Alright class, let’s delve into how a landmark Supreme Court case can fundamentally reshape policy, using Tennessee v. Garner as our primary example. This case provides an excellent illustration of the policy process in action, specifically concerning the use of force by law enforcement.

Understanding Tennessee v. Garner and Its Impact on Use of Force Guidelines

Prior to the Tennessee v. Garner decision in 1985, many state laws and police department policies adhered to the common-law “fleeing felon rule.” This rule generally permitted law enforcement officers to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspected felon, even if the suspect did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.  

The Garner case challenged this long-standing practice. In this case, a Memphis police officer shot and killed 15-year-old Edward Garner as he fled, unarmed, after allegedly burglarizing a house. The officer stated he acted pursuant to a Tennessee statute that authorized the use of all necessary means to effect an arrest of a fleeing felon.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the Tennessee statute was unconstitutional insofar as it authorized the use of deadly force against an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect. The Court reasoned that such force violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures.  

The Key Holding of Tennessee v. Garner

The Supreme Court established a new standard for the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects:

• Deadly force may be used only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.  

This ruling fundamentally changed the landscape of use of force guidelines for police agencies across the United States. It shifted the focus from simply preventing the escape of a felon to assessing the immediate danger posed by the suspect.

Applying the Policy Process Using Tennessee v. Garner

Now, let’s apply the policy process framework to understand how the Garner decision led to widespread policy changes:

1. Problem Identification: The issue was the use of deadly force against fleeing, unarmed, non-dangerous felony suspects, which civil rights advocates and legal scholars argued was excessive and violated constitutional rights. Cases like Garner’s highlighted the potential for tragic outcomes in such situations.  

2. Agenda Setting: The Garner case brought this issue to the forefront of the legal and public agenda. The Supreme Court’s decision itself acted as a powerful catalyst for change, signaling that the existing legal framework in some states was unacceptable. Legal challenges and public outcry over similar incidents also contributed to the urgency of addressing this policy area.

3. Policy Formulation: Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, police agencies and state legislatures across the United States were compelled to revise their use of force policies and statutes to align with the Garner standard. This involved:

   • Legal Interpretation: Legal counsel for police departments and states analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision to understand its precise requirements and limitations.
   • Policy Drafting: Police departments developed new or revised their existing use of force policies, explicitly stating that deadly force could only be used against a fleeing suspect who posed an imminent threat of serious harm.
   • Legislative Action: Some states amended their laws to reflect the Garner ruling, repealing or modifying statutes that permitted the use of deadly force against non-dangerous fleeing felons.

4. Policy Adoption: The adoption of the Garner standard was largely driven by the binding nature of Supreme Court precedent. Police departments faced legal liability if their policies or practices continued to violate the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Court. State legislatures also had a constitutional obligation to ensure their laws were in compliance. This led to a widespread adoption of the “threat-based” use of force standard.

5. Policy Implementation: Implementing the new guidelines required significant effort from police agencies:

   • Training: Law enforcement officers had to be trained on the new use of force standard, emphasizing the requirement of an imminent threat. This involved classroom instruction, scenario-based training, and updates to departmental procedures.
   • Policy Dissemination: The revised policies had to be clearly communicated to all officers through written directives, internal memorandums, and ongoing in-service training.
   • Supervision and Accountability: Mechanisms for supervising officers’ use of force and holding them accountable for violations of the new guidelines were crucial for effective implementation.

6. Policy Evaluation: The impact of the Garner decision and the subsequent policy changes has been subject to ongoing evaluation. Researchers, advocacy groups, and government agencies have examined:

   • Changes in the number of police shootings of fleeing suspects.
   • The impact on officer safety.
   • The perceptions of the community regarding police use of force.
   • The effectiveness of training and accountability measures.

Applying the Policy Process to Other Supreme Court Cases Affecting Police Practices

Now, let’s briefly consider how you could apply this same policy process framework to the other cases mentioned:

Option 1: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

• Policy: The Miranda decision established the requirement that suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights (including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney) prior to custodial interrogation.  
• Effects: This ruling led to the widespread adoption of the “Miranda warning” by police agencies. Officers are now required to read suspects their rights before questioning them in custody. Failure to do so can result in the exclusion of any statements obtained from the suspect as evidence in court. The implementation involved training officers on the proper delivery of the warning and documenting its administration.

Option 2: Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

• Policy: Graham established the “objective reasonableness” standard for evaluating claims of excessive force in the context of an arrest or other seizure. This means that the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.  
• Effects: This decision shifted the focus of excessive force inquiries to the objective circumstances confronting the officer at the time of the incident. Police departments had to train officers on this standard and emphasize that use of force decisions would be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest. This ruling influences how internal affairs investigations and legal proceedings evaluate officer conduct.  

In both Miranda and Graham, you would follow the same six steps of the policy process: identifying the problem that led to the case, how the case reached the Supreme Court and set the agenda, how police agencies and legislatures formulated policies in response, the adoption of these policies (often mandated by the Court’s ruling), the implementation through training and procedures, and the ongoing evaluation of their impact.

By understanding the policy process through these landmark Supreme Court cases, we can see how judicial decisions can have a profound and lasting impact on law enforcement practices and the rights of individuals within the criminal justice system.