Matter
- Garner v. Memphis Police Department
Case
- Garner v. Memphis Police Department
U.S. state
- Tennessee
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- ff2b81c3-35a8-f011-bbd3-000d3a53d084
Cite this item

Case Files, Garner Working Files. Brief for Appellee-Respondent, 1984. ff2b81c3-35a8-f011-bbd3-000d3a53d084. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/6518dee5-b36e-4778-93d1-887a53f4b952/brief-for-appellee-respondent. Accessed February 12, 2026.

Copied!
    K

\

t

Nos.  33-1035 
83-1070

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Oc t ober  Term, 1984

THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 
A p p e l l a n t ,

V .

CLEAMTEE GARNER, as f a t h e r  and next  
o f  kin o f  Edward Eugene Garner ,  a 
deceased  minor .

A p p e l l e e ;

MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF 
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE,

P e t i t i o n e r s  ,

V .
CLEAMTEE GARNER, et  a l . ,

Re s po n de n t .

On Appeal  from the Uni ted S t a t e s
Court  o f  Appeal s

f o r  the S i xt h  C i r c u i t  in No. 83-1035

On ' wr i t  o f  C e r t i o r a r i  to the Uni ted 
S t a t e s  Court  o f  Appeal s  

f o r  the S i x t h  C i r c u i t  in No. 83-1070

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE-RESPONDENT

3. LeVONNE CHAMBERS
STEVEN L. WINTER *

99 Hudson S t r e e t
New York,  New York 10013
(212)  219-1900

WALTER L. BAILEY, OR.
S u i t e  901,  Tenoks Bu i l d i ng  
161 J e f f e r s o n  Avenue 
Memphis,  Tennessee  38103 
( 901)  521-1560

At t o r ney  f o r  A p p e l l e e - Re s p o n d e n t  

Counsel  o f  Record



1 -

niir<;TTONS PRESENTED

V -

Does the k i l l i n g  o f  a n o n -  

d a n g e r o u s ,  f l e e i n g  p r o p e r t y  

c r i m e  s u s p e c t  whom the o f f i c e r  

r e a s o n a b l y  b e l i e v e s  to  be 

unarmed v i o l a t e  t he  f o u r t h  and 

f o ur t e e nt h  amendments?

Does a m u n i c i p a l  p o l i c y  and 

custom o f  l i b e r a l  use  o f  d e a d l y  

f o r c e  t ha t  r e s u l t s  in the 

e x c e s s i v e  and unnecessary  use o f  

such f o r c e  t o  s t o p  no n -

d a n g e r o u s ,  f l e e i n g  f e l o n y

s u s p e c t s  v i o l a t e  the f ourth and 

f o ur t e e nt h  amendments?

Is the  Memphis p o l i c y  a u t h o r i z 

ing the d i s c r e t i o n a r y  s h o o t i n g  

o f  n o n d a n g e r c u s  , f l e e i n g

pr oper t y  crime s us p e c t s  r a c i a l l y  

d i s c  r i mi nat or y?



- 1 1  -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

questions presented.....................................  ^

TABLE OF aut hori t i es ...................................

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................

A. The Facts o f  the ^
Sh o o t i n g ..................... ..................

B. The Proceedings Below...........  10

C. The Memphis P o l i c y :
Li bera l  Use o f  Deadly 
F o r c e ...............................................

0, The Memphis Custom:
Racial Discrimination.....

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....................................

ARGUMENT...............................................................

I THE COURT OF APPEALS COR
RECTLY BALANCED THE NATURE 
OF THE INTRUSION AGAINST THE 
STATE'S INTERESTS IN LAW EN
FORCEMENT AND HELD THAT THE 
KILLING OF AN UNARMED, NON
VIOLENT, FLEEING PROPERTY 
CRIME SUSPECT VIOLATES THE 
CONSTITUTION..........................................

A. The Fourth Amendment Re
q u i r e s  a Bal anc i ng o f  the 
I n t e r e s t s ....................................... 35



- I l l  -

( 1 ) The common law b a s i s
o f  the d o c t r i n e  no 
l onger  s uppo r t s  the 
r e a s o na b l e ne s s  o f  
s ho o t i ng  a l l  f l e e i n g  
f e l o n s ..................................

( 2)  The Tennessee St a 
t u t e ' s  d i s r e g a r d
0 f  the g r a v i t y  o f  
the unde l y i ng  o f f e n s e  
i s  a proper  c o n s i d e r a 
t i o n  under the f our t h 
amendment...........................

a.  The De p r i v a t i o n  o f  L i f e  
Must be J u s t i f i e d  by 
C o u n t e r v a i l i n g  State  
I n t e r e s t s .......................................

C.' , The P r o h i b i t i o n  Against  
Punishment wi thout  Due 
Pr oc es s  Also Requi res  
Co ns i d e r a t i o n  o f  State  
I n t e r e s t s  Asser t ed  in 
J u s t i f i c a t i o n .............................

0.  A Bal anc ing o f  the
I n t e r e s t s  Demonstrates  
that  the f l e e i n g  Felon 
Doc t r i ne  i s  Un c o n s t i t u 
t i o n a l  ..............................................

(1) Apprehension o f  the
suspect................

(2)  The crime p r e v e nt i o n
i n t e r e s t s ........................

( 3 ) The s a f e t y  i n t e r e s t s .

44

49

52

55

65

6 3

72

75



- IV

I I .

I l l

(4)  E f f e c t i v e  law e n f o r c e 
ment ......................................

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 
appeals should be affirmed
BECAUSE THE MEMPHIS 
and custom IS ONE OF LIBERAL 
USE OF DEADLY FORCE THAT RE
SULTS IN THE EXCESSIVE AND 
UNNECESSARY USE OF f 
TO STOP NQNDANGEROUS, FLEEING 
FELONY SUSPECTS...................................

mf mp h i s 'S policy authori zi ng
THE DISCRETIONARY SHOOTING OF
nondangerous, fleeing property
CRIME SUSPECTS VIOLATES THE
fourth amendment and the equal
PROTECTION CLAUSE
INVITES AND RESULTS IN RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION...................................

31

90

CONCLUSION,

96

104



TABLES or AUTHORITIES

Addington v.  Texas,  441 U.S.  418
( 1 9 7 9 ) ...............................................................

Ar l i ng t o n  Heights   ̂  ̂^
Housing Co r p . ,  429 U.S.  252 
( 1 9 7 7 ) ...............................................................

Ayler  v.  Hopper,  532 E. Supp.  198 
(M.D. Al a .  1 9 8 1 ) .......................................

Baker v.  McCol lan,  443 U.S.  137
( 1 9 7 9 ) ...............................................................

Bare f oo t  v.  E s t e l l e ,  U.S,  -------,
77 L. Ed. 2d 1 090 ( i T f T ) .........................

Beck V. Ohio,  379 U.S.  89 ( 1 9 6 4 ) . . . .  103

Beech v.  Melancon,  465 E.2d 425
( 6th C i r . 1 9 7 2 ) .........................................

Be l l  V. Wo l f i s h ,  441 U.S.  520
( 1 9 7 9 ) ..........................................................  5 5 , 5 6 , 6 4

Bivens v.  Six Unknown Agents ,
403 U.S.  388 ( 1971 ) ...........................  51 , 67, 83

Brandon v.  Ho l t ,  No. 83-1622
( p e n d i n g ) ........................................................

Brinegar  v.  United S t a t e s ,  338
U.S.  360 ( 1 9 4 9 ) .........................................

Brown V. Texas,  443 U.S.  47
( 1 9 7 9 ) .............................................................

Byrd v.  Br i shke ,  466 F.2d 6
(7th Ci r .  1 9 7 2 ) .........................................

- iv -

Page
Cases



Carter v.  Car l son,  447 f .2d 358 
(O.C.  Ci r .  1971) ,  r e v ’ d.on 
other  Grounds,  409 U. S. 4i 8 
■M 57 jj .................................

Castaneda v.  Part i da,  430 U.S.
482 . .......................................................... ..

Cleveland Board o f  ( 53
LaFleur,  414 U.S. 632 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ..........

Coker v.  Georgia,  433 U.S. 584
( 1 9 77 ) ........................................................ ..

Cunningham v.  El l i ng t o n ,  323 
F. Supp. 1072 (W.D. Tenn.
1 971 ) ...............................................................

Cupp V. Murphy, 412 U.S. 29
........................................

Dal ia v.  United St at es ,  441
U.S. 238 ( 1 979 ) ........................................

Davis V. Mi s s i s s i p p i ,  394 U.S.
721 ( 1 9 69 ) ............................................... 37 , 41-

Delawars v.  Prouse,  440 U.S.
643 . ............................................................... .. .

Donovan v.  Dewey, 452 U.S. 594
( 1 9 8 1 ) ............................................................

Dunaway v.  New York,  442 U.S.
200 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ...................................................   ̂ '

Eddings v.  Oklahoma, 455 U.S.
104 ( 1982 ) ...................................................

Emmund v.  F l o r i da ,  438 U.S. 762
( 1 932 ) ............................................................

- V -

Page
Cases



. I

Cases — ^

F i o r i d a  v.  Royer ,  A6Q U.S.

..........

Furman v.  Geor g i a ,  408 U.S.  233
( 1 9 7 2 ) ...............................................................  ’

Garner v .  Memphis P o l i c e  
Department ,  600 F.2d 52
( 6th Ci r .  ....................................................... Passim

Garner v.  Memphis P o l i c e
Department,  710 F . 2d 240 pa, sim

Gers te i n  v.  Pugh, 420 U.S.
103 ( 1 9 7 5 ) .....................................................

Giant Foods,  Inc .  v.  Scherry ,
51 Md . App. 536 544 A.2d
433 ( 1 9 3 2 ) .....................................................

Gregg v.  Geor g i a ,  423 U.S.  253
( 1 9 7 6 ) ...............................................................  ’

Greqory v .  Thompson,  500 F .2d
59 (9th Ci r .  ..............................................

Haves V. Memphis P o l i c e  De p t . ,
' 571 F.2d 357 ( 6th Ci r .  1 9 7 3 ) ..........

Herrera v.  Valentine, 653 F.2d
1220 ( 3th C i r . 1 9 3 1 ) .............................

Howell  V. C a t a l d i ,  464 F .2d 272
(3rd Ci r .  . ...................................................

Ingraham v.  Wright ,  430 U.S.  651
( 1 9 7 7 ) ...............................................................

- V i -

Page



V 1 1  -

In re Winship,  397 U.S. 358
( 1 9 7 0 ) .............................................................

Jacobs V. City => f = 54
F. Supp. 129 (0.  Kan. 1 9 82 ) ............

Jenkins v.  A v e r e t t ,  424 F.2d
1228 (4th Ci r .  1970) .........................

Johnson v.  C l i c k ,  481 F.2d 1028 
(2d C i r . ) ,  c e r t ,  d e n i e d , 414 
U.S. 1033 ....................................................

Johnson V. Zerbs t ,  304 U.S. 458
( 1 9 3 8 ) .............................................................

Jones V. Marshal l ,  528 F.2d 132
(2d Cir .  1 9 7 5 ) ..........................................

Kennedy v.  Mendoza-Mart inez,
372 U.S. 1 44 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ............ 55 , 56 , 6  -  ,

Ker V. California, 374 U.S. 23
( 1 9 6 3 ) .............................................................

Landrigan v.  City o f  War>.ick
628 F.2d 736 (1st  C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) .........

I o i t-p V City o f  Providence,
'  463 F. Si^pp. 585 ( D. R. I .  1 9 7 3 ) . . .  95

Lewis V. St at e ,  398 S o . 2d 432
( Fl a .  .............................................................

Mattis V. Schnarr,  547 F.2d 1007 
( 8th Ci r .  1976) ,  vacated on 
case and cont roversy  orounoj^ 
suD nom. Asncrof t  v.  h a c r i s ,
■nr  UT .̂ 1 71 . . ........................................ 62

Page
Cases



- V l i i  -

May V. Anderson, 345 U.S.  523
( 1 9 5 3 ) ...............................................................

McDonald v .  United S t a t e s ,  335
U.S.  451 ( 1 9 4 8 ) .........................................

McKenna v .  Ci ty  o f  Memphis,  544
f. Supp.  415 (W.O. Tenn. 1 9 3 2 ) . . .

Michigan v .  Summers, 452 U.S.  692 
(1931 ................................................. ................

Monel i  V. Department 95
S e r v i c e s ,  436 U.S.  658 (197 ) . . . .

Morgan v .  Labiak,  363 F.2d 333
(10th C i r .  1 9 6 6 ) .......................................

Payton V. Ne« York,  445 U.S.  573
( 1 9 8 0 ) ...............................................................  ’

P r u i t t  V. City o f  Montgomery,
Civ.  Act .  No. 33 - T - 9Q3-N
(M.D.  Ala.  Oune 12 , 1984 ) ................................

Qual ls  V. Par i sh ,  534 F.2d 690
( 6th Ci r .  . ...................................................

Roe V. wade,  410 U.S.  113 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ------  53,21

Rowe V. General  to r s  ̂Carp . , 457 
F.2d 348 ( 5th Cir . 1 9 7 2 ) ....................

Scha l l  V. Mart in,  ___ _ U.S.  ----,
81 L . E d . 2d 201 T T 7 8 4 ) ...........................

Schmerber v.  C a l i f o r n i a ,  334
U.S.  757 ( 1 9 6 6 ) .........................................  3 3 , -i 2

Page
Cases



- IX -

Caaea
Screws V. United St at es ,  325

U.S. 91 ........................................................  ’

Sibron V. Mew York.  392 U.S. 40
( 1 9 6 8 ) .............................................................

Smith V. P h i l l i p s ,  455 U.S. 209
( 1 9 8 2 ) .............................................................

Stanley v.  I l l i n o i s ,  405 U.S. 645 
( 1972) .............................................................

Page

Taylor v.  C o l l i n s ,  574^F. Supp. 
1554 (E.O.  Mich. 1983) ............

Te f f t  V. Seward,  689 F.2d 637 
( 6th ,Cir.  1982 ) ..........................

85

92

53

48

42

' " 5 ! s C i ° n » U ) ” . . .36,3T,38,»0,*1,35,103

United States v.  Calandra,  414
U.S. 338 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ........................................ 38

United States  v.  City o f  Memphis, 
Civ.  Act ion C-7 4-286 ( ^̂ . 0.  
Tenn. 1 9 7 4 ) .......................................... 31

United States  v.  Clark, 31 Fed.  s g - 6Q
710 (C.C.E.D.  Mich. 1 8 87 ) ................. 59 6

United States  v.  v ®*
phone,  434 U.S. 1 59 ( 1 977 ) . . 92

United States  v.  Place,
U S .  , 77 L.Ed.  ̂ ^
l i o  (TTJ3 ) ..............................  37,38,42-41

United States v.  Stokes,  506 
F.2d 771 (5th Ci r .  1 975 ) . 42



- X -

United St a t e s  v .  V i l l a mo nt e -  
Marquez , U.S.
L , E d . 2d . . .......................................

uni ted St a t es  v V i l l a r i n  Gerena,
553 F.2d 723 ( 1 s t .  C i r .  1 9 7 7 ) ------

Warden v.  Hayden,  337 U.S.  294
( 1 9 6 7 ) ...............................................................

Washington v.  Davi s ,  426 U.S.
592 ( 1 9 7 6 ) .............................................................

^ W i s c o n s i n , ...............

Werner v.  Hartfelder, 113 
Mich.  App. 747,  313 N.W.
2d 325 ( 1 9 3 2 ) ..............................................

V. Memphis P o l i c e  
Dept . ,  Civ.  Act i on No.
C-73-8 (W.D. Tenn. June 
30,  1 975)  , a f f ’ d 543 
F.2d 1247 ( 6tn Ci r .
1 9 7 7 ) .................... .......................  2 2 , 6 2 , 6 3 , 3 3 , 9 1

Wilkes V. Wood, 10 Howel l ,  St .
Tr.  1 1 53 ( 1 773 ) .........................................

Wi l l i ams v.  Ke l l y ,  624 F.2d
695 ( 5th Cir . 1 9 3 0 ) ................................

Woodson V. North C a r o l i n a ,
423 U.S.  230 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ................................

Yick Wo V. Hopkins,  118
U.S.  3 56 ( 1 336 ) ........................... 5 3 , 9 6 , 9 ,  , i u a

Page
Cases



X I  -

rnn^hitutional Provisions and Statutes:

U.S. Can3b. amend. ...................................... Passim
, .Tw   PassimU.S. Const,  amend. .......................

42 U.S.C.  § ......................................................
Memphis City Code § ...................................  ^0

Memphis City Code § ...................................

Pub. St at s ,  o f  Tenn. §§ (Supp
1 358-1 871 ......................................................

Tennessee Code Ann. § 37-102
. . .....................................

Tennessee Code Ann. § 39-3-401
( 1 9 7 3 ) .............................................................

Tennessee Code Ann. § 40-808
( 1 9 7 5 ) ......................................................................

n<-her Authorities:

A. L . I .  Model Penal Code Vol .  II»
A r t . 222.21 .................................................

W. Blacl<stone,  COMMENTARIES
( 1 8 0 0 ) .............................................................

M. Blumberg,  The Use o f  Deadl y
F i rearms by Po l i c e  Of f i c e r  •_
The I moac t ' of  1 n a i v i o iiiaTs,^
Communi t i es  ̂ and R a c e T  •
'Bisser tat  ion , S . U. N . Y . , Albany,
Sch. o f  Crlm. Just i ce  Dec. 14,
1 932 ) .............................................................

£12*



- X 1 1

Paqg

Bohlen i  Schulman,  Arrest  Wit_h 
and Without  a Wa r r a n t ,  75 
U. Pa. L. Wev.  aSS ( i 5 T 7 ) ......................... 58

Comment, Deadly Force to
Ar r eat ;  r r i q o e r i n q  Con-  
T t T t u t i o n a l  Revi ew, 11 
Harv . Civ i ITT Civ - Lib .
L.Rev.  361 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ......................... 4 4 - 4 5 , 4 6 , 5 8

Conkl in and B i t t n e r ,  Burglary 
in a Suburb,  11 Cr i mi no l ogy
Turri^TTTT.................

W. A. Ge l l e r  4 <• 3* Kara l es ,
Spl i t  Second D e c i s i o n s ; 
f h o o t i n q s  o f  and by uni caqo  
P o l i c e  ( Chi cago  Law t n r o r c e - 
ment Study Group) ( 1 9 3 1 ) ....................

Holmes,  The Paths o f  The Law,
10 Harv.  L, Rev.  45/
( 1 8 9 7 ) ...............................................................

C. Kenner and 0.  Anderson,
THE GUN IN AMERICA ( 1 9 7 5 ) .................  ‘

"Magnum Fo r c e ,  Massive Law
s u i t s  (More and More Com
muni t i es  Urge P o l i c e  to 
Show R e s t r a i n t ) , "  The New 
York Times,  Apr i l  3,  1984,  
p.  2 E, c o l .  ..............................................

Matul i a ,  A Balance o f  F o r c e s ;
A RepoTT* or the I n t e r n a 
t i o n a l  Assoc i a t ion o f  
Chi e r s  oT P o l i c e  ; .Nabional  
I n s t i t u t e  of' J u s t i c e  1 982 ) ..........  85 , 86 - 87



X l l l

Pa^e

9 A . L . I .  PROCEEDINGS 136-87
(1931)  quoted in 3. Michael  
i  H. Wechsler ,  CRIMINAL LAW 
AND ITS ADMINISTRATION, 30-82 
n. 3 ...............................................................

M. Myer, Po l i c e  ShooMnos  at Minor i -  
f j q . . “ The Case o f Los Anqei_e_s,
■5'2 Ajinais of' Amer. Acad,  or Pol .
4 Sc l .  93 ( 1 9 80 ) .....................................

Note,  The Use o f  Deadly
in Arizona dy i ôl i c e  urf i cer_3,
1572 L. A Sac.  llrder at i i ................... ^8

Note,  Legal i zed Murder o f  a 
n  eeino t- eion , 15  ̂a . L.
Rev. ......................................................

R. Perkins,  CRIMINAL LAW (2d e d .
1 969 ) ...............................................................

Sherman, Execut i on Without 
J z i  al : P o l i c e  Hoiriocide and
the L o n s c i t u t i o n , 33 Vano.
L. Rev . /1 V I9ll3)............ 46,47,59,61

N. Shove i l ,  BURGLARY AS AN
OCCUPATION ( 1 9 7 1 ) ...................................

S t a f f  Report to the Michigan 
C i v i l'  Riqhcs Commission 
(May id,  1981J.................. .......................



- X I V  -

Paqg

T. Tay l o r ,  TWO STUDIES IN 
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRE- 
TATION ..........................................................

I .  Walker 4 N. Ok i h i r o ,
burglary the vi cti m
AND THE PUBLIC ( 1 9 7 8 ) ...........................  79 , 80

C.Q. Wi l son,  THINKING ABOUT
CRIME (1975)  ..............................................

Z. L. Wroth 4 0. Zobel  ( e d s . )  
legal papers  of JOHN ADAMS 
( 1 9 6 5 ) ...............................................................



- 1 -

oBTcr FriR RESPONOENT-APPELLEI

STATEMENT OF THE CAS_£

A. The Facts  o f  t he Shoot ing  

Edward Eugene Garner,  a f i f t e e n - y e a r -  

o l d  b l a c k ,  . a s  s h o t  and w i l l e d  by a 

Memphis b b l i d s  o f f i c e r  on t he  n i g h t  o f  

October  3, 1974.  He was an o b v i o u s  j u v e 

n i l e ;  s l e n d e r  o f  b u i l d ,  he weighed between 

85 and 100 pounds and s t ood  only f i v e  >eet 

and four i nches  hi gh.  R. 73;  O.A. 64- 65 .  

The o f f i c e r  who s h o t  hi n  t h o u g h t  t ha t  

young Garner  was a j u v e n i l e  about s ev en

teen or e i g h t e e n - y e a r s - o l d .  O.A. 44,  54.

rotations to the Ooint Appendi;< in this Court are Citations 00 citations to the opinions
b r i i f a ^ f t b  t i;‘ -ap— d i, to the petition for .t i t
o fV r t io r a r i  in No. 33-1070 and designat^ as 
A . Citations to the record below are to the
r - c ~ a s  co lle cted  and paginated m ^He Ooint 
Appendix in the Sixth Circuit and are designat.d
R.



- 2 -

The c r i t i c a l  f a c t s  o f  the s h o o t i n g  

are s u b s t a n t i a l l y  d i f f e r e n t  than t ho s e  

p r e s e n t e d  by the a p p e l l a n t  and the 

p e t i t i o n e r .  Contrary to t he i r  a s s e r t i o n s ,  

S t a t e ' s  Br i e f  at 3 -4 ;  C i t y ' s  Br i e f  at 3 -4 ; 

the o f f i c e r  had no b a s i s  upon which to 

assume the e x i s t e n c e  o f  an a c c o m p l i c e ; he 

f i red  desp i t e  h i s  r e a s o n a b l e  b e l i e f  t hat  

Garner was n ^  armed; and he f i r e d  from a' 

p o s i t i o n  o n l y  s e c onds  away from young 

Garner .
On the n i g ht  o f  Oc t o b e r  3,  1974,

Of f i c e r s  Hymen and Wright  r e s ponded  to a 

b ur g 1 ar y -  in -  p r og r e s S caj .1 at /37

Vol l ent i ne  in Memphis. When they a r r i v e d  

on the s c e n e ,  the c o mp l a i n a n t  was vague 

and i n a r t i c u l a t e .  Of f i c e r  Wright d e s c r i b 

ed what o c c ur r ed :
[ S ] he  was pai nt i ng  to the house next 
door  which we found l a t e r  was 739 
V o l l e n t i n e ,  and she was moving her 
mouth but both of  us were i n s i d e  the 
c a r ,  and,  o f  c o u r s e ,  the engine was 
running and c o u l d n ' t  hear  a n y t h i n g .  
So mv partner  opened the door and got 
out and went over to her and she was



- 3 -

s t i l l  p o i n t i n g  and she wasn ' t  saying 
anyt hi ng .  F i n a l l y .  I was l eani ng  over  
in^ the  s t r e e t  l i l <8 t h i s  to hear what 
she was saying through the open d o o r .  
S h e  s a i d ,  " Somebody  i s  b r e a k i n g  m  
there  r i g h t  now."

3 . A. 75 - 77 .
O f f i c e r  Hymon d e s c r i b e d  the  i n t e r 

change  wi t h  the  c o m p l a i n a n t  in s i m i l a r  

t e r m s ,  n o t i n g  t ha t  he d i d  not  understand 

her to be say i ng  that  there  was more than

one b ur g l ar
was

Vo 1 -When we a r r i v e d ,  t he  - -  l ady  
s t a n d i n g  in the do o r  at  737 
l e n t ’ ne,  and she was p o i n t i n g  towards 
7 39 Y o i l e n t i n e ,  and she was,  you 
know,  j u s t  making a g e s t u r e  with her 
f i n g e r ,  p o i n t i n g  in t h a t  d i r e c t i o n  
And I asked  her what she was s a y i ng ,  
and she made a n o t h e r  g e s t u r e ,  made 
some t y pe  o f  g e s t ur e  with ner 
and I c o u l d n ' t  u n d e r s t a n d  h e r ,  so I 
went up to  the p o r c h  and asked 
what she was s a y i n g .  
r e c a l l  her s a v i n g , "They 
i n s i d e

her 
Roughl y  I 

are breaking
-IT

g. You used the term "They are 
breaki ng i n . "  Did you u n d e r s t a n d  her  
to  be s a y i n g  that  there  were s e v e r a .  
peopl e  i n s i d e  the house?

A. I d o n ' t  r e a l l y  t h i n k  she 
knew.  * I t h i n k  t ha t  she  - -  
t h a t  she mi ght  have  m e n t i o n e d  t ha t  
she had heard some g l a s s  b r e a k i n g  or  
somethi ng ,  and she knew that  somebody



- 4

3 . A. 37-38 ( emphas i s  added) .

Hymon went around the near  s i d e  o f  

t he  h o u s e ,  h i s  r e v o l v e r  dr awn,  w h i l e  

Wright  went ar ound  the f a r  s i d e .  Hymon 

reached the backyard f i r s t ,  where he heard 

a door  slam and saw someone  run from the  

bac k  o f  t he  h o u s e .  He l o c a t e d  young 

Garner wi t h  h i s  f l a s h l i g h t :  Garner  was

c r o u c h e d  n e x t  to a s i x - f o o t  c y c l o n e  f ence  

at  the bac k  o f  the  yard a bo ut  30 t o  40 

f e e t  away from Hymon, See O.A.  30.  From 

t h i s  vant age ,  Hymon was abl e  to see one or 

b o t h  o f  G a r n e r ’ s han ds .  Compare O.A.  41 

with O.A.  56.
The s t a t e  and c i t y  b o t h  r e c i t e  that  

Hymon c o u l d  n o t  t e l l  whe t he r  Garner  was 

armed.  S t a t e ' s  B r i e f  at 3;  C i t y ' s  B r i e f



at 4.^ This canard is rsTuted by the

record. Hymon testified that he -as

■reasonably sore that the individcal -as

not  a r a e d . "  d . A .  41 .  On d i r e c t  e x a a i n a -

ticn, the city's attorney asked H y o n :

-Did you kno- dcsltiveljt -hether or not

1 A 56 ( emphasi s  added) ,  he was armed.  j . " «  ' f*
I L rt«T assumed he wasn t - . . .  He a n s w e r e d :  i assumeu

3
Id .

The City i s  less than candid with ^ ?
its  b r ie f in the Sixth C ir c .it , it
Garner "d id  not appear to be armed. Brie

Hym^on^^conclusion that Gamer was unarm^ was 
bLed on several objective facts . Hymon n o t^  that 
2h a?h e  been aroed, I assus. that he « u id  have 
attempted to show that by f i r i ng  a \
assume that he would have
assune that I would have seen i t .  3 .A. 41-42. ^
went on to explain: "I '" O i l i  of^the iS O tI'm standing out in the light and a il o f the light
is  on me the[n] I assune he would have made some 
kind o f attempt to defend hi mse l f . . . .  J-A. ?e.

This conclusion is also corroborated by Hymon s 
actions. He did not warn 
suspect might be armed, something he 
would have done " i f  he had any 
•tether this person was armed." 3.A. ^2- 
fear for his personal safety either. Otherwise, as 
he admitted,  "I would have taken more cover than 
what I had." Id. Rather, he knowingly remained in 
a posi t i on wf^re "a ll  o f the ligh t is on me" and 
where he was a superior target. 3.A. 56.



Whi le  young Garner c r o u c h e d  in 

Hymon's f l a s h l i g h t  beam, Hymon i d e n t i f i e d  

hi mse l f  and ordered Garner to h a l t .  Garner 

paused a few moments d ur i ng  which Hymon 

made no attempt to advance,  but cont inued 

to aim his  r evo l ver  at Garner.  The r e c o r d  

l e a v e s  l i t t l e  doubt  t h a t ,  at t h i s  po i nt ,  

Hymon n e g l e c t e d  the o p p o r t u n i t y  to 

apprehend Garner without r e s o r t  to deadly

f o r c e .
The c i t y  s t a t e s  as f a c t  that " there  

were s e v e r a l  o b s t a c l e s ,  i n c l u d i n g  a 

c l o t h e s l i n e  and other o b j e c t s  out l i ned  in 

the dar k,  between the o f f i c e r  and the 

s u s p e c t ,  making p u r s u i t  almost c e r t a i n l y

f u t i l e ____ " C i t y ' s  B r i e f  at 4.  But the

r e c o r d  shows that  the o b s t a c l e s  were 

i n s i g n i f i c a n t .  There was a t hr ee  f o o t

- 6 -

Hymon testified  that he did no more than take "a 
couple of steps," 3-A. 51, "•^ich^wasn you 
far enough to make a difference. R. 256. Offi..er 
Wright testified  that when he rounded the corner of 
the house af ter the shot,  Hymon "was standing 
s t i l l . . . . "  3 .A. 79.



- 7 -

c h i c k e n  w i r e  f e n c e .  3 . A. 31.  C h i e f  

De t e c t i v e  Dan Jones  o f  t he  She l by  County 

S h e r i f f ' s  De p a r t me n t ,  who i n s p e c t e d  the 

s i t e ,  t e s t i f i e d  t hat  i t  was "no  g r e a t  

d i s t a n c e  in the f i r s t  p l a c e ,  and the f ence  

would have been very easy to g e t  o v e r  . . .  

f a r  t ha t  o f f i c e r  or me e i t h e r ,  b e c a u s e  

w e ' r e  b o t h  t a l i . "  R. 296 . See_ R.

2 7 6 - 7 9  , 2 5 4 - 5 5  , 292 . Hyimon t e s t i f i e d

se v e r a l  t imes t ha t ,  a f t e r  he s h o t  Ga r n e r ,  

he stepped over  the f ence  wi thout  probl em.  

R. 245 ,  2 5 1 ,  6 5 1 .  As f o r  the  o t h e r

o b s t a c l e s ,  Hymon' s  t e s t i m o n y  was unam- 

b i g u o u s .
Q Once you s t a r t e d  moving from the 

west a i d e  o f  the hous e  o v e r  t o  
t he  e a s t  and to  the  c y c l o n e  
f e n c e ,  how long do you t h i nk  i t  
t ook you?

A. W e l l ,  i t  d i d n ' t  take me l o ng .  I 
almost  g o t  my neck hung on the  
c l o t h e s l i n e  wi r e .  It d i d n ' t  take 
ne very  l o n g ,  j u s t  a ma t t e r  a 
ducking and moving around.



-  a -

3 . A. s a .  In f a c t ,  h i s  partner  t e s t i f i e d  

that a f t e r  Hymen shot  Garner,  i t  only took 

Hymon " three  or four seconds"  to reach the

body.  3 . A. 79.
Whi l e  Hymon paused w i t h o u t  g i v i n g  

c h a s e .  Garner b o l t e d , ^  at tempting to jump 

the f e n c e .  Hymon f i r e d ,  s t r i k i n g  young 

Garner in the head.  Garner f e l l ,  draped 

over  the f e n c e .  He did not  d i e  imme-

Severai record facts bear on Garner s attempt to 
escape. First, Garner had prior brushes with the 
law that, although minor, had been the 
discipline by his parents. At the age o f 12, 
two other boys illega lly  entered the house in ^ose 
yard they were playing. G.A. 63. He was P^®c^ ® 
probation for one year, , and coi^seled a 
chastised by his father. 3.A. 28. In 3une o f 197 , 
he took a jar of pennies from a neighbor's house. 
Although the neighbor refused to ca ll the ^1-i-ce 
because the incident was so minor, the earner ^ j l y  
insisted and called the police themselves. R. 88-39,
3.A. 70.

On the night o f his death, Edward Eugene turner's 
Judgment was further impaired by the fact he
;a s  intoxicated. The medical examiner testi,ied  
that fifteen-year-old Garner had a b.ood alcohol 
content of  .09%, ju st .01% under that set by 
Tennessee law as creating a presumption of intoxi
cation for adults. O.A. 66; R. 461. According to the 
medical examiner, this is the equivalent of about 
four beers. R. 461.



- 9 -

d i a t e l y ;  when the p a r a m e d i c s  a r r i v e d  on 

the  s c e n e  " he  was h o l d i n g  h i s  head and 

j u s t  t h r a s h i n g  about  on the gr ound , "  R. 

141,  " h o l l e r i n g ,  you know, from the pai n .

R. 137.  Edward Eugene. Garner di ed on the

o p e r a t i n g  t a b l e .  R. 153.

There was no one at home when the

house was broken i n t o .  A f t e r  the  s h o o t 

i n g ,  the p o l i c e  f ound t ha t  young Garner 

had ten d o l l a r s  and a c o i n  p u r s e  t aken  

from the h o u s e .  R. 737 .  The owner o f  

the house  t e s t i f i e d  t ha t  t he  o n l y  i t e ms  

m i s s i n g  were a c o i n  p u r s e  c o n t a i n i n g  ten 

d o l l a r s  and a r ing be l o ng i ng  to h i s  w i f e ,  

but  t ha t  t he  r i n g  was n e v e r  f o u n d .  The 

ten d o l l a r s  were r e t ur n e d .  3 . A. 34 - 35 .

P l a i n t i f f  c a l l e d  two exper t  wi t nes s es  

- -  Chief  De t e c t i v e  Dan Cones o f  the Shelby 

County S h e r i f f ' s  Department and I nspec t o r  

Eugene Sar ks da i e ,  farmer commander o f  the  

p e r s o n a l  c r i m e s  bur eau  o f  t he  Memphis



- 10 -

P o l i c e  D e p a r t m e n t  -  to t e s t i f y  about the

r e a s o n a b l e n e s s  o f  Hymon’ s use o f  d e ad l y

f o r c e .  As the d i s t r i c t  c o ur t  f ound:

The substance  o f  such t e s t i mo n y  . a s
to  the e f f e c t  that  fhave ex ha us t e d  r e a s o n a b 1 e a 1 1 erna
t ! r e s  s uc h  as g i v i n g  c h a s e  and
de t e r mi ni ng  whether he ^ad a
a b l e  o p p o r t u n i t y  to apprehend
some o t he r  f a s h i o n  b e f o r e  f i r i n g  h i s
weapon.

A.  a .  Both Oones  and Ba r k s d a l e  t e s t i f i e d  

that  Hymon " s h o u l d  have t r i e d  to apprehend 

h i m , "  R. 273,  375;  B a r k s d a l e  added that

" In a l l  p r o b a b i l i t y  he c o u l d  have  a p p r e 

hended the s u b j e c t  wi thout  havi ng to shoot
6

h i m . . . . "  R. 373.
3 . The Pr o c e e d i ngs  Below 

On A p r i l  3, 1975,  Cl e a mt e e  Garner

f i l e d  t h i s  a c t i o n  f o r  damages  f o r  h i s  

s o n ' s  d e a t h .  3 . A. 5. On August 1 3, 1 975 ,

6 The only witness~to testify  that the o f f ic e r   ̂ was 
ju s t if ied  in using his gun was Memphis 
Captain Coietta, '^o had both trained Hymon and sat 
on the review board that condoned the shooting. R. 
506 507-09. Even so, his opinion was based on an
T s ’J t i c o  not supports  S, th. foots : ^ o t  H ,;on 
was "physically barred from the area by a f-nc_. R. 
532.



- l i 

t he  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  d i s m i s s e d  the Ci ty  o f  

Memphis and the Memphis P o l i c e  Depar t ment  

as d e f e n d a n t s  under  § 1933.  Af t e r  t r i a l ,  

the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  e n t e r e d  a memorandum 

o p i n i o n  r e n d e r i n g  j ud g me nt  f o r  the  

d e f e n d a n t s .
Mr. Garner  a p p e a l e d .  The c o u r t  o f  

a p p e a l s  r e v e r s e d  and remanded the  c a s e  

f o r  r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n  in l i g h t  o f  Honel l  

Depar t ment  o f  S o c i a l  S e r v i c e s ,  436 U.S.  

653 ( 1 9 7 8 ) .  One o f  the q u e s t i o n s  that  i t

l i s t e d  f o r  c o n s i d e r a t i o n  on remand was 

■whether " a  m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s  use o f  d e a d l y  

f o r c e  under  Te nne s s e e  law to c a p t u r e  

a l l e g e d l y  nondangerous f e l o n s  f l e e i n g  from 

n o n v i o l e n t  c r i m e s  [ i s ]  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  

p e r m i s s i b l e  under  the f o u r t h ,  s i x t h ,  

e i ght h and f our t eent h  amendments?"  Garne£

V .  Memphis P o l i c e  Oeo t . _ , 600 F.2d 52,  55 

( 6 th C i r .  1 9 7 9 ) ;  A. 13.  It a l so  remanded 

f o r  c o n s i d e r a t i o n  o f  the  q u e s t i o n  o f



12 -

Me mp h i s ' s  " p o l i c y  or custom"  f o r  purposes  

o f  l i a b i l i t y  under  M o n e l l . 600 F. 2 d  at

55; A. 19.
On remand,  the d i s t r i c t  cour t  denied 

p l a i n t i f f  the o p p o r t u n i t y  to i n t r o d u c e  

a dd i t i ona l  evidence  on the quest i on o f  the 

Memphis " p o l i c y  or cust-om,"  to submit  an 

o f f e r  o f  p r o o f ,  or to submi t  a b r i e f  on 

the m e r i t s ;  i t  e n t e r e d  judgment  f or  the 

def endants .  A. 20. On p l a i n t i f f ' s  motion 

to r e c o n s i d e r ,  the c o u r t  a l l o we d  the 

s ub mi s s i o n  o f  a b r i e f  and o f f e r  o f  proo f  

and then agai n e nt e r e d  judgment  f or  the 

d e f e n d a n t s .  A. 31. The cour t  o f  appeals 

r e v e r s e d .  I t  he l d  that  the Tennessee  

s t a t u t e ,  Tenn.  Code Ann. § 40-308 ( 1975) ,  

v i o l a t ed  the fourth amendment and the due 

p r o c e s s  c l a u s e  "because i t  aut hor i zes  the 

u n n e o e s s a r i l y  s e v e r e  and e x c e s s i v e ,  and 

t h e r e f o r e  u n r e a s o n a b l e , "  use o f  dead l y  

f orce to e f f e c t  the " a r r e s t "  o f  unarmed,  

n o n v i o l e n t ,  f l e e i n g  f e l o n y  suspects  such



as p l a i n t i f f ’ s s o n .  710 F.2d at 241;  A. 

4 0 - 4 1 .  R e h e a r i n g  and r e h e a r i n g  en banc  

were d e n i e d  on Sept ember  26 ,  1933 .  710

F.2d at 240;  A. 58.
C. The Memphis P o l i c y ;  L i b e r a l  Use 

bl' 6eadi'v Force~

When Edward Eugene Garner  was s h o t  

and k i l l e d  on October  3,  1974,  he was the 

one hundred and e i ght h ( 108t h)  n o n - v i o l e n t  

proper t y  cr ime suspec t  shot  at  by Memphis 

p o l i c e  o f f i c e r s  s i n c e  January  1969 .  R. 

1 4 5 3 - 6 9 .  The r e c o r d  b e f o r e  the  Court  

p a i n t s  a p i c t u r e  o f  a p o l i c e  d epar t ment  

that  arms and t r a i n s  i t s  o f f i c e r s  to shoot  

to k i l l ,  e nc o ur a g e s  them to r e l y  on t h e i r  

r e v o l v e r s  r a t h e r  than to e x h a u s t  o t h e r  

a l t e r n a t i v e s ,  and a s s u r e s  them that  they 

may do so w i t h o u t  g u i d e l i n e s  and wi th

impun i t y  .
Bec aus e  o f  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  

d e c i s i o n  not to a l l ow f ur t her  h e a r i n g s  on 

remand,  the  record  on the que s t i o n  o f  the

- 13 -



Memphis p o l i c y  or custom i s  a hybr i d .  It 

c o n s i s t s  o f  the e v i d e nc e  adduced at the 

1976 t r i a l  and the o f f e r  o f  p r o o f  tendered 

on remand."^ But des p i t e  the nature o f  the 

record and the lack o f  f i nd i ng s  b e l o w ,  i t  

i s  c l e a r  t hat  Memphis ' s  use o f  dead l y  

f o r c e  to s t o p  nondangerous  s u s p e c t s  i s  

ext reme.
At the 1976 t r i a l ,  p l a i n t i f f  c a l l ed  

Captain Co l e t t a ,  who was r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r  

the d e p a r t m e n t ' s  r e c r u i t  t r a i n i n g  and 

ammunition p o l i c i e s .  He t e s t i f i e d  t h a t ,  

in the year s  i mmedi a t e l y  p r e c e d i n g  the

- 14 -

Organized in f i f teen parts, the of fer of proof 
includes affidavits of expert witnesses who would 
have been called to testify , J.A. 31- 105; excerpts 
from prior federal cases against the Memphis Pd-ce 
Department that illuminate Memphis ' s actual policies 
and customs regarding the use of 
798-1019, 1409-57, 1460-69, 1477-1601, 1614-1391, 
excerpts from the report of the Tennessee Advisory 
Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 
which was based on hearings on c iv il  abuses
by the Memphis Police Department, R. 1050-58^ uhe 
deadly force policies of 44 major municipalities, 
R. 1 108-1 368; the training materials for the iNew 
York Police Department, R. 1369-1408; and an excerpt 
from an LEAA publ i cation on deadly force that 
details police training procedures used in other 
c it ie s  but not in Memphis. R. 1602-13.



15 -

Garner  s h o o t i n g ,  Memphis t w i c e  upgraded  

i t s  ammuni t i on to  b u l l e t s  wi t h g r e a t e r  

v e l o c i t y ,  a c c u r a c y ,  and p r e d i c t e d  wounding 

po we r .  R. 4 1 3 - 1 6 ,  4 2 5 - 2 7  , 447 . I t

f i n a l l y  s e l e c t e d  the 125 g r a i n ,  s e m i -  

j a c k e t e d ,  h o l l o w - p o i n t  Re mi n g t o n .  Both 

C o l e t t a  and the  Sh e l by  County m e d i c a l  

examiner t e s t i f i e d  t ha t  t h i s  b u l l e t  i s  a 

"dum-dum" b u l l e t  banned in i n t e r n a t i o n a l  

use by the  Hague C o n v e n t i o n  o f  1899 

b e c a u s e  i t  i s  d e s i g n e d  to p r o d u c e  more 

g r i e v o us  wounds.  R. 487 - 89 ,  572.  Thi s  i s  

the b u l l e t  that  k i l l e d  young Garner.

Co l e t t a  a l s o  t e s t i f i e d  t ha t  Memphis 

r e c r u i t s  are  t a u g h t  to aim at the t o r s o ,  

or " c e n t e r  mass , "  where v i t a l  o r g a na  are  

more l i k e l y  to  be h i t .  R. 3 5 7 - 5 8 .  ^
g

a l s o  R. 1597 ,  1807-08.  Together  with the

Captain Coletta t e s t i f i e d  that the reason for 
teaching recrui t s  to aim for the torso 
related to police  safety; i t  did not create a better 
chance o f neutralizing a dangerous suspect .  K. 
353-57. Rather, it  is taught solely  because the 
torso presents a greater target and thus reduces the 
chances o f missing. R. 357-58.



use o f  "dum-dum” b u l l e t s ,  t h i s  c r e a t e s  a 

far greater  r i s k  that the r e s u l t i n g  wound 

w i l l  be f a t a l .  I nde e d ,  in a p r i o r  c a s e ,  

the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  found that  Memphis 

p o l i c e  o f f i c e r s  "were t r a i n e d  whenever 

they use t h e i r  f i r e a r ms  to ' s h o o t  to 

Wi l ev  V. Memphis Po l i c e  Dept_^, 

543 r , 2d 1247,  1250 ( 6th Ci r .  1977) .

The p o l i c i e s ,  p r a c t i c e s ,  and customs 

o f  the Memphis Po l i c e  Department encourage 

qui ck r e s o r t  to the use o f  d e a d l y  f o r c e  

wi t hout  a p r o p e r  e f f o r t  to exhaust other 

a l t e r n a t i v e s .  Captai n C o l e t t a  t e s t i f i e d  

that  the department used the f i lm "Shoot 

Don’ t S h o o t , "  which p r e s e n t s  on l y  armed 

f l e e i n g  f e l o n s  in i t s  s i t u a t i o n a l  i l l u s 

t r a t i o n s  o f  the f l e e i n g  f e l o n  r u l e ,  R. 

3 2 9 - 3 2 ;  t hat  t he r e  was no t r a i n i n g  in

- 16 -

9 The heavy reliance on the "Shoot-Don't 5ioot" film 
encourages the use of firearms because, as plain
t i f f ' s  expert Chief Bracey would have testified , it 
has a negative effect on an inexperienced recruit, 
making him jumpy and more likely to employ deadly 
force. 3.A. 38.



17

a l t e r n a t i v e s  t h a t  s h o u l d  be e x h a u s t e d  

b e f o r e  r e s o r t i n g  t o  d e a d l y  f o r c e  t o  s t o p  

unarmed f l e e i n g  f e l o n y  s u s p e c t s ,  R. 340;  

t h a t  t he  d e p a r t m e n t ' s  f i r e a r m s  manual  

d e t a i l s  f i r e a r m s  t e c h n i q u e s ,  but  no t  

t e c hni ques  to a v o i d  the need f o r  the use  

o f  weapons,  R. 344- 45 ;  and that  the use o f  

d e a d l y  f o r c e  to  a t op  f l e e i n g  f e l o n y  

s u s p e c t s  i s  l e f t  t o  t he  i n d i v i d u a l  

o f f i c e r ' s  d i s c r e t i o n :  r e c r u i t s  are  s i m p l y  

t o l d  t ha t  t hey  must l i v e  with t hemsel ves  

i f  t hey  k i l l  a p e r s o n .  R. 326 ,  3 4 5 ;

accord  R. 195- 96 ,  901,  956,  1797.

M o r e o v e r ,  the f i r e a r m  t r a i n i n g  and 

ammuni t i on p o l i c i e s  o f  the d e p a r t me n t  

c r e a t e  the i n d e l i b l e  i mpr es s i on  on Memphis 

o f f i c e r s  t h a t  the d e p a r t me n t  e n c o u r a g e s  

use o f  d e a d l y  f o r c e .  P l a i n t i f f ' s  e x p e r t .  

Chi e f  Wi l l i am R. Bracey,  ex p l a i ne d  that  a

10 At the time o f  his a f f i davi t , William R. Bracey was 
Chief o f  Patrol o f  the .New York Police Deparjment 
with supervisory authority over a ll 17,500 uniiormed 
personnel o f  the .New York Police Department. He 
would also have t e s t i f ie d :  that guidelines and



-  i a -

" d e f i n i t e  message  was t r a n s m i t t e d  when 

[Memphis]  r e i t e r a t e d  i t s .  p o l i c y  o f  

s h o o t i n g  ' t o  s t o p ’ and at the same time 

introduced the use o f  dum-dum b u l l e t s .  The 

message t ransmi t ted to l i ne  o f f i c e r s  would 

seem to suggest  the d e p a r t m e n t ' s  s up p o r t  

o f  f i rearm us e . "  3 . A. 97.

Lest  t h i s  p o l i c y  not  be c l e a r l y  

u n d e r s t o o d ,  Memphis t akes  two f u r t h e r  

steps to assure i t s  o f f i c e r s  that they may 

r e a d i l y  r e s o r t  to d e ad l y  f o r c e ;  It 

p r o v i d e s  out s po ke n  and u n q u e s t i o n i n g  

p u b l i c  s u p p o r t  f o r  the s h o o t e r  and

committed enforcement of those guidelines by the 
police hierarchy will lead to reductions in the use 
of unnecessary deadly force;  that New York has 
reduced firearms discharges by 505 by these means, 
that the result of this reduction has been the 
increased safety of  New York Polioe Department 
officers with fewer assaults on officers  and fe^ r  
deaths* that law enforcement has been unhampered; 
that training, including training in alternatives 
to minimize the need for use of deadly force, and 
discipline are the keys to reducing unnecessary 
deadly force; that shooting unarmed fleeing fsxons 
is related to the of f i cer ' s  subjective notions of 
punishment; and that the Memphis p o l ic ie s  of 
shooting fleeing property crime suspects, use or 
'^(^-dym" bu llet^  Â "‘ 9̂1 discipline were



- 19 -

c e s o l u l s l y  r e f u s e s  to d i s c l p U n e  i t s  

o f f i c e r s  f o r  toe use o f  t h e i r  r e v o l v e r s

under any c i r c u ms t a n c e s .

In January  1972 ,  f o r  e x a m p l e ,

f o u r t e e n - y e a r - o l d  Eddi e  Lee Ma d i s o n ,  a 

b l a c k ,  was shotgunned in the back.  He and 

a f r i end  had s t o l e n  a car  to j o y r i d e .  They 

v^ere s topped by the p o l i c e  at  1 1 : 0 0  P-M. 

in downtown Memphis.  Eddie Madison b o l t e d  

from the d r i v e r ' s  s i d e  and r a n .  N e i t h e r  

o f f i c e r  gave  c h a s e  down t he  v i r t u a l l y  

empty s t r e e t .  Both opened  f i r e ,  d e s p i t e  

the f a c t  t h a t  the a c c o m p l i c e  was a l ready  

in c u s t o d y  and thus  c o u l d  have p r o v i d e d  

M a d i s o n ’ s i d e n t i t y  t o  the  p o l i c e .  Five  

days l a t e r ,  the mayor i s s u e d  a s t a t e m e n t  

d e f e n d i n g  the  s h o o t i n g ,  s a y i n g  t h a t  the 

o f f i c e r s '  c onduc t  was '’ in l i n e  wi t h  b o t h  

p r e v i o u s  p o l i c y  and in l i n e  wi t h any 

future  p o l i c y  that  may be d e v e l o p e d . "  R. 

1632,  1 3 2 5 - 2 8 .  N e v e r t h e l e s s ,  t he  mayor

subsequent l y  admi t t ed  in d e p o s i t i o n  t h a t



ha found the use o f  f o r c e  in that s i t u a 

t i o n  e x c e s s i v e  and that  he amended the 

p o l i c y  to p r o h i b i t  such s h o o t i n g s .  O.A.

1 0 8 - 1 1 4 . Se£ J . A.  140- 44  (amended
1 1

p o l i c y )  .
Perhaps even more i mp o r t a n t  i s  the

Memphis p o l i c y  never  to  d i s c i p l i n e

o f f i c e r s  f or  the use o f  deadly f o r c e  under

any c i r c u m s t a n c e s .  No Memphis p o l i c e

o f f i c e r  has ever been d i s c i p l i n e d  for the

use o f  h i s  gun.  R. 547,  1853.  The

c i v i l i a n  complaint  procedures are designed
1 2

to d e t e r  c o m p l a i n t s .  R. 1050-53.  And,

as d e t a i l ed  in the record b e f o r e  the Court 

in Prandon v.  H o l t , No. 35-1622,  var i ous  

o t he r  p o l i c i e s  o f  the department and the 

City Ci v i l  Servi ce  Commission r e s u l t  in a

11 The Memphis policy was again amended in 1979 to 
prohibit the shooting of juveniles , like Madison and 
Garner, except in defense of  l i f e .  J.A. 1Z0-<iT,

12 There is a rule that all complainants must take a 
qolyqraph while no officer is ever required to. The 
procedures also require that the o fficer  against 
whom a charge is made must immediately be notified 
of tne complainant's name and address. R. 1050-53.

- 20 -



21 -

d i s c i p l i n a r y  s i t u a t i o n  t h a t ,  as c h a r a c  

t e r i z e d  by f o r mer  D i r e c t o r  o f  P o l i c e  

Chapman,  i s  bes t  d e s c r i b e d  as " h o p e l e s s . "  

B r i e f  f or  P e t i t i o n e r s ,  E l i z a b e t h  Br andon ,

et al., at 12-18.

As a r e s u l t ,  Memphis o f f i c e r s  get  the 

c l e a r  mes s age  t ha t  t hey  can use d e a d l y  

f o r c e  with impuni t y .  The proxi mate  r e s u l t  

i s  t he  e x c e s s i v e  use o f  d e a d l y  f o r c e  in 

s i t u a t i o n s  when i t  i s  no t  n e c e s s a r y  in 

o r d e r  t o  a ppr ehend  the s u b j e c t .  As the  

cour t  o f  appeal s  noted in t h i s  c a s e ,  Hymon 

shot  young Garner pursuant  to the  Memphis 

p o l i c y  " wh i c h  a l l ows  an o f f i c e r  to k i l l  a 

f l e e i n g  f e l on  rat her  than run the  r i s k  o f  

a l l o w i n g  him to escape a p p r e h e n s i o n . "  600

F .2d at 54;  A. 16.
0.  The Memphis Custom: Rac i a l

Pi sc r im inat

On remand,  r e s p o n d e n t  made an 

e x t e n s i v e  p r o f f e r  r e g a r d i n g  the  r a c i a l  

b a s i s  o f  t he  Memphis p o l i c y  countenanc i ng



the  s h o o t i n g  o f  f l e e i n g ,  n o n v i o l e n t ,  

p r o p e r t y  c r i me  s u s p e c t s .  The o f f e r  o f  

p r o o f  c ont a i ns  the raw data concerni ng a l l  

ar r es t s  in Memphis between 1963 and 1974,

R. 14Q9-57, 1767-63; data on a l l  shoot i ngs  

o f  f l e e i ng  p r o p e r t y ' crime sus pec t s  between 

1969 and 1974,  R. 1 4 60- 6 9 ; .  dat a  on a i l  

those k i l l e d  by Memphis p o l i c e  o f f i c e r s  

between 1969 and 1976, R. 1764-67, 10/1;  

pr i o r  ana l ys i s  o f  t hi s  data by a s t a t i s t i 

c i a n ,  R. 1769-77,  and hi s  test imony at an 

e a r l i e r  t r i a l  regarding t hi s  a n a l y s i s ,  R. 

1 5 59 - 6 2 ,  1539- 92;  h i s t o r i c a l  data regard

ing race  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  by the Memphis 

P o l i c e  Department  from 1374 t hrough the 

m i d - n i n e t e e n - s e v e n t i e s ,  i n c l u d i n g  the 

d e p o s i t i o n  t e s t i mo n y  o f  the mayor and 

p o l i c e  d i r e c t o r  s u p p o r t i n g  t h i s  c o n c l u 

s i o n ,  R. 903- 910 ;  O.A. 116-19,  135-38;  R.

- 22 -

All of the foregoino data was collected and provided 
by the Memphis Police Department as defendant in 
Wilev V. Memphis  Pol ice Dept . , Civ. Action ,No. 
C-/5-3 IW.O. fenn. June 30, 19/5j ,  a f f ' d , 548 F..d 
1247 (6th Cir. 1977).



- 23 -

1 5 3 9 - 4 0 ,  1 5 7 1 - 7 5 ,  1646- 56 ,  1677- 73 ,  1690,

1 3 28 -2 9 ; and the a f f i d a v i t  o f  p l a i n t i f f ' s  

e x p e r t .  Or.  Oames 3. ry f e , ^" "  which analyzed 

in d e t a i l  t he  a r r e s t  and s h o o t i n g  d a t a  

c o n t a i n e d  in the  o f f e r  o f  p r o o f .  3 . A. 

97 -10 6 .
The d a t a  r e v e a l  t h a t  t h e r e  are  

s i g n i f i c a n t  d i s p a r i t i e s  in t he  use o f  

d e a d l y  f o r c e  b a s e d  on t he  r a c e  o f  t he  

shoo t i ng  v i c t i m / s u s p e c t  and that  v i r t u a l l y  

a l l  o f  t h i s  d i s p a r i t y  o c c u r s  as the r e s u l t  

o f  the Memphis p o l i c y  that  a l l ows  o f f i c e r s  

to e x e r c i s e  t h e i r  d i s c r e t i o n  to  s h o o t  

f l e e i n g  pr o pe r t y  c r i me  s u s p e c t s .  Between 

1 969 and 1 976,  b l a c k s  c o n s t i t u t e d  7 0 . 6J; o f

1A Dr Fvfe is a former iNew York Police Department 
lieutenant and training o f f i c e r .  He d e s i g n e d  a 
firearms trainings program for the New York 
Department in which over 20,000 o f f i c e r s  ha 
participated. His doctoral thesis concerned the use 
of deadly force by New York Pol i ce  Department 
o f f i c e r s .  He is an a ssoc ia te  professor at 
American University in Washington, D.C.,  and nas 
served as a consultant on the deadly force issue for 
the United States Department o f  ^ u st^ e  3^30 
Civi l  Rights Commission. 3 . A. 97-99. ne aiso 
teaches courses at the F .3 .I . National Academy at 
Quantico, Va.



- 24 -

t h o s e  a r r e s t e d  f o r  p r o p e r t y  c r i me s  m  

Memphis but  8 3.455 o f  the p r o p e r t y  c r i me  

s u s p e c t s  sho t  at by the Memphis p o l i c e .

In c o n t r a s t ,  the p e r c e n t a g e  o f  b l a c k  

v i o l e n t  crime suspects  shot at by Memphis 

p o l i c e  was c l o s e l y  p r o p o r t i o n a t e  to t h e i r  

p e r c e n t a g e  in the v i o l e n t  c r i me  a r r e s t  

popul at i on :  8 5.455 and 3 3.1 55 , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

R. 1773.
Qp  ̂ Fyf e  r ev i ewed  t h i s  dat a  and 

concluded t hat ,  c o n t r o l l i n g  f o r  d i f f e r e n 

t i a l  r a c i a l  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  in the arres t  

popul at i on ,  b l ack property c r i me  s u s p e c t s  

were more than twice as l i k e l y  to be shot 

at than wh i t e s  ( 4 . 3 3  per 1000 b l a c k  

p r o p e r t y  c r i me  a r r e s t s ;  1.31 per 1000 

white property  crime a r r e s t s ) ,  f our  t imes 

more l i k e l y  to be wounded ( . 536  per 1000 

b l a c k s ;  . 1113 per 1 000 w h i t e s ) ,  and 40 55 

more l i k e l y  to be k i l l e d  ( . 6 3  per 1000 

b l a c k s ;  .45 per 1000 w h i t e s ) .  0-A.  

101-02.



Comparison o f  shoo t i ng s  by Memphis

p o l i c e  o f f i c e r s  whi l e  c o n t r o l l i n g  f or  race

o f  the shoot ing  v i c t im and the nature of

the incident provided s i m i l a r l y  s t r i k i n g

d a t a .  Dr.  F y f e ' s  a n a l y s i s  o f  the s hoo t i ng

i n c i d e n t s  between 1969 and 1976 d e s c r i b e d

by the Memphis P o l i c e  Department to the

C i v i l  Rights  Commission showed a d r a m a t i c

di spar i ty  between the s i tua t i ons  in which

whi tes  were k i l l e d  and those in which

b l a c k s  were k i l l e d .  Of t he  b l a c k s  s h o t ,

3Q% were unarmed and n o n a s s a u l t  iv a , 2 3 . 1-«

a s s a u l t i v e  but  not armed with a gun,  26.9!S

a s s a u l t i v e  and armed wi t h a gun.  Of the

w h i t e s  s h o t ,  o n l y  one ( 1 2 . 5U) was no n -

a s s a u l t i v e ,  two (2515) were a s s a u l t i v e  but

not  armed wi t h  a gun,  and f i v e  ( 62. 5Si )
1 5

were armed with a gun.

- 25 -

15 Dr. Fyfe noted that: -These are certainly dramatic 
differences, but no measure o f  their significance is  
possible . . .  because the only s ta t is t ica l ly  signi
ficant category of whites killed  is those armed with
guns.” 0-A. 10^.



Based on t h i s  d a t a ,  Dr.  Fyfe  con 

e luded t h a t ,  dur i ng  the p e r i o d  in q u e s 

t i o n ,  Memphis p o l i c e  were far more l i k e l y  

to shoo t  b l a c k s  than wh i t e s  in

non- threateni ng  c i r cumstances  and that the 

great  d i s p a r i t y  in b lacks  shot  by Memphis 

p o l i c e  o f f i c e r s  i s  l a r g e l y  accounted for 

by the p o l i c y  a l l o w i n g  the d i s c r e t i o n a r y  

s h o o t i n g  o f  no n - d a n g e r o u s  f l e e i n g  fe l ony 

sus pec t s .  Between 1969 and 1976, Memphis 

p o l i c e  k i l l e d  2.6 unarmed, no n - a s s au l t i v e  

blacks  for each armed,  a s s a u l t i v e  wh i t e .  

B.A. 102-04.

The district court, in its

post -re co nsi deratio n order, A. 31,

rejected Dr. F y f e ’s conc lusions on the 

basis of several unsupportab1 e c o n s i d e r a 

tions. It noted Dr. Fyfe’s "bias," A. 34,
1 6

without ever having seen him testify. It

- 26 -

16 The d istrict court's "bias" finding was based on 
Or Fyfe's disagreement with the Memphis pol i cy 
allowing the use o f  deadly force against nan-
dangerous suspects. This "b ias,"  however, IS the
o ff ic ia l  policy of the F.B.I. and numerous met*o-



27

a t t a c k e d  Dr .  F y f e ' s  c o n c l u s i o n s  b ec aus e ,  

i t  c l a i m e d ,  he f a i l e d  t o  " s p e c i f y  t he  

a c t u a l  number o f  b l a c k s  a r r e s t e d  a n d / o r  

c o n v i c t e d  f or  a l l e g e d  ' p r o p e r t y  c r i me s '  as 

compared to whi tes  dur ing t h i s  p e r i o d . "  A. 

32.  But,  as d is cu s s e d  above .  Dr.  F y f e  s 

a n a l y s i s  s p e c i f i c a l l y  " c o n t r o l s  f o r  

d i f f e r e n t i a l  i n v o l v e m e n t  among the r a c e s  

in p r o p e r t y  c r i m e . . . , "  3 . A. 101,  i ndeed ,  

the d at a  on whi ch Dr.  Fy f e  r e l i e d  was 

i n c l u d e d  in the  o f f e r  o f  p r o o f  and 

prov i ded the a c t u a l  number o f  b o t h  wh i t e  

and b l a c k  p r o p e r t y  cr ime a r r e s t s  t o g e t h e r  

wi t h the raw d a t a  o f  a l l  a r r e s t s .  R. 

1 4 0 9 - 5 7 ,  1 7 6 7 - 6 3 .  The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t

ques t i oned  the d e l i n e a t i o n  o f  " ' p r o p e r t y  

c r i me '  in the Fyfe d e f i n i t i o n . "  A. 32.  But 

the d e l i n e a t i o n  be t ween  p r o p e r t y  c r i m e s  

and v i o l e n t  cr i mes  that  Dr.  Fyfe employed 

.^as t hat  made by the Memphis P o l i c e

politan police departments as disparate as New York,
Atlanta, and Charlotte, North Carolina. ^ R .  1113,
1200, 1293, 1869.



- 28 -

Department  and i n c l u d e d  wi th the a r r e s t  

s t a t i s t i c s .  R. 1559,  1767-63. In numerous 

s i m i l a r  ways,  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  s imply 

mi sapprehended  Or.  F y f e ' s  p r o f f e r e d
17

test imony.

17 For example, in questioning Dr. Fyfe’ s 
that the incidence o f  use o f  deadly 
property crime arrests in Memphis far exceeded that 
in New York, the d is t r i c t  court noted that.  
"Professor Fyfe admitted his comparison was not 
'precise* in respect to property crimes compa
rison." A. 32 n. 1. But Dr. Fyfe accounted for this 
imprecision in a way that favored Memphis. His 
"admission" was that:

More than half (50.7 percent) o f  the police 
shootings in Memphis during 1969-1974 involved 
shooting at property crime suspects. The 
comparable percentage in 1971-1976 in New York 
was no more than 11.3 percent. This compa
rison is not precise because the iNew York u ty  
figure includes all shootings to "prevent or 
terminate crimes." Thus, it  includes shoot
ings precipitated by both property crimes and 
crimes o f  v io lence . My estimate of the 
percentage of iNew York City police shootings 
which involved property crime suspects only is 
four percent.

a.A. 100.
Similarly,  in arguing that Dr. Fyfe failed^ to 

control for disparate racial involvement in the 
underlying felonies, the district court alleged that 
Or. Fyfe "concedes elsewhere that there is also 
'differential racial involvement in police shoot
ings. ’ " A. 32. '^at Dr. Fyfe said, however, is 
that:  "In New York City,  d i f f e rent i a l  racial



M o r e o v e r ,  t he  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  f a i l e d  

to c o n s i d e r  that  the h i s t o r i c a l  background 

o f  the  Memphis P o l i c e  Department c o r r o b o 

r a t es  the i n f e r e n c e  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  that  

a r i s e s  f rom t he  s t a t i s t i c s .  The d e p a r t 

ment ' s  h i s t o r y  i s  one o f  ent renc hed  rac i sm 

in employment,  promot i on ,  and law e n f o r c e 

ment."*^ The department  was r e p e a t e d l y  the 

agent  o f  e n f o r c e m e n t  o f  t he  s e g r e g a t i o n  

laws in t he  6 Q ' s ,  R. 1539- 40,  engaging in 

r a c i a l  a b us e  and b r u t a l i t y  d u r i n g  the  

s a n i t a t i o n  s t r i k e  in 1963.  R. 1571-75.  A 

1970 NAAC? Ad Hoc Commi t t ee  Repor t  

c o n c l u d e d  t h a t :  " t h e  most  common form o f

address  by a Memphis po l i ceman to a b l a c k

- 29 -

involvement in police shootings also e x i s t s ,  but 
[unlike ,Memphis] i t  is almost tota lly  accounted or 
by d ifferentia l racial involvement in the tyjses of 
a ct iv it ies  likely  to precipitate shootings. J.A.

ia As long ago as 1374, a "Resolution asking Police 
Board to put 20 colored men on force, lost by vote 
16-3" before the City Council. R. 1646.



p e r s o n  appears  to be ' n i g g e r . ' "  R. 1671.

As acknowledged by Di r ec t or  Chapman, " t h e

' Hey ,  b o y '  syndrome . . .  l a s t e d  [ i n  the

Memphis p o l i c e  d e pa r t me nt ]  l o n g e r ,  but

l as t ed  there only because i t  was perce ived

by the department as being accepted by the

m a j o r i t y  o f  t h i s  c ommuni t y . "  3 . A. 136.

This was s t i l l  t rue  in 1974,  when Garner 
19

was shot .
In 1974,  b l a c k s  made up only 10* o f  

the f o r c e  and o n l y  3 . 1 S o f  the o f f i c e r s  

over  l i e u t e n a n t  ( t h e r e  were no b l a c k s  

hi gher  than c a p t a i n )  in a c i t y  that  was 

al most  40% b l a c k .  R. 169.  See a l s o  R.

- 30 -

19 As the mayor testified :

The black ccmmurity, speaking generally and in 
abroad sense, perceives the police department 
as having consistently brutalized them, almost 
their enemy instead of  their f r i e n d . . . .  
[T]alking about in 1972, what you say is abso
lutely true and I would say almost across the 
board.

R. 1828-29; accord 3.A. 118-119 (police director 
testified that: " There is a basis in fact for the
^isti;yst of t^e .fvlack community-----  Q. And 1974?



- 31 -

2 09 1 0 ;  O. A.  1 3 6 .  Thi s  i s o l a t e d  m i n o r i t y  

conformed i t s  behav i or  to the departmental  

e t h i c ;  as d i r e c t o r .  Chapman t e s t i f i e d  in 

1 9 7 9 ,  he "had e q u a l  p r o b l e ms  wi th the  

b l a c k  o f f i c e r s  in t erms  o f  t he  b l a c k  

o f f i c e r s  t r y i n g  to out r e d - n e c k  the  wh i t e  

o f f i c e r s . . . .  I t h a t ' s  l i t e r a l l y

[ s i c ]  what we had . "  O.A.  137.

SOMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Thi s  c a s e  i s  not  about the power " t o  

use whatever f o r c e  i s  r eas onab l y  nec es s a r y  

t o  e f f e c t  the  a r r e s t  o f  a s u s p e c t , "  

S t a t e ' s  B r i e f  at 1A, nor " t o  l a w f u l l y  use 

d e a d l y  f o r c e  to apprehend. "  C i t y ' s  B r i e f  

at 14.  Rather ,  i t  i s  about  the a b i l i t y  o f  

the p o l i c e  to use f o r c e  that  i s  intended 

and l i k e l y  to r e s u l t  in d e at h  to  p r e v e n t  

t he  e s c a p e  o f  unarmed,  n o n v i o l e n t ,  and

20 That same year, an employment discrimination lawsuit 
brought by the Department o f  Justice was se tt lM . 
The consent decree was designed to increase the 
hiring and promotion o f  black o f f ic e r s .  United 
States V. City o f  Ntemphis, Civ. Action ,Nq . C-/4-236 
(W.O. ienn. i y ' i ; .



32 -

nondangerous  f l e e i n g  f e l ony  sus pec t s  when 

the o f f i c e r  b e l i e v e s  that he cannot  e f f e c t  

an a r r e s t ;  in s hor t ,  " i f  the k i l l i n g  o f  a 

n o n - v i o l e n t  f l e e i n g  f e l o n y  s u s p e c t  

d e p r i v e s  the s u s p e c t  o f  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

g u a r a n t e e s . "  S t a t e ’ s B r i e f  at 18.  It  

d o e s .  Whether a na l y zed  in terms o f  the 

f o u r t h  amendment,  the r i g h t  not  to  be 

d e p r i v e d  o f  l i f e  wi t hout  due p r o c e s s ,  or 

the p r o h i b i t i o n  o f  punishment wi t ho u t  due 

p r o c e s s ,  the  t a k i ng  o f  l i f e  under these 

c i r cumstances  i s  d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e  to and 

e x c e s s i v e  in l i g h t  o f  the s t a t e  i n t e r e s t s  

a s s e r t e d  in j u s t i f i c a t i o n .  Whi le the 

common law f l e e i n g  f e l on d o c t r i n e  may have 

made sense at the time o f  i t s  deve l opment  

and,  even,  as l a t e  as the n i n e t e e n t h  

century,  modern c o n d i t i o n s  have render ed  

the p r a c t i c e  unreasonable and e x c e s s i v e .  A 

m a j o r i t y  o f  the s t a t e s  and the o v e r 

whelming m a j o r i t y  o f  m u n i c i p a l  p o l i c e  

depar t ment s  have r e c o g n i z e d  t h i s  and



- 33 -

mo di f i e d  or abandoned the p r a c t i c e .

The Court  s h o u l d  a l s o  a f f i r m  on t he  

b a s i s  o f  e i t h e r  o f  two a l t e r n a t i v e  grounds 

t ha t  s u p p o r t  the  j ud g me nt  b e l o w .  The 

d e a d l y  f o r c e  p o l i c i e s  and customs o f  the 

Memphis P o l i c e  Depart ment  e n c o u r a g e  and 

i n s u l a t e  the e x c e s s i v e  and unnecessary  use 

o f  deadly  f o r c e  in s i t u a t i o n s ,  such as the 

i n s t a n t  c a s e ,  where the o f f i c e r  has f a i l e d  

t o  e x h a u s t  r e a s o n a b l e  a l t e r n a t i v e s .  

I n d e p e n d e n t  o f  t he  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y  o f  

the common law f l e e i n g  f e l o n  d o c t r i n e ,  

t h i s  m u n i c i p a l  p o l i c y  v i o l a t e s  the f ourth 

amendment and the  due p r o c e s s  c l a u s e .  

M o r e o v e r ,  t he  Memphis p o l i c y  that  l e a v e s  

the d e c i s i o n  to shoot  unarmed,  n o n v i o l e n t ,  

f l e e i n g  p r o p e r t y  c r i me  s u s p e c t s  to  the  

d i s c r e t i o n  o f  the i n d i v i d u a l  o f f i c e r  i s  

r a c i a l l y  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y .



34 -

ARGUMENT

T THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY 
JSlanced the nature Of IHE intrus on 
a g a i ns t  the STATE’ S INTERESTS IN LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AND HELD
OF AN UNARMED, NONVIOLENT, ^^EEING 
PROPERTY CRIME SUSPECT VIOLATES THE 
C O N S T I T U T I O N -------------------------- ------------

The q u e s t i o n  in t hi s  case i s  whether 

a s t at e  or c i t y  may a u t h o r i z e  i t s  p o l i c e  

to k i l l  a f l e e i n g  s u s p e c t  whom the 

o f f i c e r  reasonably  b e l i e v e s  to be unarmed 

when the o f f i c e r  has p r o b a b l e  cause  to 

b e l i e v e  t hat  the s u s p e c t  commi t ted a 

n o n v i o l e n t  f e l o n y  such as b u r g l a r y  but 

f e e l s  that he cannot  capture him.  Whether 

analyzed under the fourth amendment or the 

due process  c l a u s e ,  the answer u l t i m a t e l y  

depends on the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between the 

nature o f  the i nt rus i on  i n f l i c t e d  upon the 

s u s p e c t  and the s t a t e  i n t e r e s t s  asserted 

in j u s t i f i c a t i o n .  The c o u r t  o f  a pp e a l s  

a s s e s s e d  t h i s  balance c o r r e c t l y .  The use 

o f  deadly f or ce  in these c i r c u m s t a n c e s  i s



- 35 -

e x c e s s i v e  and d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e  —  that  i s ,  

t he  a s s e r t e d  s t a t e  i n t e r e s t s  are  no t  

s u b s t a n t i a l  enough to  j u s t i f y  the t aki ng 

o f  t he  l i f e  o f  a n o n v i o l e n t ,  f l e e i n g  

f e l o ny  s u s p e c t .

In t he  s e c t i o n s  t h a t  f o l l o w ,  we 

d i s c u s s  the  a p p r o p r i a t e  a n a l y s i s  under  

each o f  t h r e e  a l t e r n a t i v e  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

t h e o r i e s .  S e c t i o n  A d i s c u s s e s  t he  f o u r t h  

amendment .  S e c t i o n  B c o n s i d e r s  the due 

p r o c e s s  c l a u s e ' s  p r o t e c t i o n  o f  l i f e .  

S e c t i o n  C e v a l u a t e s  t he  f l e e i n g  f e l o n  

d o c t r i n e  in l i g h t  o f  the f o u r t e e n t h  

amendment ’ s p r o t e c t i o n  ag a i ns t  punishment 

wi thout  due p r o c e s s .  F i n a l l y ,  s e c t i o n  D 

a s s e s s e s  the ba l ance  o f  i n t e r e s t s  r equi r ed  

by each o f  these  a n a l y s e s .

A. The Fourth Amendment Requi res  a 
a a l anc i no  of  tne I nt eresTs

The c i t y  a r g ue s  t ha t  the c o u r t  o f  

appeal s  erred  because  the f our t h amendment 

does no more than se t  the minimum standard



- 36 -

f o r  i n i t i a t i n g  an arrest  — i . e . ,  probable

cause - -  and does  not  c o n t r o l  what the

p o l i c e  may do in e f f e c t u a t i n g  that  a r r e s t .

C i t y ' s  Br i e f  at 13.  S i m i l a r l y ,  the s t a t e

argues  t hat  the common law f l e e i n g  f e l on

r u l e  ' s a t i s f i e s  the f o u r t h  amendment

b ec aus e  i t  p r o t e c t s  a g a i ns t  a r b i t r a r y  or

unnecessary p o l i c e  a c t i o n .  S t a t e  s B r i e f

at 1 0 - 1 1 .  It  a l s o  r a i s e s  a d d i t i o n a l

arguments why the r u l e  s a t i s f i e s  the

f o ur t h  amendment.  As we show b e l o w ,  the

s t a t e  and the c i t y  are wrong on each o f

t hese  p o i n t s ;  d e c i s i o n  in t h i s  case wi l l

turn on the b a l a n c i n g  r e q u i r e d  by the
21

fourth amendment.

21 Both the state and the city concede this point in 
the end. The state admits that " ’ the reasona
bleness' under the Fourth Amendment o f  the seizure 
of a person appears to have tra d it ion a lly  
evaluated in terms of 'whether . . .  the magnitude of 
the action was necessary in relation to the state 
interest served by the police conduct...."  State s 
Brief  at 10 ( c i t i ng  Terrv v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 
(1963) ) .  Similarly,  the city admits that, ir a 
fourth anendment analysis is appropriate, "the court 
must then look to the rule o f  reasonableness 
established by Terry [and] ident i fy both the 
goverrmental interest involved 'which would justify



F i r s t ,  the  Te n n e s s e e  p r a c t i c e  at 

is s u e  i s  governed by the f o ur t h  amendment.

I t  s p e a ks  d i r e c t l y  to " [ T ] h e  r i g h t  o f  the 

peopl e  to be s e c u r e  in t h e i r  p e r s o n s  . . .

a g a i n s t  u n r e a s o n a b l e  . . .  s e i z u r e s -------"

U.S.  Const .  amend. IV; Terry v.  Ohio,  392 

U.S.  1,  16 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ;  United S t at es  v.  Plac_e,

U, S.  _____ , 77 L . E d . Z d  110 ,  1 2 1 - 2 2

( 1 983) ;  Dunaway v . New Yor_k, 442 U.S.  200,  

207 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ;  Cupo v .  Murph_y, 412 U.S.  291,  

294 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ;  Davis v.  M i s s i s s i p p i , 394 U.S.  

721 ,  7 2 6 - 2 7  ( 1 9 6 9 ) .  As t he  c o u r t  o f

appeals  o b s e r v e d :  " K i l l i n g  the  i n d i v i d u a l  

. . .  i s  p l a i n l y  a ' s e i z u r e . ' "  710 F.2d at

243;  A. 44.
M o r e o v e r ,  the  Court  has l o n g  r e p u 

d i a t e d  t he  c o n t e n t i o n  t h a t  the f o u r t h  

amendment g o v e r n s  o n l y  t he  "when"  o f  

p o l i c e  a c t i o n  and not  the  " h o w . "  The

- 37 -

the use of  deadly force and the e f f e c t  such use 
would have upon individual rights. Then the Court
must balance the two competing in te re s ts . . . .  City s
Brief at 13.



- 38

Court  onl y  r e c e n t l y  r e a f f i r m e d  what i t  

" observed in Te r r y , ' Ct ]he manner in which 

the s e i z u r e  . . . [ w a s ]  c o n d u c t e d  i s ,  o f  

urse ,  as v i t a l  a part o f  the i n q u i r y  asCO

wh e t h e r [ i t  was]  warranted  at a l l .

Uni ted S t a t e s  v.  Place ,  77 L.Ed.2d at 121
------------------------- 2 2
( q u o t i n g  T e r r y , 392 U.S.  at 2 3 ) .  In

P l a c e ,  the Court  went on to "examine the

agent s -  c o n d u c t . . . , "  i d . ,  and found i t

" s u f f i c i e n t  to render  the s e i z u r e  un

r eas onab l e . "  Xi* 122.
23

22 In Terrv, the Court added that: "The Fourth imend- 
ment proceeds as much by limitations upon the scope 
of governmental action as by imposing preconditions 
upon its in itiation ."  392 U.S. at 28-29.

23 See also Schmerber v. California, 38A U.S. 75/, 76d 
Tl5^o; ("wnetner the means ana procedures employed

respected relevant Fourth Amendment standards of 
reasonableness"); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 
38 (1963) ('whether "the metnoo of entering the home 
may offend federal constitu tion al standards o f 
reasonableness"); United States v. Calardra, 414 
U.S. 333, 346 (1974) (suopoena "' far coo sweeping in 
its terms to be regarded as reasonable' under the 
Fourth Amendment") (d ic ta ) ; Dalia v . United States, 
441 U.S. 238, 258 (1979) ("tne manner in 'wnich a 
warrant is executed is subject to later ju d ic ia l  
review as to its reasonableness").



- 39 -

But i f  the  c i t y  i s  i n c o r r e c t  in i t s  

a s s e r t i o n  that  the  f o u r t h  amendment o n l y  

g o v e r n s  when p o l i c e  can a r r e s t ,  the s t a t e  

i s  eq ua l l y  wrong in i t s  a s s e r t i o n  t ha t  i t  

o n l y  p r o v i d e s  p r o t e c t i o n  from a r b i t r a r y  

and u n n e c e s s a r y ,  but  no t  e x c e s s i v e ,  

p o l i c e  a c t i o n s .  In every  f our t h  amendment 

c o n t e x t ,  t he  Court  has c o n s i d e r e d  t he  

r e a s o n a b l e n e s s  o f  p o l i c e  a c t i o n s  by 

me a s ur i n g  the  e x t e n t  o f  the  i n t r u s i o n  

aga i ns t  the a s s e r t e d  j u s t i f i c a t i o n s .  Thus,  

in Terry  t he  Court  o b s e r v e d  t h a t :  "The

scope  o f  the search must be ' s t r i c t l y  t i e d  

to  and j u s t i f i e d  b y '  the  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  

whi ch r e n d e r e d  i t s  i n i t i a t i o n  p e r m i s 

s i b l e . "  392 U.S.  at 19 ( q uo t i ng  'Hacden v . 

Ha v d e n , 337 U.S.  294,  310 (1967)  ( F o r t a s ,  

3 . ,  c o n c u r r i n g ) ) .  In F l o r i d a v .  Roy e x > 

460 U.S.  , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 ( 1 9 3 3 ) ,  the

Court noted that  a " s ear c h  must be l i mi t e d  

in scope to that  which i s  j u s t i f i e d  by the 

p a r t i c u l a r  p u r p o s e s  s e r v e d . . . . "  X I -  at



40 -

233.  "The r e a s o n a b l e n e s s  requirement  o f  

the Fourth Amendment requi r es  no le s s  when

the p o l i c e  a c t i o n  i s  a s e i z u r e ------- The

scope o f  the d e t e n t i o n  must be c a r e f u l l y  

t a i l o r e d  to i t s  underlying j u s t i f i c a t i o n .

Id.  See al so  Michiqan v.  Summery, 452 U.S. 

692,  701- 02  (1931)  (gauging nature o f  the

i n t r u s i o n ) .
Thus,  in d e t e r mi n i n g  the  r e a s o n 

ableness o f  the use o f  deadly f o r c e  under 

the fourth amendment, the cour t  o f  appeals 

f o l l o w e d  e x a c t l y  the mode o f  a n a l y s i s  

appl i ed by t h i s  Court in c o ns i de r i ng  other

forms o f  p o l i c e  a c t i o n .

Terry and i t s  progeny  r e s t s  on a 
b a i 'l^ c i n g  o f  the competing i n t e r e s t s  
to d e t e r mi n e  the r e a s o n a b l e n e s s  o f  
the type o f  s e i z u r e  i n v o l v e d  within 
the meaning o f  " t he  Fourth Amend
me nt ' s  g e n e r a l  p r o s c r i p t i o n  against  
unreasonable searches and s e i z u r e s .  
392 U.S.  at 20.  We must balance the 
nature and q u a l i t y  o f  the i n t r u s i o n  
on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  Fourth Amendment 
i n t e r e s t s  a g a i n s t  the i mpo r t a nc e  o f  
the governmental  i n t e r e s t s  al l eged to 
j u s t i f y  the i n t r u s i o n .



41 -

Mnih.d Stat «3  V. P lace , 77 L.Ed.2d at 113. 

Accord United States v . V l l l am oo ta -  

narouaz_______U.S. ______ , 77 L.Ed.Zd 22, 30

(1983).

The " n a t u r e  and q u a l i t y  of t he  

' i n t r u s i o n "  in t h i s  case  were i n c o m p a r a b l y  

s e v e r e .  As t he  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  n o t e d ,  

young Garner was " s e i z e d "  p e r ma n e n t l y  and 

i r r e v o c a b l y .  710 F. 2d  at 245 ;  A. 44.  

Mo r e o v e r ,  the p h y s i c a l  a s s a u l t  o f  t he  

s hoo t i ng  was i t s e l f  an i n t r u s i o n  on f our t h 

amendment i n t e r e s t s .  As noted in Jenki ns 

V.  A v e r e t t , 424 F. 2d  1228 ( 4 t h  C i r .  

1 9 7 0 ) ,  on whi ch the  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  

r e l i e d ,  710 F.2d at 245;  A. 50,  the f our t h  

amendment " s h i e l d  c o v e r s  the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  

p h y s i c a l  i n t e g r i t y ; "  i t  p r o t e c t s  t he  

" i n e s t i m a b l e  r i g h t  o f  pe r s o na l  s e c u r i t y . "  

I d . ,  424 F . 2 d  at 1 2 3 2 ( q u o t i n g  Terry  v.. 

O h i o , 392 U.S.  at 8 - 9 ) ;  ac cord  F l o r i d a  v . 

Royer  , 75 L . E d . 2 d  at 2 3 8 ; 0jj^_is---- v_̂



42 -

Hi 3 3 i 3 3 i g p i , 394 U.S. at 726-27 ( -Nothing 

i s  more c l e a r  than t hat  the Fourth 

Amendment was meant to p r e v e n t  w h o l e s a l e  

i n t r u s i o n s  upon the p e r s o na l  s e c u r i t y  o f

our c i t i z e n r y -------" ) ;  3ee Schmerber

C a l i f o r n i a , 384 U.S.  at 767 ( "we are 

d e a l i n g  wi th i n t r u s i o n s  i n t o  the human

body" )
24

2^ Every c ir c u it  has concurred in this conclusion, 
although most now follow the Second Circuit's lead 
as articulated by Judge Friendly m Johnson v.. 
Click, 481 F.2d 1028 (2d C lr .) ,  cert, denied, 4U 
■nTT"l033 ( 1973),  that "quite apart from any 
•specific' of the 3111 of Rights, application o f  
undue force by law enforcement o ff icers  deprives a 
suspect of liberty without due process o f  law." U. 
at 1032: accord Landrican v. City of Warwick, 623 
F.2d (1st tir. 198Uj ^.cicing tmted

Villarin Gerena, 553 F.2d 723, 723 Hst 
‘ ’ f̂ ourth" and r i r'th amendments)) ; Howell v .States V .

cit'aldi! ^4 fTcd 272~( 3rd’ c i r .1972);  United States
----^ k e s , 506 F.2d 771, 775-76 I5tn Uir.

V, Seward ^̂ *7 F.2d 637. 639 n.1 (6th
ayro

1575j-TTTft
cir. i w n

689 F.2d 
' Srishke,

637,
466

639 n.1 
F.2d 6 (7th

Cir. 1972); Herrera v. Valentin^, 653 F.2d 1220, 1229 
(8th Cir. 1981J; Gregory v. "Thompson, 500 F.2d 59 
(9th Cir. 1974);  Morgan v. Laoiak, 368 F.2d 338 
(10th Cir. 1966); Carter v. Carlson, 447 F.2d 358 
(D.C. Cir. 1971), rev'o on other grounds, 409 U.S. 
418 (1973). “

The argument that Jenkins is inapposite, City s 
Brief at 8, 12-13, is thus incorrect. Jenkins was 
not premised on the lack o f  probable cause to 
arrest. Rather, the yice it  found was that "our



Thus,  t he  Court  must  b a l a n c e  a 

uni que l y  harsh i n t r u s i o n  on young Garner ’ s 

f o u r t h  amendment i n t e r e s t s  a g a i n s t  the  

s t a t e ' s  a s s e r t e d  j u s t i f i c a t i o n s .  The s t a t e  

s e e k s  t o  a v o i d  t h i s  a n a l y s i s  by two 

a d d i t i o n a l  f o u r t h  amendment a r g u m e n t s .  

F i r s t ,  i t  a r g u e s  t ha t  the  f l e e i n g  f e l o n  

d o c t r i n e  has h i s t o r i c a l  s a n c t i o n  b e c a u s e  

i t  c o e x i s t e d  wi t h  the  a d o p t i o n  o f  the 

f o u r t h  amendment .  S t a t e ' s  B r i e f  at  9.  

S e c o n d ,  i t  a r g u e s  t h a t  the  b a l a n c e  

e n t e r t a i n e d  by the c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  " i s  

b o t h  u n p r e c e d e n t e d  and u n w a r r a n t e d "  

because  i t  measures  the  p o l i c e  a c t i o n  by 

the  g r a v i t y  o f  the under l y i ng  c r i me .  

at  10.  d i s p o s e  o f  each  o f  t h e s e  in

turn .

- 43 -

p la in t if f  was subjected to the reck less  use o f  
excessive force ."  424 F.2d at 1232 (emphasis added). 
The City quotes but does not c i t e  the Jenkins 
panel ' s  observation that "no force was needed to 
restrain Jenkins." City Brief at 13. But it fa ils  
to disclose that this quote comes from the discus
sion o f  the state law claim and was not part of the 
court's  constitutional analysis. Compare 424 F.2d 
at 1232 with id . at 1231.



- 44 -

( 1 )  The common law b a s i s  of the  
d o c lTrine no l ong er  s uppor t s  the 
r e a s o n a b l e n e s s  o f  s h o o t ing a l l
f l e e i n g  f e l o n s :

At common l aw,  f e l o n y  u s u a l l y  

r e f e r r e d  o n l y  t o  c r i m e s  p u n i s h a b l e  by 

deat h.  "CT]he i dea  o f  f e l o n y  i s  indeed so 

g e n e r a l l y  c o n n e c t e d  wi th t h a t  o f  c a p t i a l  

p u n i s h me n t ,  t h a t  we f i n d  i t  hard to 

s e p a r a t e  t h e m . ” 4 W. S l a c k s t o n e ,  COM

MENTARIES 93 ( 1 3 0 0 ) .  In i t s  e a r l y

d e v e l o p m e n t ,  the s t a t u t o r y  law o f

Te nne s s e e  l a r g e l y  a s s i mi l a t e d  t h i s  common 

law norm.  When Te nne s s e e  c o d i f i e d  t he  

f l e e i n g  f e l o n  d o c t r i n e  in 1353,  and during 

the p e r i o d  f o l l o w i n g  e n a c t me n t  o f  t he  

f o u r t e e n t h  amendment ,  the Tennessee oode 

p r e s c r i b e d  the deat h  p e n a l t y  f o r  a l a r g e  

number o f  c r i m e s .  Pub.  S t a t s .  o f  Tenn. 

§5 ( Supp .  1 3 5 3 - 1 3 7 1 ) .  But as the n i n e 

teenth cent ur y  p r oc eeded ,  the f e l o ny  l a b e l  

became at tached  to a b r o a d e n i n g  a r r a y  o f  

n o n - c a p i t a l  c r i me s .  Comment, Deadly Force



ho A r r e s t ;  T r i g g e r i ng  C o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

Rev i ew, 11 Harv.  C i v . R. -Civ  . Lib . L . Rev.

361,  366-67 ( 1 9 7 4 ) .

As l o n g  as many f e l o n i e s  were

c a p i t a l ,  a u t h o r i z i n g  deadl y  f o r c e  t o  s t o p  

f l e e i n g  f e l o n y  s u s p e c t s  was no t  wi t h o u t  

i t s  l o g i c .  For a su sp ect  f l e e i n g  a d e at h  

penal t y  c ou l d  be assumed to be a d e s per at e  

per s on ,  mot i vat ed  to r e s i s t  a r r e s t  by a l l  

p o s s i b l e  m e a n s . B u t  t he  days have long 

s i n c e  p a s s e d  when " [ t ] o  be a s u s p e c t e d  

f e l o n  was o f t e n  as good  as b e i n g  a dead 

o n e . "  T. Ta y l o r ,  TWO STUDIES IN CONSTI

TUTIONAL i nt e rp re t at i on  28 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .  Crimea 

once c o n s i d e r e d  c a p i t a l  o f f e n s e s  are no 

l o n g e r  so v i e w e d .  The use o f  the  death 

p e n a l t y  has been s e v e r e l y  c u r t a i l e d  so 

t h a t  i t  i s  a v a i l a b l e  o n l y  f o r  c r i m e s  

c a u s i n g  l o s s  o f  l i f e  under  s p e c i a l ,

- 45 -

25 This is  reflected in the Tennesse statute, which is 
entitled "Resistance to Officer" and authorizes the 
use o f  deadly force i f  the suspect "either flee or 
forcibly r e s i s t . . . . "  Tenn. Code. Ann. §40-808.



- 46 -

V .a g g r a v a t i n g  c i r c u m s t a n c e s .  S££ G£e£2, 

G e o r g i a . 428 U. S.  1 53 ( 1 976 ) ;  C oker.,,j^

G e o r g i a , 433 U.S.  584 ( 1 9 7 7 ) .

M o r e o v e r ,  the  d o c t r i n e  d e ve l oped  in 

an age when t h e r e  e x i s t e d  v i r t u a l l y  no 

c o m m u n i c a t i o n  be t ween  law e n f o r c e m e n t  

p erson n e l in d i f f e r e n t  towns and c i t i e s .  

Thus,  t he  e s c a p i n g  s u s p e c t  c ou l d  e a s i l y  

e s t a b l i s h  a new l i f e  in a no t her  communi ty  

with l i t t l e  f ear  o f  d i s c o v e r y  and eventual  

c a p t u r e .  But,  by the e i g h t e e n t h  c e n t u r y ,  

a u t h o r i t i e s  were c i r c u l a t i n g  d e s c r i p t i o n s  

o f  wanted c r i m i n a l s  o u t s i d e  o f  London.  

And,  by the  e a r l y  t w e n t i e t h  c e n t u r y ,  

American p o l i c e  o f f i c e r s  c o n s u l t e d  t h e i r  

c o l l e a g u e s  in o t h e r  c i t i e s  about  t h i e v e s  

and t he i r  whereabouts .  Sherman, Execut ion 

Wi t hout  T r i a l ;  P o l i c e  Ho mi c i d e  and the 

C o n s t i t u t i o n  , 33 V a n d . L . R e v .  71, 76

( 1 930 ) ;  Comment,  Deadly  F o r c e , suor a , 11

HarV. C i v . R. - C i v  . L i b . L . ReV . at 361. The 

d e v e l o p me n t  o f  modern p o l i c e  a g e n c i e s



- 47 -

armed with a o p h i s t i c a t e d  means o f  communi

c a t i o n  has f ur t he r  reduced the common law 

j u s t i f i c a t i o n  f o r  the d o c t r i n e .

So have  t e c h n o l o g i c a l  a d v a n c e s  in 

w e a p o n r y .  Dur i ng  t he  e a r l y  years  o f  the 

d o c t r i n e ,  weaponry  was l i m i t e d  t o  arma

ments  w i e l d e d  by hand - -  s w o r d s ,  farm 

t o o l s ,  and h a l b e r d s .  And even a f t e r  t he  

i nv e nt i o n  o f  the musKet,  i t s  i n c o n v e n i e n c e  

and i n a c c u r a c y  p r e v e n t e d  p o l i c e  use  o f  

b a l l i s t i c  we a p o ns .  Sherman,  £U£££> 

V a n d . L . R e v .  at 75.  In t h i s  t e c h n o l o g i c a l  

c o n t e x t ,  the  p r a c t i c a l  meaning o f  the  

d o c t r i n e  was that  s us p e c t s  c ou l d  be k i l l e d  

i f  they r e s i s t e d  a r r e s t  in a h a n d - t o - h a n d  

s t r u g g l e ;  i t  did not mean that  they coul d  

be k i l l e d  from a d i s t a n c e  whi l e  t hey  were 

in f l i g h t .  These p r a c t i c a l  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  

were d e c i s i v e l y  changed by the w i d e s p r e a d  

use o f  r e v o l v e r s ,  beg i nni ng  in the 1350*3.  

C. Kennet  and 0. An d e r s o n ,  THE GUN IN 

AMERICA 22 ( 1 9 7 5 ) .  For a c c u r a t e  and



- 48 -

power f ul  handguns a l l o we d ,  and c o nt i nue  to 

a l l o w,  the p o l i c e  to k i l l  f l e e i n g  s us p e c t s  

who pose no immediate t hr eat  to anyone.

Thus,  the o r i g i n a l  premi ses  that  made 

t he  f l e e i n g  f e l o n  d o c t r i n e  r e a s o na b l e  at 

the time the f our t h  amendment was a d o p t e d  

are  no l o n g e r  a p p l i c a b l e .  H i s t o r y ,  l i k e  

t h e  f o u r t h  amendment,  i s  not  s t a t i c .  Je_s, 

e , q , , Payton v .  New Y o r k , 445 U. S.  573 , 

598 ( 1 9 8 Q ) ( ’’ the i s s ue  i s  not  one that  can 

be sai d  to have been d e f i n i t i v e l y  s e t t l e d  

by the common law at the  t ime the Fourth 

Amendment was a d o p t e d " ) .  As one c o u r t  

o b s e r v e d ,  " t h e  h i s t o r i c a l  f o u n d a t i o n  o f  

American s t a t e  f l e e i n g - f e l o n  s t a t u t e s  i s  a 

f oundat i on b u i l t  on l o o s e  s a n d . ” Taylor y_̂  

C o l l i n s , 574 F.Supp.  1554,  1553 ( t . D . Mi c h .  

1 9 3 3 ) .  A d a n g e r o u s  a n a c h r o n i s m ,  the  

d o c t r i n e  s h o u l d  be c o n s i g n e d  to the 

h i s t o r y  that  produced i t .

i s  r e v o l t i n g  to have no b e t t e r  
reason f or  a rul e  o f  law than that  so 
i t  was l a i d  down in the t ime o f  Henry 
IV. It i s  s t i l l  mors r e v o l t i n g  i f  the



- 49 -

g r o u n d s  upon whi ch i t  was l a i d  ow 
have vani shed l ong s i n c e  and the r u l e  
s i m p l y  p e r s i s t s  from b l i n d  i m i t a t i o n  
o f  the p a s t .

Hol mes ,  The Pat hs  o f  the  La_w, 10 Harv .

L.Rev.  457,  469 ( 1 8 9 7 ) .

( 2 )  The Te nn e s s e e  a t a t u t e ' s d i s -  
r e g a r d  o the  o r a v i c y  o f  tne 
u n d e r l y i n g  o f f e n s e  i s  a 
c o n ' s i d e r a c i o n  under  t he  f our t h 
amendment;

The s t a t e  c h a r g e s  t h a t  the cour t  o f  

appeal s  er red  in j u d g i n g  the  r e a s o n a b l e 

n e s s  o f  the  s e i z u r e  on t he  b a s i s  o f  the 

g r a v i t y  o f  the under l y i ng  c r i me ,  a s s e r t i n g  

t hat  t h i s  a n a l y s i s  " i s  both unprecedented 

and u n w a r r a n t e d . "  S t a t e ' s  B r i e f  at 10.  

But what the c o ur t  o f  appea l s  a c t u a l l y  did 

was l o o k  at the  u n d e r l y i n g  o f f e n s e  t o  

a s s e s s  the  nat ure  o f  the s t a t e ' s  i n t e r e s t  

in k i l l i n g  the f l e e i n g  f e l o n  r a t h e r  than

al l owi ng  h i s  es c ape .

A s t a t e  s t a t u t e  or r u l e  that  makes no 
d i s t i n c t i o n s  b as ed  on the  t y pe  o f  
o f f e n s e  or the r i s k  o f  danger to the 
communi ty  i s  i n h e r e n t l y  s u s p e c t  
b e c a u s e  i t  p e r m i t s  an u n n e c e s a r i l y



50

s e v e r e  and e x c e s s i v e  p o l i c e  response  
t ha t  i s  out  o f  p r o p o r t i o n  t o  t he  
danger to the community.

G a r n e r , 710 F . 2 d  at 2 4 4 ;  A. 48.  The 

s t a t u t e ' s  f a i l i n g  i s  i t s  sweeping a u t h o r i 

za t i on  o f  d i s c r e t i o n  to shoot  t he  f l e e i n g  

t h i e f  a l o n g  wi t h  t he  f l e e i n g  m u r d e r e r ,  

which cannot  be j u s t i f i e d  by p u b l i c  s a f e t y  

c o n c e r n s  t h a t  would s u p p o r t  a more

narrowly drawn s t a t u t e .

Thi s  a n a l y s i s  i s  h a r d l y  u n p r e c e 

d e n t e d .  In c o n s i d e r i n g  the  w a r r a n t l e s s  

e n t r y  in McDonald v .  Uni t e d  5tate_s , 335

451 ( 1 9 4 8 ) ,  J u s t i c e  J a c k s o n ' s

c onc ur r i ng  op i n i o n  noted t h a t .

Whether there  i s  r e a s o na b l e  n e c e s s i t y  
f o r  a s e a r c h  w i t h o u t  w a i t i n g  to 
o b t a i n  a warr ant  c e r t a i n l y  depends  
somewhat upon t he  g r a v i t y  o f  the 
o f f e n s e  thought  to be in p r o g r e s s . . . .  
It i s  to  me a s h o c k i n g  p r o p o s i t i o n  
t ha t  p r i v a t e  homes,  even quar t e rs  in 
a t enement ,  may be i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y  
i nv a d e d  at the d i s c r e t i o n  o f  any 
s u s p i c i o u s  p o l i c e  o f f i c e r  engaged  in 
f o l l o w i n g  up o f f e n s e s  that  i n v o l v e  no 
v i o l e n c e  or t hr eat s  o f  i t .



- 51 -

I d . at  4 5 9 .  The C h i e f  J u s t i c e  has s i m i 

l a r l y  observed  t h a t ;

F r e e i n g  e i t h e r  a t i g e r  or  a 
mouse in a s c ho o l  room i s  an i l l e g a l  
a c t ,  but  no r a t i o n a l  p e r s o n  would 
s ug g es t  that  these  two a c t s  should be 
p u n i s h e d  in the  same way.  From time 
to t ime j udges  have o c c a s i o n  to  p as s  
on r e g u l a t i o n s  g o v e r n i n g  
p r o c e d u r e s .  I wonder  what would be 
t he  j u d i c i a l  r e s p o n s e  t o  a = «
o r d e r  a u t h o r i z i n g  " s h o o t  to  
wi t h  r e s p e c t  to  e v e r y  f u g i t i v e .  It 
i s  e a s y  to  p r e d i c t  our  c o l l e c t i v e  
wrath and o u t r a g e .  We, in common 
wi t h  a l l  r a t i o n a l  mi n d s ,  would say 
t h a t  t he  p o l i c e  r esponse  must r e l a t e  
to  t he  g r a v i t y  and n e e d ;  t ha t  a 
" s h o o t "  o r d e r  mi ght  c o n c e  i v a b 1 y be 
t o l e r a b l e  to prevent  the e s c a p e  o f  a 
c o n v i c t e d  k i l l e r  but  s u r e l y  not  f or  a 
car  t h i e f ,  a p i c k p o c k e t  or a s h o p 
l i f t e r .

B i v e n s  v .  Six Unknown A g e n t s , 403 U. S.  

383,  419 ( 1 9 7 1 )  ( B u r g e r ,  C . 3 . ,  d i s s e n t 

i n g ) .
The C o u r t ' s  r e c ent  d e c i s i o n  in Weish

V. W i s c o n s i n , _____  U. S.  _____ , 30 L.Ed.2d

732 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ,  l ays  to r e s t  any doubt  on t h i s

s c o r e . Welsh

c o n c l u d e [ d ]  t hat  the 
a p p r o a c h  u t i l i z e d  by 
c o u r  t s  i s  r e q u i r e d  by

commonsense  
most  l o w e r  
t he  Four t h



A«endn.ent  p r o h i b i t i o n  on ” unr8a3on-  
a b l e  s e a r c h e s  and s e i z u r e s ,  and 
h [ e ] l d  that  an i mportant  f a c t o r  to be 
c o n s i d e r e d  . . .  i s  the
u n d e r l y i n g  o f f e n s e  f o r  whi ch the 
a r r e s t  i s  be i ng  made.

Id.  at 745.
In sum, the  c o u r t  b e l o w  p r o p e r l y  

analyzed the Tennessee  s t a t u t e  under  the  

f o u r t h  amendment .  I t  a s s e s s e d  the nature 

o f  the i n t r u s i o n ,  the g r a v i t y  o f  the 

under l y i ng  o f f e n s e ,  and t h e i r  r e l a t i o n s h i p  

to the nature o f  the s t a t e ' s  j u s t i f i c a t i o n  

f o r  i t s  p o l i c y .  As we show i n  s e c t i o n  0 

be l ow,  i t  a l s o  s t r uc k  the c o r r e c t  c o n s t i 

t u t i o n a l  b a l a n c e .
g The D e p r i v a t i o n  o f  L i f e  Must be 

j u s t i f i e d  bv Lo u n t e r v a i l T n ^  
St at e  i n t e r e s t s

Edward Eugene Garner was s h o t  and 

k i l l e d  by a Memphis p o l i c e  o f f i c e r .  ' The 

d e c e a s e d ' s  i n t e r e s t  in l i f e  p l a i n l y  was o f  

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  d i m e n s i o n .  U.S.  C o n s t ,  

amend.  XIV,  § 1 . ” Wi l l i a ms  v.  X e l l v ,  624

r . 2 d  695,  697 (5th Ci r .  1980) .  Since l i f e

- 52 -



i 3 a " f undamental "  r i g h t , i t s  d e p r i v a t i o n  

"may be j u s t i f i e d  o n l y  by a ' c o m p e l l i n g  

s t a t e  i n t e r e s t *  . . .  and . . .  l e g i s l a t i v e  

e n a c t m e n t s  must be n a r r o w l y  drawn to  

e x p r e s s  o n l y  the  l e g i t i m a t e  s t a t e  

i n t e r e s t s  at  s t a k e . "  Roe v .  Wa£e,  410 

U. S.  1 1 3 , 1 55 (1 97 3 ) .  See a l s ^  C l e v e l and 

Board o f  E d u c a t i o n v .  LaFleur^,  414 U.S.  

632 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ;  Stanl ey  v .  I l l i n o i s ,  405 U.S.  

645 ( 1 9 7 2 ) .  Thus,  t he  s t a t e  must demon

s t r a t e  the e x i s t e n c e  o f  i n t e r e s t s  e q u i v a -

- 53 -

26 The right not to be deprived of  l i f e  without due 
process is exp lic it ly  guaranteed by the 
?ion and is inherent in ^he Mnstitutional f rw e -  
work. See, Yick Wo v . Hopkins,, 118 556,
370 ( 1*^^) (^the fundamencal r ights  to i i  , 
liberty and the pursuit o f  happiness"); ^ohnson v . 
2rrbstV3Q4 U.S. 458, 462 (1938) ("fundamenTIT

a f  l i f .  tnd l i b e r t y ” ) I
United States ,  325 U.S. 1̂ , 15 » _ innnn Thr 
T R u t i e d g e , " " 3 7 ,  c o n c u r r i n g )
" c le a r -c u t  fundamental rights’ ) ;  id.  at ,154-35 
(Murphy, 0 ., dissenting) ("He has been deprived o f 
the right to l i f e  i t s e l f . . . .  That right was his 
because he was an American c it izen , b^ause he was 
a hunan being. As such, he was entitled to ^ 1  the 
respect and fair treatment that b e fits  the dignity 
o f man, a dignity that is  recognized and guaranteed 
by the Constitution."); Mav v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 
528, 533 (1953) (a right "rar more precious than 
. . .  property r ights").



l e n t  to or  o t h e r w i s e  s u f f i c i e n t  to

c o un t e r b a l a nc e  the r i g h t  that  i s  c u r t a i l e d  

—  i . e . ,  t he  use o f  deadl y  f o r c e  n«ust not 

be e x c e s s i v e ,  w n i i a m s  v.  KeHj<, 624 F. 2d 

at  6 9 7 - 9 8  ; Johnson v . G1 ic.!< > F. 2d

1 028,  1 031 - 33  ( 2d C i r .  1 9 7 3 ) ;  A x i e r _ j ^

Hopper  , 532 F.Supp.  198 (M.D. Ala.  1981) ;

V. Ci ty  of W i c h i t a , 531 F.Supp. 129
■  ̂ 27
(D.Kan.  1982) .

The c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  a p p l i e d  t h e s e  

p r i n c i p l e s  to a s se ss  the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y  

o f  the Te n n e s s e e  f l e e i n g  f e l o n  s t a t u t e .  

710 F. 2d at  2 4 6 - 4 7 ;  A. 5 2 - 5 3 .  As under  

t he  f o u r t h  amendment ,  t h e y  r e q u i r e  a 

c a r e f u l  b a l a n c i n g  o f  the d e p r i v a t i o n  

i n f l i c t e d  a g a i n s t  the s t a t e  i n t e r e s t s  

as s e r t e d  to suppor t  the d r a s t i c  measure o f  

deadly  f o r c e .

- 54 -

27 A y l«  and Jacobs both held thê  common law
TlTon doctrine  u n con st itu t ion a l,  belying the 
a^^prtion that Garner is the f irs t  and only case to 
h ^ e  Lne so. S T ^  Brief at 14; Ci ty' s  Brief at
7, 11.



- 55 -

r The Pr o h i b i t i o n  Agai nst  Puni sh-

r e s  C o n s i d e r a t i o n  or ^t at e
I n t e r e s t s  A s s e r t e o  m  J u s t l y  
f i c a t i o "

In b o t h  the  d i s t r i c t  c o a r t  and the 

c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s ,  p l a i n t i f f  a dv a nc e d  

a n o t h e r ,  e s t a b l i s h e d  p r i n c i p l e  o f  due 

p r o c e s s  t h a t  i n v a l i d a t e s  t he  Te n n e s s e e  

s t a t u t e .  The f o ur t e e nt h  amendment p r o v i d e s  

e v e r y  p e r s o n  wi t h  " p r o t e c t i o n  a g a i n s t  

puni shment  wi t hout  due p r o c e s s  o f  l a w . . . .  

For under  t he  due p r o c e s s  c l a u s e ,  a 

[ p e r s o n ]  may no t  be puni s hed  p r i o r  to an 

a d j u d i c a t i o n  o f  g u i l t  in a c c o r d a n c e  wi t h 

due p r o c e s s  o f  l aw. "  S e l l  v.  W o m s j i ,  441 

U.S. 520, 5 3 5 ( 1 979 ) ;  ^r^nrd Inoraham v ..

Wr i g ht , 430 U.S. 651 , 671 -72 n. 40 ( 1 977); 

Kennedy v. Mendo za-Har t ine_z , 372 U.S. 144, 

165-67 (1963). The s h o o t i n g  o f  Edward

Eugene Garner  v i o l a t e d  t he  due p r o c e s s  

c l a u s e  b e c a u s e  i t  " a mo u n t [ e d ]  to puni sh

ment . "  W o l f i s h , 441 U.S. at 535.



A " c o u r t  must  d e c i d e  wh e t h e r  the

d i s a b i l i t y  i s  i mposed f o r  the  p u r p o s e  o f

puni shment  or  whet her  i t  i s  but  an

i n c i d e n t  o f  some o t her  l e g i t i m a t e  g o v e r n -

™,ental purpose." Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 533.

In w o l f i s h , t he  Court  c i t e d  the  seven

Manr l g^a- Mart i nez  c r i t e r i a  as " u s e f u l

g u i d e p o s t s "  f o r  making that  d e t e r mi n a t i o n :

Whether  the s a n c t i o n  i n v o l v e s  an 
a f f i r m a t i v e  d i s a b i l i t y  or ’
whet her  i t  has i tr e g a r d e d  as a punishment ,  whether i
comes i n t o  play only  on a ^
s c i e n t e r ,  whether i t s  o p e r a t i o n  w i l l  
pr omot e  t he  t r a d i t i o n a l  aims o f
pun- ishment - -   ̂  ̂  ̂  ̂ V  ° " l  n r  ̂t od e t-e rren ce , whether  t he  b e h a v i o r  to
whi ch i t  a p p l i . .  13 a l r eady  a c r i d e ,  
whet her  an a l t e r n a t i v e  p u r p o s e  t o  
whi ch i t  may n a t i o n a l l y  be connected 
i s  a s s i g n a b l e  for  i t ,  and whether  i t  
a p p e a r s  e x c e s s i v e  in r e l a t i o n  to the 
a l t e r n a t i v e  purpose a s s i g n e d ------

M . n H o ^ a - M a r t i n e z , 372 U. S.  at 168 - 69

( f o o t n o t e s  o m i t t e d ) .  The a p p l i c a t i o n  o f

these seven c r i t e r i a  overwhel mi ngl y  p o i n t s

in o n l y  one d i r e c t i o n ;  The use o f  deadly

- 56 -



- 57

f o r c e  to  a pp r e he n d  an unarmed f l e e i n g  

f e l o ny  s us pe c t  i s ,  in purpose  and e f f e c t ,  

pun ishmen t .
1 ) The i m p o s i t i o n  o f  d e a t h  i s  the 

u l t i m a t e  " a f f i r m a t i v e  d i s a b i l i t y  or  r e 

s t r a i n t , "  d e p r i v i n g  the  v i c t i m  o f  t he  

r i g h t  to have r i g h t s . "  Furman v . G eorg ia , 

408 U. S.  238 ,  290 ( 1 9 7 2 )  ( B r e n n a n ,  0 . ,

c o n c u r r i n g ) .  See a l s o  S c r ews v .  U n i . t ^  

S t a t e s , 325 U.S.  91,  188 (1945)  ( Ru t l e d g e ,

a . ,  c o n c u r r i n g ) ;  W o o d s y ------1,:------N or_^

C a r o l i n a , 428 U. S.  280 ,  323 ( 1 9 7 6 )

( Rehnqui s t ,  0 . ,  d i s s e n t i n g ) .

2) ' The h i s t o r i c a l  u n d e r p i n n i n g s  o f  

the d o c t r i n e  demonstrate  that  the s hoo t i ng  

o f  f l e e i n g  f e l o n s  was regarded as p u n i s h -  

™,ent. As l a t e  as t he  15th c e n t u r y  in 

England and the 18th c e n t u r y  in A me r i c a ,  

a l l  f e l o n i e s  - -  mur d e r ,  r a p e ,  man

s l a u g h t e r ,  r o b b e r y ,  s odomy,  mayhem,  

b u r g l a r y ,  a r son ,  pr i son  br eak ,  and l a r c e ny  

- -  were pun i s h a b l e  by d e a t h ;  the f l e e i n g



- 53

f e l o n  d o c t r i n e  me r e l y  a c c e l e r a t e d  the 

p e n a l  p r o c e s s /  Ea r l y  c o mme n t a t o r s  

d e s c r i b e d  " t h e  e x t i r p a t i o n  [ a s ]  but  a 

p r e ma t ur e  e x e c u t i o n  o f  t he  i n e v i t a b l e  

j u d g m e n t . " H i s  k i l l i n g  was at bes t  

an e x t r a j u d i c i a l  and p r e ma t u r e  e x e c u t i o n  

o f  a penal t y  which he had a l ready  i nc urred  

by h i s  f e l o n y . M o r e o v e r ,  the f l e e i n g  

f e l o n  d o c t r i n e  grew out  o f  an era  when 

summary e x e c u t i o n  was w e l l  e n s c o n c e d  m

the law.
T h i e v e s  were o f t e n  k i l l e d  o>Jtr ight  
d u r i n g  the  hue and c r y ,  even a f t e r  
t hey  had been c a p t u r e d .  "Let  a l l  go 
f o r t h  where  God may d i r e c t  them t o  
0 0 , "  urged  the t e n t h - c e n t u r y  laws o f  
Edgar ;  " l e t  them do j u s t i c e  on the 
t h i e f . "  Sus p i c i on  s u f f i c e d  to c o n v i c t

23 rnmnw.nr. Dead/ Eorce Arrest :  
rnn^h ihuticnai ^ieview, II Harv. Civ.
Lib. L. f êv. i o l ,  ’ 3 ^ (1 9 7 4 ) ;  R. Perkins, CRIMLNAL
LAW 10 (2d ed. 1969).

29 ^ots, Legalized Murder o f  a Fleeing E-lon, 13 Va. 
L. Rev. 531, 5c!i U^29; :  b e e ^ _ ^ t e ,
Oeadlv Pnrre in Arizona by Police O fficers, 1972 L. 
i  5oc. (Jraer a3i , a d z / " i t  mace Unt i e  airrerence i f  
the suspected felon were killed in the process o 
capture, s i nce ,  in the eyes o f  the -aw, he had 
already f o r f e i t e d  his l i f e  by committing the

30 Bo^hlen i  Schulman, Arrest With and Without__a 
Warrant, 75 U.Pa.L.Rev. 435, ayp



- 59 -

t h i e v e s  wi thout  any t r i a l  at 
" e x e c u t i o n  in such "
f o l l o w e d  i m m e d i a t e l y  on
According to the preamble
o f  Henry V I I I ,  i t  P ® ®  ̂^   ̂J o fcommon law a^^^hor i z ed  the v i c  t ims o f 
c r i m e s  and a t t e m p t e d  c r i me s  to 
the c r i m i n a l ,  r e g a r d l e s s  ° ®'"J ® ^
i t  was n e c e s s a r y  t o  P • __ _ 
f e l o n y . . . .  In the c o n t e x t  °  ^
in whi ch  the k i l l - t o - a r r e s t  d o c t r i n e  
e v o l v e d ,  i t  was c 1 e a r 1 y 1 i nk e d  to  a 
p h i l o s o p h y  o f  summary j u s t i c e  t ha t  
can onl y  be viewed as punishment .

Sherman,  s u o r a , 33 Va n d . L . Rev . at 81

( f o o t n o t e s  omi t t ed )  .

Even a f t e r  the  a d o p t i o n  o f  the

f o u r t e e n t h  amendment ,  the  f l e e i n g  f e l o n

d o c t r i n e  was regarded  as punishment .  3udge

( l a t e r  J u s t i c e )  Brown s a i d :

I d o u b t ,  h o w e v e r ,  ®  ̂  ̂  ̂  ̂  ̂®
would be s t r i c t l y  a p p l i c a b l e  at  t he  
p r e s e n t  d a y .  S u p p o s e ,  f o r  example a 
p e r s o n  were a r r e s t e d  f o r  P®^i^ 
l a r c e n y ,  whi ch was a f e l o n y  at the 
common l a w,  mi ght  an o f f i c e r  under  
any c i r c u m s t a n c e s  be j u s t i f i e d ^  in 
k i l l i n g  him? I t hi nk n o t .  The pun ishj- 
ment i s  a l t o g e t h e r  t o o  d i s p r o -  
p ^ T t i o n e d  to the ma g n i t u d e  o f  
0 f f e n s e .

t h e



- 60 -

Uni t ed  S t a t e s  v .  C l a r k , 31 Fed.  710,  713 

( C . C . E . O .  Mi c h .  1387)  ( e m p h a s i s  a d d e d ) .  

Thus,  h i s t o r i c a l l y ,  the s h o o t i n g  o f  a 

f l e e i n g  f e l o n y  s u s p e c t  has a l wa y s  been

regarded as punishment .

3) 4 5) A " f i n d i n g  o f  s c i e n t e r "  i s  

made by the p o l i c e  o f f i c e r  in h i s  d e t e r mi 

n a t i o n  t h a t  t h e r e  i s  a " r e a s o n a b l e  

s u s p i c i o n , "  O.A.  141 ,  t ha t  t he  f l e e i n g  

s u s p e c t  c o mmi t t e d  a f e l o n y  wi t h i t s  

s c i e n t ' e r  r e q u i r e m e n t .  That f e l o n y  i s  

a l r e a d y  a c r i m e ;  a l though t here  i s  some 

doubt  about  whi ch c r i me  the  v i c t i m  i s  

b e i n g  s h o t  f o r ,  "we are in f a c t  k i l l i n g

Burglary is  prohib ited  by Tenn Code. Ann. § 
39, 3-401 (1975). Flight is not a statutory crime, 
but it  was a crime at common law. See n.32, in fra . 
Memphis City Code § 30-15 makes it  "unlawful" for 
any person "to escape from . . .  any o f f ic e r  or member 
o f  the p o lice  force." Violation o f  this section 
which prescribes no penalty, is subject to a maximum 
fine o f  S5Q. See Memphis City Code § 1-3.
As cogently argued by Professor Mikeil:

May I ask '-<hat we are k illing him for when he 
steals an automobile and runs o f f  with it?  Are 
.we killing  him for stealing the automobile? . . .  
I f 'we catch him and try him . . . ,  what do 'we do



- 61 -

th«  . . .  t h i e f  for the v o l a t i l e  combination 

of  f e l ony  and f l i g h t ,  both o f  which are  

cr imes . " Sherman, 3upr_a, 33 Vand.L.Rev.  at

84.
4 ) The d o c t r i n e  p r o m o t e s  the 

t r a d i t i o n a l  aims o f  punish.ment —  r e t r i b u 

t i o n  and d e t e r r e n c e .  It was h i s t o r i c a l l y  

viewed as merely  a c c e l e r a t i n g  puni shment  

in an e r a  when r e t r i b u t i o n  ( as  c o n t r a s t e d  

with r e h a b i l i t a t i o n )  was the pr i ma r y  g o a l  

o f  the, p e n a l  l a w.  The c o u r t s  t hemselves  

have i n d i c a t e d  the r e t r i b u t i v e  n a t u r e  o f  

t h i s  s a n c t i o n .  In d i s c u s s i n g  the Tennessee

►o him'? Put him before a policeman and have a 
Mlicsman shoot him? Of course not. ^ e  give 
him three years in a penitentiary. 
be then that we allow the o f f ice r  to k i l l  h ^  
because he sto le  the automobile, because the 
statute provides only three years in a (^m - 
tentiary for that. Is i t  then for fleeing? And 
again I in s is t  th is is  not a question o f  
? « is ta n c e  to the o f f i c e r .  Is it  for fleeing 
that we k i l l  him? Fleeing from also
a common law offense and is punishable by a 
lignt penalty, a penalty much less than that 
for stsslinQ the autcinobil®*

9 A L I PROCEEDINGS 186-87 (1931), o u ° ^  
Michael 4 H. Wechsler, CRIMLNAL LAW AnCTTTaDMxNI- 
STRATION 80-82 n. 3 (1940).



f l e e i n g  f e l o n  r u l e  in W i 1 ej^, >-he p a n e l

c i t e d  t he  o b s e r v a t i o n  o f  t he  d i s s e n t  in

V. S c h n a r r , 547 F . 2 d  1QQ7, 1023

( 3 t h  C i r .  1 976 ) ,  v a c a t e d  on c a s e  an_d

r g n t r o v e r s v  g r o u n d s  sub nom. As hc r o f t  ^

H a t t i s , 431 U.S.  171 ( 1 9 7 7 ) :  "There i s  no

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r i g h t  to commit f e l o n i o u s

o f f e n s e s  and e s c a p e  the c o n s e q u e n c e s  o f

t h o s e  o f f e n s e s . "  Wile_^, 543 F . 2d at 1 253 .

The " c o ns e q ue n c e s "  o f  c r i mi n a l  conduct  are 
33

p un i shment .
Whether  the s h o o t i n g  o f  f l e e i n g  

f e l ony  s u s p e c t s  a c t u a l l y  has a d e t e r r e n t  

e f f e c t ,  t he  r e c o r d  i n d i c a t e s  that  Memphis 

i ntends  i t  f or  t h i s  purpose .  Based on the

- 62 -

33 This line o f  reasoning assumes the guilt o f  the 
fleeing felony suspect. But flight is  not neces- 
sLily^an index o f  g u ilt ;  i t  is equally 
the result o f  immaturity. See Eddinqs v . Oklahoma, 
455 U.S. 104, 115-116 n.11 0  982; ^" aOoiescencs . . .  
are more . . .  impulsive [and] may have less capacity 
to con tro l their conduct and think in long range 
tlms than adults"). Thus, many o f  the ^
have involved minors as
supra; Qualls v. Parish, 534 F 2d
TnTTx ■̂ nnra: Jones v. Marshall, 523 F.Zd
132 (2d Cir. 1975J.



- 63 -

testimony of Mayor Chandler and Police 

Director Hubbard, defendante in thie 

action «hoee teetiiaony is in the record,

R. 1 832-33 (Mayor: ”C|. Do you think the 

policy acte ae a deterrent? A. That ie the 

purpoee."), 1343-50 (Police Director 

Hubbard: -I feel [it] haa to be reparded

as ao«e kind of deterrent to eerioue 

criae.')! eee alec 3.A. 122-23 (Police 

Director Chapman), the dietrict court in

Wiley found
that  one o f  the p r i n c i p a l  purposes  o f  
r e r i i S o r ^ c V ^ ^ ^ e o f V r - a ' e t S l y l  em

det er  c r i mi n a l  c o nd uc t .

Wi Lev V.  Memphis P o l i c e  Departmejit, Civ.  

A c t i o n  No.  C - 7 3 - 3 ,  Mem.Op.  at  13 (W.O.

Tenn.  3une 30.  1 97 5 ) . ^ ' '  Thi s  s u b j e c t i v e

34 In this Court, the c ity  echoes the Wilev panel and 
the Mattis dissent in noting that the ^
3usoect"“ should pay for his crime: There is no
constitutional right to commit
and to escape the consequences o f  3
City's Brief at 15. Both the c ity  s and t^e state s 
briefs  suggest the deterrence ^^txonale e ls e ^ e r .  a 
well. C i t ^ s  Brief  at 14, 15 ( a b i l i t y  to k i l l



i n t e n t  to p u n i s h  s u f f i c e s  t o  i n v a l i d a t e  

the  p o l i c y .  W o l f i t , 441 U. S .  at  538 ; 

M ,.ndn.a -M artine2 , 372 U.S.  at 169.

6) 4 7 ) :  Abs ent  t h i s  p u n i t i v e  

i n t e n t ,  a s a n c t i o n  may avoid the i n f e r e n c e  

that  i t  i s  a punishment i f  "an a l t e r n a t i v e  

p u r p o s e  t o  whi ch i t  may r a t i o n a l l y  be 

con n ected  i s  a s s i g n a b l e  f or  i t  and . . . "  i t  

does not appear " e x c e s s i v e  in r e l a t i o n  t o  

the  a l t e r n a t i v e  p u r p o s e . . . . "  He nd o z a -

- 64 -

no t i f i e s  the "crim inal that f l i ght  - ôt an 
o p t i o n" ) ;  St a t e ' s  Brief  at 19
"enhances the likelihood that suspects will subnut

35 ChiS'^i^aceV'3 testimony offered below includes the 
observation that:

From my experience it  seems that shooting a 
fleeing felony suspect is  mostly related to an 
o f f i c e r ' s  urge to punish a criminal. This 
instinct for punishment is especially strong 
when the suspect is thought to have just  
committed a violent crime. Much o f  uhe r - s i -  
stance we faced when the Department tightened 
its  deadly-force regulations was grounded in 
the feeling that criminals deserved no chance 
of escaping punishment and that the punishirent 
o f  being shot when f lee in g  from a p o l ic e  
o f f ice r  was not excessive.

J.A. 37.



- 65 -

M a r t i n e z  372 U. S.  at 1 6 8 - 6 9 .  Ana l y s i s  o f  

p o s s i b l e  a l t e r n a t i v e  p u r p o s e s ,  as we l l  as 

the p r o f e s s e d  d e t e r r e n t  aim,  f o l l o w s .

D A Ra l a n c i n q  nF the  I n t e r e s t s  
S. ^onsbrabe^s  Vh a t the  h i e F ^  
T T lo n  bo'c t r i n e  Is d n c o n s t i t u j ^  
t i onal

At t he  o u t s e t ,  t he  Cour t  s h o u l d  be 

c l e a r  about  the i n t e r e s t s  at ,  s t a k e .  Thi s  

c a s e  i s  no t  about the r i g h t  to e s c a p e ;  i t  

does  not  c oncern s hoo t i ng  to wound or the 

use o f  l e s s  than l e t h a l  f o r c e  to  a p p r e 

he nd ,  r e s t r a i n ,  or  subdue  a f l e e i n g  

s u s p e c t . M e m p h i s  p o l i c y  and Tennessee law

36 Captain Coletta te'stified that were taught
to^aim for the torso because it  presents a SJ-at-r 
target and thus reduces the chances o f  J ;
357-58. '^en asked whether he could or would teach 
recruits the marksmanship necessary to be able to
ITcot and h it  a person 's  wtnt
Coletta said: "Certainly I would. R. ^ ^ 2 .  H e  e  

on to say, however, that he did not 
budget, or recruit talent to do it  successfully. • 
352-53. Some other municipalities provide guide
lines to their o f f ice rs  governing f  
k i l l  and when to shoot to wound. R. 1303-04. ^
also R . 1319. ' u k -

37 lh7"altsrnatives to deadly force in this situation 
are numerous. As Chief Bracey te s t i f ie d :

Using a radio to summon assistance is nearly 
always correct tact ica lly . With a quick ca ll



66 -

armed the o f f i c e r  with a gun,  s u p p l i e d  him 

with dum-dum b u l l e t s  d e s i g n e d  to  i n f l i c t  

l e t h a l  i n j u r i e s ,  taught  him to shoot  

t the t o r s o  where v i s c e r a  are more l i^cely 

t o  be h i t ,  and a u t h o r i z e d  him to s h o o t  

from l e s s  than 40 f e e t  away w i t h o u t  even

more 

a

for assistance, a fleeing suspect 
tuaily caught even i f  he does manage to escape 
tem oorarU y. Or i f  the suspect is unarmed, 
moving up on him quickly with a drawn 
s t ick  and an air o f  determination will do 
wonders toward halting a suspect thinkang ^out 
fleeing. The point is that in most cases ther 
are alternatives to deadly force 
are expected and trained to reach for these
options.

1 A 89 Accord R. 278-79 (Chief Detective Cones); 
r! 376-77 (Insp'ector Barksdale) .
also provides options such as rubber bull-tsand  
tranquilizer guns, for example. Increasingly,polic 
departments are looking for alternatives.

Local govenments have been turning tô  the 
Justice Department’ s Community Relations 
Service for h e lp . . . .  The sessions stress tech
niques that prevent the use o f  force by ^ l i c e
in the f ir s t  place----- Some police  departments
are being taught new ways to capture suspects 
_ the use o f  a heavy net, for example, rather
than a gun.

-Magnum Force,  Massive lawsuits (Ntare More
Communities Urge Police to Show Rest-aint) , The New 
York Times, April 9, 1984, p. 2 E, c o l .  .



- 67 -

a t t e m p t i n g  to  g i v e  c ha s e .  They empowered 

him t o  do so w i t h o u t  r e g a r d  to  the  f a c t  

t ha t  he had a l ready  conc l uded  that  Garner 

was unarmed,  G.A.  41 ,  56,  and w i t h o u t

r e g a r d  to t he  d a n g e r o u s n e s s  o f  t he  

u n d e r l y i n g  o f f e n s e .  Thi s  i s  the  " p o l i c e  

o r d e r  a u t h o r i z i n g  ’ a h o o t  t o  k i l l ’ wi t h 

r e s p e c t  to every f u g i t i v e "  i d e n t i f i e d  by 

the  C h i e f  C u s t i c e  in Bi vens .  403 U.S.  at 

4 1 1 . See d i s c u s s i o n  supra at 16.

In support  o f  t h i s ,  the s t a t e  and the 

c i t y  a d v a nc e  an a r r a y  o f  i n t e r e s t s  t h a t  

are  o n l y  c o m p e l l i n g  on t he  s u r f a c e .  As 

expressed in the b r i e f s ,  they are  " e f f e c 

t i v e  law e n f o r c e me n t ,  the apprehens i on o f  

c r i m i n a l s ,  the  p r e v e n t i o n  o f  c r i m e ,  and 

p r o t e c t i o n  o f  the genera l  p u b l i c . "  S t a t e ' s  

B r i e f  at 17,  18;  C i t y ’ s B r i e f  at 14.  But 

t h e s e  i n t e r e s t s  do not wi t hs tand s c r u t i n y  

when v i e we d  in l i g h t  o f  the a c t u a l  

p o l i c i e s  and p r a c t i c e s  t h a t  t hey  are  

a s s e r t e d  to j u s t i f y .  The use o f  d e a d l y



- S3

force to stop unarmed, nonvioient fleeing 

felon, suspects Is both arbitrary and 

excessive in light of each of these

asserted justifications.

(1) Apprehension of t h e suspect; 

The fleeing felon doctrine is inherently 

excessive in light of this purpose. A 

Memphis officer who uses his gun "to 

apprehend" shoots to kill, contemplating 

that either death or serious bodily injury 

will result. If he is successful, no 

apprehension will take place.

Anal ys i s  o f  the purposes  o f  apprehen

s i o n  i l l u s t r a t e s  t he  e x c e s s i v e n e s s  o f  

d e a d l y  f o r c e  empl oyed  to  " e f f e c t  an 

a r r e s t . "  Tenn.  Code Ann. § 40-308 ( 1 9 75 ) .  

As the c i t y  a c k n o w l e d g e s :  "The p o l i c e

o f f i c e r s  who are in p u r s u i t  o f  a f l e e i n g  

f e l o n  have [ a ]  duty to app r e he nd  him as 

the f i r s t  s t e p  o f  our c r i m i n a l  law 

p r o c e s s . "  C i t y ' s  B r i e f  at 16.  But f o r



- 69 -

young Garner, it was the first and final 

step.
Normally, we apprehend a suspect for 

the purpose of turning him over to the 

judiciary. He is put on trial before a 

jury to determine whether he is guilty or 

innocent. He is brought before the court 

for sentencing -- a process that entails 

consideration not just of the need for 

punishment, but also the need and opportu

nity for rehabilitation. Shooting the 

suspect as a means of apprehension is 

excessive in light of these goals and the 

varied and important social interests 

behind them. It frustrates the determina

tion of guilt or innocence that is the 

purpose of apprehension. It obliterates 

both the substance and appearance of due 

process that is central to the operation 

of our criminal justice system. And, 

finally, it prevents the judicial determi

nation of punishment that is the ultimate



- 70 -

g o a l  o f  t he  a r r e s t  p r o c e s s ,  f r u s t r a t i n g  

the p o s s i b l e  r e h a b i l i t a t i v e  g o a l s  o f  t he  

c r i m i n a l  j u s t i c e  sys t em in f a v o r  o f  a 

d i s p o s i t i o n  t h a t  o n l y  p r o m o t e s  i t s  

puni shment  i n t e r e s t s  - -  r e t r i b u t i o n  and 

d e t e r r e n c e .

But t h i s  i s  o n l y  i f  t he  o f f i c e r  i s  

s u c c e s s f u l .  Most o f  the t i me  he i s  n o t .  

Handguns are  an u n r e l i a b l e  means o f  

e f f e c t i n g  an a r r e s t .  f o r  e x a m p l e ,  the 

r e c o r d  shows t h a t ,  between 1969 and 1974,  

Memphis p o l i c e  used t h e i r  r e v o l v e r s  to 

a t t e mp t  to  s t o p  f l e e i n g  p r o p e r t y  c r i me  

s u s p e c t s  on 114 o c c a s i o n s .  But t h i s  

r e s u l t e d  in o n l y  16 wo u nd i ng s  and 17 

deat hs .  R. 1460- 69 .  Al though the data i s  

i n c o m p l e t e ,  a l a r g e  p e r c e n t a g e  o f  the 

s u s p e c t s  f i r e d  upon eluded c a p t u r e .  ;

3 . A. 129.  In the  words  o f  t he  Memphis 

p o l i c e  d i r e c t o r :  "The c h a n c e s  are . . .

under the c i r c ums t anc es  where deadly  f o r c e  

i s  u s e d . . . ,  he [ t h e  p o l i c e  o f f i c e r ]  w i l l



- 71 -

38
not  h i t  [ t he  s u s p e c t ] . "  130.

Under t hese  c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,  i t  i s  hard 

t o  u n d e r s t a n d  how t he  d o c t r i n e  can be 

v i ewed  as "a s u f f i c i e n t l y  p r o d u c t i v e  

™,echanism to j u s t i f y  t he  i n t r u s i o n  on 

Four th Amendment i n t e r e s t s  whi ch suc h 

[ s h o o t i n g s ]  e n t a i l . "  Oelaware v.  Prouse ,  

440 U. S.  6 4 8 ,  659 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .  The odds  are 

t ha t  t he  o f f i c e r  w i l l  e i t h e r  f a i l  t o  

accompl i sh h i s  o b j e c t i v e  or accompl i sh too 

much.  That b e i n g  s o ,  i t  c a n n o t  be s a i d  

t ha t  the  use  o f  d e a d l y  f o r c e  " t o  a p p r e 

hend"  i s  " c a r e f u l l y  t a i l o r e d  to i t s  

u n d e r l y i n g  j u s t i f i c a t i o n ,  F l o r i d a  _—

R o v e r , 77 L . E d . Z d  at 2 3 8 , or  t ha t  the 

Te n n e s s e e  s t a t u t e  i s  " n a r r o w l y  drawn to 

e x p r e s s  o n l y  the  l e g i t i m a t e  s t a t e  

i n t e r e s t s  at s t a k e . "  Roe v .  Wade_, 410 U.S.

33 Director Chaoman also test if ied  that part af the 
reason for banning warning shots was the fact that 
i t  had the opposite  o f  the desired ef f ect ,  i t  
tended to spur the fleeing suspect. He 
that shots that miss probably have ^he same e f fe c t .
3.A. 132-33.



at 155.
( 2 )  The c r i m e  p r e v e nt i o n  i n t e r e s t ^ ;  

The p r e v e n t i o n  o f  c r i me  i n t e r e s t  has 

s e v e r a l  f a c e t s .  I t  d o e s  not  i n c l u d e  the  

p r e v e n t i o n  o f  the  c r i me  in whi ch the  

su sp ect  i s  e ngaged .  Te n n e s s e e  a u t h o r i z e s  

t he  k i l l i n g  o f  a f e l o ny  s u s p e c t  a i f ^  the 

c r i m e  has been  c o m m i t t e d ,  as o c c ur r ed  in

t h i s  c a s e .
The i n t e r e s t  in d i s a b l i n g  the suspec t  

f rom c o m m i t t i n g  a n o t h e r  c r i m e  in the  

i n d e f i n i t e  f u t u r e  i s  the  e x p l i c i t  b a s i s  

c i t e d  by the mayor and the p o l i c e ^ d i r e c t o r  

to j u s t i f y  t he  Memphis p o l i c y .  But i t

- 72 -

39 The mayor test if ied  that; "[Y]ou let him get away,
r « ’ r=. in another place « ,5“r=.rno
mavbe the next week he ’ s m the 7-11
s^ebody’ s brains out. I ’m just  a strong man on
feelinq^that a felon is a felon and i f  you conwit a
burglary you will step up gradually to something

1 « R 1832- accord id. at 1333-34. Similarly, e lse . R. loJiz, accjiu a
the po l i ce  d i r e c t o r  t e s t i f i e d  .hat. feei
Lnqeroua felon is a person who by
acA ons and . . .  his propensity is an individual
who, i f  allowed to escape from whatever crime you
encounter him in, is subject to cause danger, is
subject to be in a situation 'Mnich will be dangerous
in the future.” 3.A. 122-23.



73 -

s u f f e r s  f rom two d i s t i n c t  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

d e f e c t s :  I t  i s  b o t h  p u n i t i v e  in p u r p o s e

and e x c e s s i v e .
F i r s t ,  i n c a p a c i t a t i o n  i s  one o f  the 

p r i ma r y  g o a l s  o f  c r i mi n a l  s e n t e n c i n g .  See 

3 . Q .  W i l s o n ,  THINKING ABOUT CRIME ( 1 9 7 5 ) .  

I n c a r c e r a t i o n  s e r v e s  t h i s  g o a l  in two 

ways.  It i n c a p a c i t a t e s  the i n d i v i d u a l  from 

c o m m i t t i n g  f u r t h e r  c r i m e s  d u r i n g  h i s  

s ent enc e  and p r o v i d e s  s p e c i f i c  d e t e r r e n c e ,  

through punishment ,  aga i ns t  h i s  commit t ing 

f u r t h e r  c r i m e s  on r e l e a s e .  The use o f  

d e a d l y  f o r c e  to i n c a p a c i t a t e  in the way 

s u g g e s t e d  by Memphi s ’ s mayor and p o l i c e  

d i r e c t o r  i s  c l e a r l y  i n t e n d e d  to  t ake  t he  

p l a c e  o f  s p e c i f i c  d e t e r r e n c e .  Thus,  the 

i n c a p a c i t a t i o n  p u r p o s e  c a n n o t  n e g a t e  the  

i n f e r e n c e  o f  puni shment  a r i s i n g  from the 

a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  the o t her  Mendoza-Mart ine^

c r i t e r i a .
S e c o n d ,  the  use o f  d e a d l y  f o r c e  to 

i n c a p a c i t a t e  i s  e x c e s s i v e  in i t s  p e r ma 



-  l l i  ~

nency .  This i s  b e s t  demanstrated by Coker 

V.  G e o r g i a , 433 U.S.  584 ( 1 9 7 7 ) .  Despi te  

t he  e x c e p t i o n a l  s e v e r i t y  o f  the cr ime o f  

r a p e ,  ( " S h o r t  o f  h o m i c i d e ,  i t  i s  the  

• u l t i m a t e  v i o l a t i o n  o f  s e l f . ' "  i l -  at 

5 9 7 ) ,  " t h e  death p e n a l t y ,  which i s  unique 

in i t s  s e v e r i t y  and i r r e v o c a b i l i t y , '  

r Greqq v .  G e o r g i a , ]  428 U. S.  187,  i s  an 

e x c e s s i v e  p e n a l t y  f o r  the  r a p i s t  who, as 

such d o e s  no t  t ake  human l i f e . "  £oj<er_, 

433 U.S.  at  598 .  I f  the k i l l i n g  o f  a

r a p i s t . i s  e x c e s s i v e  to i n c a p a c i t a t e  him 

and prevent  him from r epeat i ng  that  c r i me ,  

then s hoo t i ng  an unarmed b u r g l a r y  s u s p e c t  

who mi g h t ,  i t  i s  s p e c u l a t e d ,  s t e a l  

a n o t h e r  $10 in the f u t u r e  i s  s i m i l a r l y  

e x c e s s i v e .
The s h o o t i n g  o f  f l e e i n g  f e l o n y  

s us pec t s  may prevent  crime in another  way: 

I t  may s e r v e  to  d e t e r  o t h e r s .  As d e v e 

l oped above ,  the Memphis p o l i c y  has been 

j u s t i f i e d  on j u s t  t h i s  b a s i s .  But t h i s



- 75 -

j u s t i f i c a t i o n  i s  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  d e f a c -  

t i v e  f o r  t he  same two r e a s o n s .  Ge n e r a l  

d e t e r r e n c e  i s  a c o r e  p u r p o s e  o f  p u n i s h 

ment ,  M P n d o z a - M a r t i n e z , 372 U.S.  at 168,  

and thus  u n a v a i l a b l e  as an a i t e r n a t i v ,  

n o n p u n i t i v e  r a t i o n a l e  f o r  the f l e e i n g ,  

f e l o n  d o c t r i n e .  Moreover ,  i f ,  d e s p i t e  any 

d e t e r r e n t  v a l u e ,  d eat h  i s  e x c e s s i v e  f o r  

c r i m e s  as s e r i o u s  as r ape  or f e l o n y 

mur d e r ,  C o k e r , supra  ; Enmund v.  F l o r i ^ ,  

458 U. S.  732 ( 1 9 3 2 ) ,  t hen i t  i s  s u r e l y

e x c e s s i v e  as a d e t e r r e n t  t o  e i t h e r

bur g l ar y  or f l i g h t .
( 3 )  The s a f e t y  i n t e r e s t s ; The s t a t e

and the  c i t y  argue that  the p r o t e c t i o n  o f  

the  p u b l i c  j u s t i f i e s  the  f l e e i n g  f e l o n  

d o c t r i n e .  When the s u s p e c t  i s  armed or 

has committed a v i o l e n t  c r i me ,  t h i s  i s  so 

as r e c o g n i z e d  by the c o ur t  o f  app e a l s .  But 

young Garner had no weapon,  t h r e a t e n e d  no 

one e i t h e r  d u r i n g  the  c o m m i s s i o n  o f  the 

crime or a f t e r wa r d ,  and was not  thought  by



the police officer to be armed. Authoriz

ing police to shoot under these cir c u m 

stances does not in any way advance the

s t a t e ' s  i n t e r e s t  in p r o t e c t i n g  t he
40

physical safety of its citizens or,

indeed, its police afficecs.

The s t a t e  and t he  c i t y  s e e k  to  end 

run t he  f a c t s  by r e f e r e n c e  to  " [ t ] h e  need 

t o  r e d u c e  v i o l e n c e  in o ur  s o c i e t y , "  

S t a t e ' s  B r i e f  at 11,  " t h e  ready  a v a i l a b i 

l i t y  o f  h a n d g u n s  in our  s o c i e t y  and 

.widespread v i o l e n c e , "  i d .  at 17,  " t h e  l ong 

t r a d i t i o n  o f  v i o l e n c e  which sur r ounds  the 

Amer i can c r i m i n a l , "  C i t y ' s  B r i e f  at 14 ,

- 76 -

40 Manifestly, in a case where the safety interests 
are properly presented, they would ju s t i fy  resort to 
deadly force and i t s  use would be non-punitive 
naturL This b e lies  the s ta te 's  strawman argument 
that " i f  the k i l l in g  o f  a non-violent fleeing felony 
suspect deprives the suspect o f  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  
guarantees, i t  does so no less with the fleeing 
violent o ffender."  State's Brief at 18,

41 The record evidence shows that the lim itation 
the use o f  deadly force to
o f  others implemented by the New York City p o lice  in 
1972 actually increased o f f i c e r  s a fe ty , resu lt i  g 
fewer o f f i c e r  deaths and fewer assaults on o f f i c e r s ,
2.A. 34, 92, 96.



- l i 

the  common l aw c o n c e p t i o n  o f  b u r g l a r y  as 

an i n h e r e n t l y  v i o l e n t  c r i m e ,  i d .  at 2 3 -2 5 ,  

and the "common e x p e r i e n c e "  t ha t  " b u r g l a r y  

f r e q u e n t l y  i s  a s s o c i a t e d  w i t h  c r i m e s  o f  

v i o l e n c e  a g a i n s t  t he  p e r s o n . "  at  25.

Thi s  r h e t o r i c  does  not  wi t hs t a nd  s c r u t i n y .

That  h a n d g u n s  a r e  a v a i l a b l e  t o  

c r i m i n a l s  and t h a t  t h e r e  i s  s u b s t a n t i a l  

v i o l e n c e  in our s o c i e t y  c a n n o t  j u s t i f y  a 

r u l e  t ha t  a l l o w s  a p o l i c e  o f f i c e r  to  s ho o t  

a f i f t e e n - y e a r - o l d  when he i s  " r e a s o n a b l y  

s u r e  t h a t  t he  i n d i v i d u a l  was n o t

armed____ " 3 . A. A1.  That some c r i m i n a l s

a r e  v i o l e n t  c a n n o t  c r e a t e  a p r e s u m p t i o n  

that  a i l  are and,  t h e r e f o r e ,  t h a t  a l l  may 

be s h o t .  " T h i s  a r g ume nt  a l m o s t  a l w a y s  

p e r m i t s  t h e  o f f i c e r  t o  s h o o t  t o  k i l l . "  

G a r n e r , 710 F . 2 d  at  2 4 6 ;  A. 52.  It would 

be hard  to  i m a g i n e  a g r e a t e r  i m b a l a n c e  

between the a s s e r t e d  j u s t i f i c a t i o n  and the 

s t a t e ' s  power to k i l l  than a r u l e  premi sed 

on t he  n o t i o n  t h a t ,  b e c a u s e  k i l l i n g  i s



- 78 -

s o m e l i m e a  j u s t i f i e d ,  i t  i s  s l w s y s  J u s t i -  

f  i e d .
The c i t y ' s  argument t hat  b u r g l a r y  i s  

so f r e q u e n t l y  a cr im e  o f  v i o l e n c e  t h a t  i t  

j u s t i f i e s  us e  o f  d e a d l y  f o r c e  to  p r e v e nt

1 i f  i t  had anye s c a p e  woul d  have  appea

b as i s  in f a c t .  But i t  does  n o t .
42

02 at oest , the City's a r g e n t  is  that at^^the^time o f

rurr:nr°enn«3"ee s ta tu e  « s  C"a<=ted, burql^y 
often violent and therefore the common law f.eeing 
felon doctrine is  ju s t i f ie d  as
But, as'with the other common law bases for the 
doctrine, see subsection A d ) ,
have c h a n g e  Indeed, this is  ^ ^ ^ ^ e d  in the ^ d e l  
Penal Code comment curiously miscited by *
While "the o f f e ns e  was thi
violent nighttime assault on a dw elling . . . ,  the 
fact that the home " i s  the place o f  security for his 
family, as well as his most cherished possessions” 
makes i t  "understandable that . . .  public fear 
burglar has broadened beyond its  
t iv e ."  A ll, Model Penal C o^ , Vol. I I ,  Art. 221- , 
Comment at T T T T T lF T F J m ea d in g  o f  most o f  the 
authorities c ited  in the c i t y ' s  b r ie f  r e v e l s  not 
that they consider burglary a v io lent crime, but 
that i t  is  a serious crime because i t  an
invasion o f  the sanctity o f  the home. The c i ty  s 
reliance on the MPC Comment's re f e rence  to the 
t e r r o r  i n s t i l l e d  by the fear o f  the burglary is  
sim ilarly misplaced. The comment did not conclude 
that burglars terrorize  their victim s, only that the 
circumstances o f  a nighttime burglary do.



- 79

The availab le data refutes the city's

"common e X p e r i e n c e ” assertion that

burglary is f r 1B que n 11 y associated with

V iolence . See Lewis V . State, 398 So.2d

432, 438 (Fla. 1981) (aggravating circum-

stance o f pr io r conv iction of "felony

involvincj the 1jse or threat of violence

not Sat i.3 f ied by two prior burglary

convict! ons ) . The st;udies show that t'he

singular aspect of but■glary is that most

burglars go to great lengths to avoid a

confrontsjtion and that: the vast majority

are not armed.
43

The most extensive study

43 T«o studies reported a consistent
burglars to avoid confrontation; Reppetto
7Q% of ail burglars reported that they want to
ascertain before entry whether a residence is

(1971). Reppetto fooid that 755 of all '=“£91“ = 
ware not armed, 85 were armed with guna, 7w with 
knivelTand 55 with mace. at 107. Another st^y
found that the burglar was armed in only 12^ of the
few burglaries that '"thE
a resident. I. Waller 4 N. Qkihiro, BURGLARY. THE 
VICTIM AND THE PUBLIC 32 (1978). J®hnessee law 
recognizes this phenomenon, prescribing different 
penalties for burglary with or without a gun. Tenn. 
Code Ann. § 39-3-401 (1975).



f o u n d  t h a t  92X o f  a i l  b u r g l a r i e s  o c c u r r e d  

in u n o c c u p i e d  b u i l d i n g s ,  t h a t  ^ o r e  t han 

h a l f  o f  t h e  r e m a i n i n g  3S o c c u r r e d  w h i l e  

the r e s i d e n t s  were a s l e e p ,  and t hat  14S o f  

t he  r e m a i n d e r  o c c u r r e d  w i t h o u t  t he  

o c c u p a n t s -  awareness  o f  the i n t r u s i o n .  T. 

R e p p e t t o ,  RESIDENTIAL CRIME 17 ( 1 9 7 4 ) .

Only 2 . as o f  t h e  b u r g l a r i e s  s t u d i e d  

r e s u l t e d  in a c o n f r o n t a t i o n .  Thi s  l a t t e r  

f i g u r e  has  b e e n  c o r r o b o r a t e d  in a n o t h e r  

c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s  s t u d y .  C o n k l i n  and

B i t t n e r ,  Bur g l ar y  in a 5ubur_b, 11 Cr i mi no 

l o g y  203,  214 ( 1 9 7 3 ) .  Even the  s tudy that  

f ound  a h i g h e r  c o n f r o n t a t i o n  r a t e ,  I .  

Wal l e r  i  N. Q k i h i r o ,  BURGLARY; THE VICTIM 

and the publi c  ( 1 9 7 3 ) ,  r e p o r t e d  that  on l y

2 . 6 S  o f  a l l  c o n f r o n t a t i o n s  i n v o l v e d  a 

p h y s i c a l  a s s a u l t  or  t he  t h r e a t  o f  o n e :  

most i n v o l v e d  on l y  b r i e f  v e r b a l  e x c ha ng e s .

- 80 -

44 Although Waller and Gkihiro found a confrontation 
rate o f  21S, their  sample was extremely sm al-, 
c o n s is t in g  o f  only 116 r e s i d e nt i a l  crimes.  In 
contrast, Reppetto's sample was 1910.



at  3 1 - 3 2 .  Onl y 1«  o' '  b u r g l a r i e s

bec ame  r o b b e r i e s ,  o n l y  .6% of a l l  murders  

o c c u r r e d  dur i ng  b u r g l a r i e s ,  and o n l y  6.5% 

o f  a l l  r e p o r t e d  r a p e s  o c c u r r e d  i n a 

r e s i d e n c e  b e t w e e n  s t r a n g e r s .  R e p p e t t o ,  

£u^££_a, at 5, 93 .
Thus,  the a s s e r t e d  s a f e t y  j u s t i f i 

cat i ons  for  the f l e e i ng  f e lon doct r i ne  are
45

but a chimera o f  the common law age.  They 

cannot ,  j u s t i f y  a modern p r a c t i c e  that  

a l l o ws  p o l i c e  to shoot  and k i l l  unarmed,  

nonvio l ent ,  p r ope r t y  cr ime s u s p e c t s  l i k e

Edward Eugene Garner.

( 4 )  E f f e c t i v e  law e n f o r c e m e n t :

F i n a l l y ,  the s ta te  and c i t y  urge that the

- 81 -

45 The Court has not hesitated to question c ^ o n  law 
premises when they are no ^
modern experience with crime. In Enmund v . 
the Court rejected the application o f  the 
murder doctrine as a basis for the imposition o f  the 
death penalty. In doing so, it  rejected the common 
sense notion that robbery is  so frequently a sso 
ciated with murder that a state leg is la ture  could 
rationally  make robbery/felony-murder a c a p i ta l  
offense. It looked instead to recent crime s ta t is 
t ics  that refuted this anecdotal sense o f  criminal 
behavior. 458 U.S. at 799-8Q0 4 nn. 23-24.



- 82 -

d o c t r i n e  be t n a i n t a i n e d  b e c a u s e  i t  i s  

n e c e s s a r y  t o  e f f e c t i v e  l aw e n f o r c e m e n t .  

" On l y  t h r o u g h  the p r i v i l e g e  to use de ad l y  

f o r c e  as a l a s t  r e s o r t  . . .  i s  the  power to 

a r r e s t  t r u l y  e f f e c t i v e . "  S t a t e ' s  B r i e f  at 

19 ;  £ e ^  a l s o  C i t y ' s  B r i e f  at  15 .  Thi s  

argument  f a i l s  f o r  two r e a s o n s .

F i r s t ,  i t  a s s ume s  t h a t  a l l o w i n g  

e s c ape  and i mpos i ng  deat h are the o n l y  two 

o p t i o n s  a v a i l a b l e .  But i f  t he  c i t y  

c o m p l a i n s  a b o u t  - * [ n ] o t  g i v i n g  p o l i c e  

o f f i c e r s  the n e c e s s a r y  power to e f f e c t u a t e  

t he  a r r e s t . . . , "  C i t y ' s  B r i e f  at  15,  i t  i s  

b e c a u s e  t he  c i t y  has  f a i l e d  t o  d e v e l o p  

o t h e r  a l t e r n a t i v e s .  Wh i l e  i t  may have  

been t r u e  at  t he  t i me  o f  t he  common law 

t h a t  o n l y  l e t h a l  weapons  were a v a i l a b l e ,  

i t  i s  not  so in 1 9 8 4 .  Ot her  t a c t i c a l  and 

t e c h n o l o g i c a l  a l t e r n a t i v e s  now e x i s t  to 

e f f e c t  c a p t u r e  that  do not  c a r r y  t he  same 

r i s k  o f  f a t a l  c o n s e q u e n c e s .  See d i s c u s 

s i o n ,  s u p r a , s u b s e c t i o n  D( 1 ) .



- 83 -

Second, and more importantly, the 

argument only serves to illuminate the 

arbitrary nature of the doctrine. If it 

is the effective power of arrest and the 

authority of law that we are vindicating, 

then why cannot deadly force be used to 

stop the fleeing misdemeanant? Memphis 

prohibits the shooting of embezzlers no 

matter how much they have taken or how 

many people they have victimized. 3.A. 

142, 190. Yet Garner, who stole $10, was

shot. _But, as a f i  f t e e n - y e a r-o 1  d , the 

most serious crime that he could have been 

convicted of under Tennessee law in 1974 

was delinquency. Tenn. Code Ann. §37-102 

(1977). These results cannot reasonably 

be justified in the name of vindicating 

lawful authority. That rationale either 

fails to provide a sensible basis for 

drawing a line in this area or exposes the 

fact that the lines drawn by both the



- 84 -

Tennessee  s t a t u t e  and the Memphis po l i cy

are who l l y  a r b i t r a r y .

The l i n e  drawn by t h e  c o u r t  o f  

a p p e a l s ,  on the o t h e r  hand,  t r u l y  r e l a t e s  

" t h e  p o l i c e  r e po ns e  . . .  t o  the g r a v i t y  and 

n e e d . "  B i v e n s , 403 U. S .  at  419 ( B u r g e r ,  

C . O . ,  d i s s e n t i n g ) .  I f  t he  o f f i c e r  has  

ca u se  to b e l i e v e  t h a t  a f l e e i n g  f e l o n  i s  

d a n g e r o u s ,  he may be a u t h o r i z e d  to use  

dead l y  f o r c e  to pr event  e s c a p e  and thus to

p r o t e c t  the p u b l i c .

The s t a t e  and the c i t y  argue t hat  the

o f f i c e r  w i l l  be u n a b l e  t o  make t he  

o n - t h e - s p o t  d e t e r m i n a t i o n s  c a l l e d  f or  by 

t h i s  r u l e .  S t a t e ' s  B r i e f  at  11,  C i t y ' s  

B r i e f  at  21 ( q u o t i n g  W i  1 e_y, 548 F . 2 d  at

1 2 5 3 ) .  But t he  a c t u a l  p r a c t i c e s  o f  most  

law e n f o r c e me nt  a g e n c i e s  d e m o n s t r a t e  i t s  

p r a c t i c a b i l i t y .  F o u r t e e n  s t a t e s  have  

a d o p t e d  t he  same r u l e .  C i t y ' s  B r i e f  at  

3 0 - 31 ,  and most  p o l i c e  de par t ment s  a l r e a dy  

r e s t r a i n  the use o f  deadl y  f o r c e  by p o l i c e



o f f i c e r s  i n a manner  t h a t  i s  e q u a l l y  

™ore r e s t r i c t i v e .  See Ma t u l i a ,  A B a l a n ^  

o f  r . r r e e :  A Re p n r t  o f  t he  In t e r n a t  ion_al

- 85 -

common s e n s e  o f  l aw e n f o r c e m e n t  p r o f e s 

s i o n a l s  a c r o s s  t he  n a t i o n  i s  t h a t  t h e s e  

r e s t r i c t i v e  s t a nd a r d s  are w o r k a b l e  and do 

not  hamper e f f e c t i v e  law e n f o r c e me n t .

The j udgment s  and a c t u a l  p r a c t i c e s  o f  

t h e  v a r i o u s  s t a t e s  are s u r e l y  r e l e v a n t  to 

the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  " r e a s o n a b l e n e s s * ’ o f  the  

f l e e i n g  f e l o n  d o c t r i n e .  The c i t y  c o n c e d e s  

t hat  " [ t l h e r e  c e r t a i n l y  i s  no c o n s e n s u s  

among t he  s t a t e  l e g i s l a t u r e s . . . . "  i ^ .  at 

1 9 . Th i s  i s  much l i k e  t he  s i t u a t i o n  in

^6 Moreover, prior” fourth amendment ^
s m l l ^  by police no lose d .ffiou lt
rircunstances. See Terry v . Ohio> 392 U.S. at 2U,^/, 
9ihron V. New Y ~ , ^ ^ U . S .  64 (1968 . |^d,^we
exoect Che crimirTal justice system, including its 
T a i l o r s ,  to 03k= similar judgments t ^ a t d r n ,  
future dargerouen.se a ll turn. S «  S c h a ^
Martin, _____  U.S. , 3 L. £0.2^01,207,226
T i 5S'47; y - I ^ tellA, ------- U.S. -------,
L.£d.2d 1'T350, i id6



P a v t o n  V . New York , 445 U. S.  573 ( 1 980 ) ,  

whe r e  t he  C o u r t  c o n s i d e r e d  and r e j e c t e d  

anot her  a n c i e n t  common l aw p r a c t i c e .  In 

P a y t o n , t he  c o u r t  l o o k e d  at  " c u s t o m  and 

c o n t e m p o r a r y  no r ms "  as p a r t  o f  " t h e  

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  a n a l y s i s "  o f  what  i s  

" r e a s o n a b l e . "  ^ d . at  600 ( " O n l y  24 o f  

t he  50 s t a t e s  s a n c t i o n  [ t h e  p r a c t i c e ]  and 

t h e r e  i s  an o b v i o u s  d e c l i n i n g  t r e n d . " )  

Here  o n l y  23^^ s t a t e s  r e t a i n  the out dat e d  

f l e e i n g  f e l o n  r u l e ;  26 ha v e  e x p r e s s l y  

l i mi t e d  i t .  As in P a y t o n , " t h e  s t r e n g t h  o f  

t he  t r e n d  i s  g r e a t e r  t han t he  numbers  

a l o ne  i n d i c a t e . "  J d .  The a c t u a l  p r a c t i c e s  

o f  most  p o l i c e  d e p a r t m e n t s  a r e  g o v e r n e d  

not  by s t a t e  law but  by more r e s t r i c t i v e  

m u n i c i p a l  or  d e p a r t m e n t a l  p o l i c i e s .  See_ 

M a t u l i a ,  s u p r a , at  1 5 3 - 5 4 .  N i n e t y - t h r e e

-■ 36 -

A7 xhe c i t y  l i s t s  Maryland as a common law state , 
C i t y ' s  Br i e f  at 27, but a reading o f  Giant Food, 
Inc( V .  Scherry,  51 Md. App. 586, 444 A .2d 4b3 

shows "chat the courts o f  that state are 
limiting the doctrine to forc ib le  fe lon ies  where 
there is imminent danger.



- 87 -

pe r c e n t  o f  theee  p o l i c i e s  r e j e c t  the

conioon l ew r u l e ,  Id-  °

them would bar  the shooting in th i s  case .

B r i e f  in O p p o s i t i o n  f o r  Re spondent -
48

App61 1 ee at 18a

The o u t mo d e d  c-ommon l aw r u l e  no 

l o n g e r  commands the s up p o r t  o f  e x p e r i e n c e  

o r  r e a s o n  i n l i g h t  o f  modern de v e l o pme nt s  

and p r a c t i c e s .  U  c a n n o t  w i t h s t a n d

s c r u t i n y  u n d e r  t he  f o u r t h  or  f o u r t e e n t h  

amendment s .  The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  s t a n d a r d  

f o r  the use o f  de ad l y  f o r c e  adopt ed  by the 

c o u r t  . o f  a p p e a l s  s h o u l d  be a f f i r m e d

^8 This trend holds true even in common law states . For 
exanple, Michigan is a common law ^
Werner v. Hartfelder, 113 Mich. fPP- T S
325 . ciut more than half o f  the loca l law
enforcement agencies have deadly force 
are more re s tr ic t iv e  than the common law and about 
75S o f  those are consonant with the standard adop 
by the court  o f  appeals . St a f f  Report to t ^  
Michioan Civ i l  Rights Commssion at ec seq_. (May 
13, l^tll;. This trend is particularly  true o f  major 
metropolitan areas. Although Arirona, Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Ohio are common law 
states , Phoenix, New Haven, Boston, Mburquerque, 
Santa Fe, Cincinnatti, and Dayton a l l  have deadly 
force Dolicies that would bar the shooting in 
case! R 1318, 1291, 1130-1131, 1110, 1330, 1209, 4
1218.



-  aa -

b e c a u s .  U  c o r r e c t l y  b a l a n c e s  t he

i n t e r e s t s  at s t a k e .

The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  l i n e  drawn by the

c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  s h o u l d  be a f f i r m e d  f o r  

o ne  f u r t h e r  r e a s o n .  I t  i s  a commonpl ace 

o f  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  l aw,  not  j u s t  an a s p e c t  

o f  the Terry b a l a n c e ,  t hat  the g r e a t e r  the 

gover nment a l  i n t r u s i o n  on l i f e  or l i b e r t y ,  

the h i g h e r  t he  n e c e s s a r y  j u s t i f i c a t i o n .

S e e , e . q . , Addington______ v - T e x ^ s ,  A41

U . 5 . 4 1 8 , 4 2 3  ( 1 9 7 9 ) ;  In ^  Wi ns h i £ ,  397

U. S .  3 5 8 , 3 6 2  ( 1 9 7 Q ) .  In a u t h o r i z i n g  the 

use o f  dead l y  f o r c e  upon p r o b a b l e  cause  to 

^ake  a f e l o n y  a r r e s t ,  t he  f l e e i n g  f e l o n  

d o c t r i n e  e q u a t e s  t he  l e v e l  o f  c e r t a i n t y  

r e q u i r e d  f o r  t he  power  t o  k i l l  wi th that  

n e c e s s a r y  f o r  t he  a u t h o r i t y  t o  a r r e s t .  

P r o b a b l e  c a u s e  l e a v e s  a l a r g e  margin f or  

e r r o r ;  i t  i s  not  p r o o f  beyond a r e a s o n a b l e  

d o u b t  o r ,  e v e n ,  a p r e p o n d e r a n c e  o f  t he  

e v i d e n c e .  R r i n e o a r  v .  Uni t ed

S t a t e s ,  333 U. S .  16Q,  1 7 5 - 7 6  ( 1 9 1 9 ) .  It



- 89 -

suffices for an arrest because the nature 

of the intrusion is limited; it only 

authorizes the police to hold the suspect 

for a limited time and then put him before 

a magistrate. Heretein v. Pu_gh, 42Q U.S. 

10-3, 113-14 (1975); Baker v. McCollan, 443

U.S. 137, 142-43 (1979).

The fleeing felon doctrine allows the

k i l l i n g  o f  t he  s u s p e c t  upon t he  same 

p r o b a b l e  c aus e  r e q u i r e d ,  and wi th the same 

r i s k  o f  e r r o r  t o l e r a b l e ,  f o r  an a r r e s t .  

But s u r e l y  t he  p e r ma n e n t  d e p r i v a t i o n  o f  

l i f e  at  the hands o f  a l one  p o l i c e  o f f i c e r  

r e q u i r e s  a l e v e l  o f  c e r t a i n t y  s l i g h t l y  

more r i g o r o u s  than t hat  whi ch s u f f i c e s  f or  

a t r i p  to the s t a t i o n  h o u s e .  O t h e r w i s e ,  

f a t a l  e r r o r s  a r e  s u r e  t o  o c c u r .  Garner ,  

a f t e r  a l l ,  was sho t  on p r o b a b l e  c a u s e  t o  

b e l i e v e  he was a f e l o n  when,  under  

T e n n e s s e e  l a w,  h i s  g r e a t e s t  c r i m e  was 

d e l i n q u e n c y .  S i m i l a r l y ,  in P r u i t t  v .  Citj< 

o f  M o n t g o m e r y , C i v .  A c t .  No.  8 3 - T - 9 Q3 - N



{M.O. Ala. June 12, 1984), a burglary in

prograsa call ended with the ahooting of a 

teenager who had been necking with hia 

girlfriend. No crime had occurred at all.

A syatem of law "mindful that the 

function of legal proceaa ia to minimize 

the risk of erroneous decisions,” 

A d d i n g t o n , 441 U.S. at 425, can accept 

this level of error when the only conse

quence is a short terai deprivation of 

liberty. The rule adopted by the court of 

appeals only calls for a little .ore 

certainty regarding the necessity of 

police action that may well have fatal 

consequences. It should be affirmed.

- 90 -

TT the: :i u d g m £NT b e l o w  s h o u l d  b e a f f i r m e d
hehah is

IS ONE OF LIBERAL USE OF DEADLY FORCE 
t h a t  r e s u l t s  in t h e  e x c e s s i v e  a n d
ISCe CESSARY USE OF SUCH FORCE TO STOP 
NOND AN GE RO US . f l e e i n g  f e l o n y  s u s - 
PECTS___________ _____________________ ____

Although the court of appeals did not 

reach the question of the c o n s t i t u t i o n s -



- 91 -

l i t y  Of  Me m p h i s ' s  p o l i c i e s  and c u s t o m s  

r e g a r d in g  the use o f  de a d l y  f o r c e ,  i t  was 

f a m i l i a r  wi t h Memphi s ' s  e x c e p t i o n a l  r e c o r d  

o f  s h o o t i n g  f l e e i n g  s u s p e c t s ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y  

b l a c k s .  See • Memphis P o l i c e  De_p^,

. 571  F . 2 d  357 ( 6 t h  C i r .  1 9 7 8 ) ;

Memphi s  P o l i c e  D e p t ^ , 548 F. 2d  1247 ( 6 t h 

C i r .  1 9 7 7 ) ;  n. <al l s  v.  P a r i s h , 534 F. 2d  690 

( 6 t h  C i r .  1 976 ) ;  Be e c h  v .  Me l a n c o j i ,  465 

F . 2 d  425 ( 6 t h  C i r .  1 9 7 2 ) ;  s e e  a^so  

Cunningham v .  E l l i n g t o n ,  323 F.  Supp.  1Q72 

( W. D.  Tenn.  1971 )  ( t h r e e  j u d g e  c o u r t ) ;  

McKenna v . C i t y  o f  Memohi_s,  544 F.  Supp.  

415 (W.D.  Tenn.  1982)  ( s h o o t i n g  o f  b r o t h e r  

o f f i c e r  i n a t t e m p t  t o  s t o p  f l e e i n g  

m i s d e m e a n a n t ) . ^ ^  The e x c e s s i v e n e s s  o f  the

49 It i s noteworthy” ” :hat Memphis accounts for ^ ou t  
3QS o f  a il  the reported federal cases on this 
in the la s t  10 years. This is  not suprising. The 
percentage o f  firearm d isch arges  against non- 
dangerous, f le e in g  suspects as compared to a ll  
firearm discharges by Memphis police  is  50.7^, J.A, 
100; R. 1469, one o f  the highest in the country.
1 A 100 (11.3S in New York between 1971-1975; ,^ .A .
G eller  4 K.O. Karales, Spl i t

nf apih hv Chicaco Police o (Chicago Law
Cnr'orcement Study Uroup between 1974-



Memphi s  p o l i c i e s  and cus t oms  in v i o l a t i o n  

o f  t he  f o u r t h  amendment  and t he  due 

p r o c e s s  c l a u s e ,  wh i c h  a c c o u n t s  f o r  t h i s  

r e c o r d ,  a l s o  p r o v i d e s  an a l t e r n a t i v e  

g r o u n d  f o r  a f f i r m i n g  t he  j udgment  be l o w.

V.  P h i l l i p s , 455 U.S. 209, 215 n.6 

(1932); United States v. New York Tele

phone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 166 n.3 (1977).

Even a s s u mi n g  the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s  o f  

us i ng  o n e ' s  r e v o l v e r  to a r r e s t  a s u s p e c t ,  

Memphi s ' s  p o l i c i e s ,  p r a c t i c e s ,  and customs 

are e x c e s s i v e .  Memphis arms i t s  o f f i c e r s  

wi t h  " dum- dum"  b u l l e t s  and t r a i n s  them to 

s h o o t  at  t he  t a r g e t ' s  t o r s o .  The i n d e 

l i b l e  i m p r e s s i o n  upon t he  Memphis p o l i c e

- 92 -

1978); M. Myer, Police Siootinas at Minori t i e s ;  Th  ̂
rasa o f  Los Angelas, b2 Annals o f  Amer. Acad^^of 
Pol. i  Soc. ^ci.^9ariQ ‘̂  (■'980) (between 1974-1978, 

o f  a ll  shootings at blacks, S% o f  a ll  shootings 
at Hispanics, and 9^ o f  a l l  shootings at whites) ; M. 
Blumberg, The Use o f  Deadly Firearms by Police 
O fficers : Tine Impact of inoividuals, communities^ 
and Race 2Jl (?h.U. U issertation, Y., ^oany ,
Sen. o7 Grim. Oustice Dec. 14, ;J982) (7.8^ in 
Atlanta bet'ween 1975-1978; between 1973-1974, 4.6^ 
in the D istr ict  o f  Columbia, 10% in Portland, Ore., 
but 58.1% in Indianapolis).



- 93

officer is that the policy of the depart

ment is to shoot to kill. Moreover, 

depart.ehtal policies and customs -  

including Inadeguate training in alt e r n a 

tives to deadly force and inadequate 

stress on the necessity of exhausting 

other reasonable alternatives -  also 

encourage the quick resort to the use of 

deadly force eithout a proper effort to

exhaust alternatives.

Most important, however, are the 

departmental policies that insulate 

officers from any discipline for use of 

excessive force. In addition to the 

evidence in this record, the Court should 

consider that before it in a r j n d o n _ v ^  

H o l t , No.  3 3 - 1 S 2 2 .  There the evidence 

established, and the district court found, 

that departmental policies Insulated the 

police director from any knowledge of 

misconduct by his subordinates; that there 

,as a tacitly sanctioned code of silence



- 94 -

t h a t  p r o h i b i t e d  o f f i c e r s  and s u p e r v i s o r s  

a l i k e  from r e l a t i n g  i n c i d e n t s  o f  i n i s c o n -  

d u c t ;  t h a t  t h e r e  was a p r o v i s i o n  i n the 

c o n t r a c t  wi t h  t he  un i o n  t h a t  p r o h i b i t e d  

r e a s s i g n m e n t  t o  a d e s k  j o b  f o r  d i s c i p l i 

nary r e a s o n s ;  and t h a t  t he  C i v i l  S e r v i c e  

C o m m i s s i o n ' s  c o n s i s t e n t  f a i l u r e  to uphol d 

d i s m is s a l s  f o r  p o l i c e  mi s c o n d u c t  r e s u l t e d  

i n  a d e p a r t m e n t a l  d e c i s i o n  not  to at tempt  

any d i s c i p l i n a r y  a c t i o n .  In s h o r t ,  t he  

d i s c i p l i n a r y  s i t u a t i o n  was c h a r a c t e r i z e d  

by D i r e c t o r  Chapman as " h o p e l e s s . "  B r i e f  

f o r  P e t i t i o n e r s  in No.  83 - 1622  at  12 - 17 .

The p r o x i m a t e  r e s u l t  o f  t h e s e  

p o l i c i e s  i s  use  o f  d e a d l y  f o r c e  in 

s i t u a t i o n s  wher e  i t  i s  u n n e c e s s a r y  and 

e x c e s s i v e  as a means o f  a p p r e h e n s i o n .  

This ca se  p r o v i d e s  an a d e q u a t e  i l l u s t r a 

t i o n :  The p o l i c e  e x p e r t s  t e s t i f i e d  t hat

Hymon shoul d  have a t t e m p t e d  t o  a p p r e h e n d  

young G a r n e r ,  who was o n l y  30 to 40 f e e t  

away,  r a t h e r  than r e l y i n g  s o l e l y  on h i s



- 95 -

V

I

g u n .  A.  a .  Ot he r  i l l u s t r a t i o n s  abound.

In Mc Ke nna , t he  o f f i c e r  who s h o t  h i s  

f e l l o w  o f f i c e r  was f i r i n g  at  a f l e e i n g  

mi sdemeanant ;  he was a known s h o o t e r  b ut  

had n e v e r  b e e n  d i s c i p l i n e d  or  r e t r a i n e d .  

544 F.  Supp. at  417.  In a n o t h e r  i n s t a n c e ,  

Memphis o f f i c e r s  sho t  and k i l l e d  a f l e e i n g  

b l a c k  t e e n a g e r  who had s t o l e n  a c a r ,  ev e n  

t h o u g h  h i s  a c c o m p l i c e  was a l r e a d y  m  

c u s t o d y  and c o u l d  have  p r o v i d e d  i d e n t i 

f i c a t i o n .  The o f f i c e r  who s h o t  n e v e r  

c o n s i d e r e d  any a l t e r n a t i v e s ,  no t  even 

g i v i n g  c h a s e  down an empt y  downt own 

s t r e e t .  R. 8 4 4 -4 5 .

" I n t h i s  c a s e .  Ci t y  o f f i c i a l s  di d  se t  

t he  p o l i c i e s  i n v o l v e d  . . .  t r a i n i n g  and 

s u p e r v i s i n g  t he  p o l i c e  f o r c e . . . , "

V . C i t y  o f  P r o v i d e n c e  , 463 F.  Supp.  585,

539 ( D.  R . I .  1 9 7 8 ) ,  e x p o s i n g  the c i t y  to

l i a b i l i t y  under  Monel 1 . Young Garner was 

shot  pursuant  to a p o l i c y  " whi c h a l l o ws  an 

o f f i c e r  t o  k i l l  a f l e e i n g  f e l o n  r a t h e r



t h a n  run t he  r i s k  o f  a l l o w i n g  him to 

e s ca p e  a p p r e h e n s i o n . "  G a r n ^ ,  600 F. 2d at 

5 4 ;  A. 16 . Hynnon di d no more t han f o l l o w  

t h a t  p o l i c y ,  as he " was  t a u g h t . "  ^ d .  at 

5 3 ;  A.  16.  The j u d g me n t  be l o w shoul d  be

a f f i r me d  on t h i s  b a s i s .

TTT MPMPHIS' S POLICY AUTHORIZING THE 
S r s C R a i P N A R Y  S M O T I N G  O F  
MONDANGEROUS,

F o u r t h  a m e n d m e n t  a n d  t h e  e q u a l  
p r o t e c t i o n  c l a u s e  b e c a u s e  it
Tn^ITES  AND RESULTS IN RACIAL 
niSCRIMlNATION________ __________________ _

The M e m p h i s  ' p o l i c y  runs a f o u l  o f  the

C o n s t i t u t i o n  in a n o t h e r  f u n d a m e n t a l  way

n o t  d i s c u s s e d  by t he  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s :

The b r e a d t h  o f  t he  d i s c r e t i o n  t ha t  i t

c o n f e r s  upon i n d i v i d u a l  o f f i c e r s  i s

s u s c e p t i b l e  to r a c i a l l y  m o t i v a t e d  a b u s e ;

the m a t e r i a l s  in the o f f e r  o f  p r o o f  d e p i c t

the p o l i c y  " i n  a c t u a l  o p e r a t i o n ,  and t he

f a c t s  shown e s t a b l i s h  an a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

wi th an e v i l  eye and an u n e q u a l  hand"

a g a i n s t  b l a c k s , .  Vi ck Wo v.  Hopki ns ,  118

- 96 -



- 97 -

U .  S.  3 5 6 ,  3 7 3 - 7 4  M a 8 6 )  ; s ee  a l s o  Furn^ajr

V . C o r g i a . 408 U.S. Z38, 389 n.12 (1972)

( Bu r g e r ,  C. 3 « ,  d i s s e n t i n g ) .

In A r l i n g t o n  He i g h t s v .  Met r o p o  1 ita_n 

Hnus i ng  C o r p . , 429 U. S .  252 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ,  the 

Court  d i s c u s s e d  what i s  n e c e s s a r y  t o  pr ove  

t h a t  a p a r t i c u l a r  p o l i c y  or  l aw i s  

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y .

[ W a s h i n g t o n  v . ]  D a v i s  d o e s  no t  
r e q u i r e  a p l a i n t i f f  to prove  t hat  the 
c h a l l e n g e d  a c t i o n  r e s t e d  s o l e l y  o 
r a c i a l l y  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  p u r p o s e s .  
Rar e l y  can i t  be s a id  t hat  a l e g i s l a 
t ur e  or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  body o p e r a t i n g  
under a broad mandate made a d e c i s i o n  
mo t i v a t e d  s o l e l y  by a s i n g l e  c o n c e r n ,  
or  even t hat  a p a r t i c u l a r  p u rp ose  was 
the " domi nant "  or " pr i ma r y "  o n e -------

D e t e r m i n i n g  wh e t h e r  i n v i d i o u s
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  p u r p o s e  was a 
v a t i n g  f a c t o r  demands  a s e n s i t i v e  
i n q u i r y  i n t o  such c i r c u m s t a n t i a l  and 
d i r e c t  e v i d e n c e  o f  i n t e n t  as may be 
a v a i l a b l e .  The im pact o f  the o f f i c i a l  
a c t i o n  - -  wh e t h e r  i t  " b e a r s  more 
h e a v i l y  on one  r a c e  t han a n o t h e r ,  
Wa s h i n g t o n  v .  D a v i s ,  s u p r a ,  at  24^,  
48 L. Ed.  2d 597,  96 S . Ct .  2040 - - m a y  
p r o v i d e  an i mpo r t ant  s t a r t i n g  p o i n t .  
Somet imes a c l e a r  p a t t e r n  u n e x p l a i n 
a b l e  on g r o u n d s  o t h e r  t han r a c e ,  
emerges  from the e f f e c t  o f  t he  s t a t e  
a c t i o n  e v e n  when t he  g o v e r n i n g  
l e g i s l a t i o n  a p p e a r s  n e u t r a l  on i t s  
f a c e .  T i c k  Wo v .  H o p k i n s ,  118 U. b .



- 93 -

3 56 , 30 L . E d .  2 2 0 ,  6 S . C t .  1064
( 1886)  • • • •
The h i s t o r i c a l  b a c k g r o u n d  o f  t he  
d e c i s i o n  i s  one  e v i d e n t i a r y  s o u r c e  
p a r t i c u l a r l y  i f  i t
o f  o f f i c i a l  a c t i o n s  t a k e n  f o r  
i n v i d i o u s  p u r p o s e . . . .

I d .  at 2 6 5 -6 7 .
He r e ,  t he  Memphis p o l i c y  a u t h o r i z i n g  

use o f  dead l y  f o r c e  a g a in s t  n . o n - d a ng e r  ous  

f l e e i n g  p r o p e r t y  c r i m e  s u s p e c t s  c l e a r l y  

- b e a r s  more h e a v i l y  on one  r a c e  t han 

a n o t h e r "  and i s  " u n e x p l a i n a b l e  on grounds  

o t h e r  t han r a c e . "  U .  Bl ac ks  a c c o unt e d  

f o r  34.215 o f  the p r o p e r t y  c r i me  s u s p e c t s  

s h o t  by Memphi s  p o l i c e  b e t w e e n  1969 and 

1974, a l t h o u g h  b l a c k s  c o mp r i s e  onl y  70.55 

o f  t ho s e  a r r e s t e d  f or  p r o p e r t y  c r i me s .  In 

c o n t r a s t ,  t he  number  o f  b l a c k  v i o l e n t  

c r i me  s u s p e c t s  who were s h o t  at  was 

p r o p o r t i o n a l  t o  t he  r a c i a l  b r e a k d o wn  o f  

v i o l e n t  c r i m e  a r r e s t s .  R. 1539-92, 

1559-62, 1769-77. C o n t r o l l i n g  f o r  d i f -

f e r e n t i a l  i nv o l v e me nt  in p r o p e r t y  c r i m e s .

i



- 99 -

I

4
f*

b l a c k s  wer e  ^lore t han t w i c e  as l i k e l y  to 

be sh ot  a t ,  f our  t i m e s  more  l i k e l y  t o  be 

wounded, and 4QS more l i k e l y  to be k i l l e d .

3 . A. 1 0 1 - 0 2 . ^ °  The g r e a t  d i s p a r i t y  m  

b l a c k s  s ho t  by Memphis p o l i c e  o f f i c e r s  i s  

l a r g e l y  a c c o u n t e d  f o r  by t he  p o l i c y  

a l l o w i n g  t he  s h o o t i n g  o f  n o n - d a n g e r o u s  

f l e e i n g  f e l o n s .  Be t ween 1969 and 1976 ,  

Memphis p o l i c e  k i l l e d  2 . 6  unar me d ,  

n o n - a s s a u l t i v e  b l a c k s  f o r  e a c h  a r me d ,  

a s s a u l t i v e  wh i t e .  3 . A. 103-QA.

The r a c i a l l y  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  nat ur e  o f  

t h i s  p a t t e r n  i s  c o n f i r me d  by i t s  r o o t s  i n 

a p o l i c y  g i v i n g  o f f i c e r s  u n l i m i t e d  

d i s c r e t i o n  t o  use  t h e i r  own j u d g me n t  i n 

d e t e r m i n i n g  when to  s h o o t  n o n - d a n g e r o u s  

f l e e i n g  p r o p e r t y  c r i m e  s u s p e c t s .  S ^ ,

50 Evidence produced at the Wiley t r ia l  confirms this
data. Although the s t a t i s t i c a l  data covered a
shorter period, 196TT5?1, i t  indicated that blacks 
were shot at disproportionately in relation to the 
racia l breakdown o f  property crime a rrests , and that 
this disproportion was s ign ificant at the .02 level 
( le ss  than two chances in 100 that the d ifference 
was due to chance). R. 1559-62, 1769-77.



-  1 Q 0  -  

51g ^q  ̂  ̂ R. 1 9 5 - 9 6 .  Thi s  c o ns i g nme nt  to the 

o f f i c e r ’ s d i s c r e t i o n  i s  "a r eady  mechanism

f o r  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , "  Ro>^e___i j -----G e n e r a^

Mot ors  C o r p . , 457 F.  2d 348,  359 ( 5 t h  Ci r .

1 972 )  ( T i t l e  V I I ) ,  " s u p p o r t [ i ng  ] t he  

p r e s u m p t i o n  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  r a i s e d  by 

t h e  s t a t i s t i c a l  s h o w i n g . "  C a s t a n e d a  

P a r t i d a , 430 U. S.  482 , 494 ( 1 9 77 )  ( c i t i n g  

Wa s h i n g t o n  v .  D a v i s , 426 U. S .  at  2 4 1 ) .

Th i s  c o n c l u s i o n  i s  p a r t i c u l a r l y  

s t r o ng  in t h i s  c a s e .  As d e t a i l e d  a b o v e ,  

t he  Memphi s  P o l i c e  De p a r t me n t  has  a 

h i s t o r y  of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  t h a t  was

51 The mayor t e s t i f i e d :  " I ’ m not sure that every 
o f f i c e r  would r e a c t ,  for example, 
burglar . . .  the same as a n oth er . . . .  
mean, in my opinion, that every policeman will s ^ o t  
an escaping person, felon, i f  they can’ t apprehend 
him. There may be seme people over there,  ̂
know who they are or anything e lse ,  but I 
some would say ' I ’m just not going to shoot that 
fellow . I be lieve we can catch him. I believe he
is  ca tch ab le . ’ " 3 .A. 115.  ̂ ► nw-

Similarly, Director Chapman te s t i f ie d  that: we
rest our case in the judgment o f  [ t he ]  p o l i c e
o f f i c e r ___  I think that you would find more cases
o f  escaping burglars who in e f f e c t  s u c c e s s fu l ly  
escaped and who did not have deadly force used 
against them." 3 .A. 128-29.



- 1Q1 -

1 un a b a t e d  at  the  t i me  o f  the Garner  

s h o o t i n g .  Thus,  t he  c o n s e q u e n c e s  o f  the 

unl i mi t e d  d i s c r e t i o n  to shoot  are p r e d i c t 

ab l e :  When s h o o t i n g s  by Memphis o f f i c e r s

are  most  l i t c e l y  to be in resp on se  to  bona 

f i d e  s a f e t y  c o n c e r n s ,  i . e . ,  a g a i n s t  

v i o l e n t  c r i me  s u s p e c t s ,  t h e r e  i s  no 

d i s p a r a t e  r a c i a l  r e s u l t .  But when

s h o o t i n g s  are  no t  m o t i v a t e d  by need and

are  o p t i o n a l ,  s ^  n . 5 1 ,  sl^  , b l a c k s
52

are shot  at d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y .

The f o u r t h  amendment ' s  and e q u a l  

p r o t e c t i o n  c l a u s e ’ s c o n c e r n s  c o i n c i d e  in 

t h i s  c a s e .  The f o u r t h  amendment  was 

a d o p t e d  t o  c o n t r o l  the  dange r  o f  abuse

52 At minimum, the proffer establishes a
case, shifting the burden to the c i t y  to •
Castaneda, 430 U.S. at ^93- 96. The d is tr ic t  court s 
d istortions, suppositions, and attack on the bia 
o f  respondent's expert cannot suffice  to f i l l  -his 
"evidentiary gap." W. at 499. Nor does t je  fact 
that Hymon was black "dispel the presumption o f 
purposeful discrimination." In 1974, Hymon was
only one o f  a small minority o f  black o f f ice rs  in a 
department where racisn was well entrenched; in the 
police d irector ’ s words, "the black o f . i c e r s  trie
to out red-neck the white o f f i c e r s -----  J-A. 13/ .
See Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 499.



- 1Q2

i n h e r e n t  in b r o a d ,  d i s c r e t i o n a r y  p o l i c e  

p o we r s .
A c e n t r a l  c o n c e r n  . . .  ti a s been to 
assure  that  an i n d i v i d u a l ’ s >^«®3on- 
a b l e  e x p e c t a t i o n  o f  p r i v a c y  n° t
s u b j e c t  to a r b i t r a r y  i n v a s i o n  s o l e l y  
at  t he  u n f e t t e r e d  d i s c r e t i o n  o f  
o f f i c e r s  in the f i e l d .

dnn. n V. T e a s s , »43 U. S.  47 ,  51 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .

The amendment  was a r e a c t i o n  t o  the

E n s l i s h  and c o l o n i a l  e a p e r i e n o e  wi t h

g e n e r a l  wa r r ant s  and wr i t s  o f  a s s i s t a n c e ,

which c o n f e r r e d  t oo  much d i s c r e t i o n  on the

e x e c u t i n g  o f f i c e r :  ’ a d i s c r e t i o n a r y  power

to  s e a r c h  whe r e v e r  t h e i r  s u s p i c i o n s

„ a y  c ha nc e  to f a l l , ” Wi l ' <es v . Wop_d , 10

Howel l  St .  Tr.  1153,  1167 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ;  power

that  p l a c e s  the  l i b e r t y  o f  e v e r y  man in

t he  hands o f  e v e r y  p e t t y  o f f i c e r . ” 2 L.

wroth 4 H. Zobel  ( e d s . ) ,  LEGAL PAPERS OF

aOHN ADAMS 141-42 (1965) (reporting O t i s ' s

argument agai ns t  the wr i t s  o f  a s s i s t a n c e ) .

Al t ho ug h  the war r ant  r equi r ement  i s 

the f ourt h amendment ’ s pr i mary d e v i c e  f o r

9
■r*



- 103

\
5

%

C

l i m i t i n g  p o l i c e  d i s c r e t i o n ,  the Court has 

re co g n iz e d  and implemented t h i s  p r i n c i p l e  

in a v a r i e t y  o f  o t her  c o n t e x t s .  e ^ ,

n . nnv a n  v .  Dewey, 452 U.S.  594,  599,  601 , 

605 ( 1 981 ) ;  n , l ; , wa r e  v .  Prous_e_, 440 U.S.  

at  6 5 4 - 5 5 ,  6 6 1 ,  662 ;  Brown v.  Texas>

U. S.  at  51 ;  Beck v.  Oh i o , 379 U.S.  89,  97 

( 1 9 6 4 ) .  Ye t ,  b o t h  t he  Memphis p o l i c y  and 

t he  T e n n e s s e e  common law f l e e i n g  f e l o n  

r u l e  p l a c e  l i f e  i t s e l f  wi t hi n the unguided 

d i s c r e t i o n  o f  each and e v e r y  p o l i c e

a f f i c e r .
[ T ] o  i n s i s t  upon n e i t h e r  an a p p r o 
p r i a t e  f a c t u a l  b a s i s  . . .  nor  upon 
some o t h e r  s u b s t a n t i a l  and o b j e c t i v e  
s t a n d a r d  or r u l e  t o  g o v e r n  the  
e x e r c i s e  o f  d i s c r e t i o n  "would i n v i t e  
i n t r u s i o n s  upon c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  
guarant eed r i g h t s . . . .

De l awar e  v .  P r o u s e , 440 U. S.  at  661

( q u o t i n g  Te r r v  v.  O h i o , 392 U.S.  at 22 ) .

Thi s  has s u r e l y  been the e x p e r i e n c e  in

Memphis ,  where p o l i c e  e x e r c i s e  t h e i r

d i s c r e t i o n  d i f f e r e n t i a l l y  b a s e d  on the

race  o f  the s u s p e c t .



- 104

Thus ,  t he  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  » as  

c o r r e c t  ih is p o s t h g  an o b j e c t i v e  s t a n d a r d  

b a se d  on d a n g e r  and need to l i mi t  p o l i c e  

d i s c r e t i o n  to shoot  f l e e i n g  s u s p e c t s .  The 

t o t a l l y  d i s c r e t i o n a r y  n a t u r e  o f  the 

a u t h o r i t y  t o  s h o o t  g i v e n  Memphis p o l i c e  

o f f i c e r s ,  r e s u l t i n g  in d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e  

numbers  o f  n o n t h r e a t e n i n g  b l a c k s  b e i n g  

s h o t ,  i s  at  » a r  « i t n  the  b a s i c  no t i on  o f  

our c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  syst em.  T o r ,  the ver y  

id ea  that  one man may be compe l l ed  to hold  

h i s  l i f e  . . .  at  the mere » i l l  o f  a n o t h e r ,  

aeems to be i n t o l e r a b l e  in any c o u n t r y  

where  f r eedom p r e v a i l s . . . . "  Ti ck Wo, 113 

U.S.  at 370.

i >

c
t

CONCLUSION

For t he  f o r e g o i n g  r e a s o n s ,  the 

judgment o f  the cour t  o f  appeal s  should be 

a f f i rmed .

V
■)'s
**>•

V



- 105 -

Respectfully submitted,

3. LeVQNNE CHAMBERS 
STEVEN L. WINTER *

99 Hudson St r e e t
New York,  New York 10013
(212)  219-1900

WALTER L. BAILEY, 3R.
Sui t e  901,  Tenoke B u ild in g  
161 J e f f e r s o n  Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103 
( 901)  521-1560

Attorney for Respondent-Appellee

♦ Counsel o f  Record
Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.
Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.
Brief for Appellee-Respondent

Impact area

Topic

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorneys

Organization

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in
