State V Marshall 426 Case Study

1779 Words8 Pages
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once. The deceased would not leave the filling station. While, the deceased had alcohol in his system, they took off their hat and slammed it on the counter. The deceased uttered some very foul words to the defendant. In the other hand, the deceased picked up a hammer. Unfortunately, the defendant fired his gun because he thought the deceased was going to hit him or kill him with…show more content…
Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). Opinion by: White J. Facts: On October 3, 1974 two Memphis police officers were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When they arrived they saw a woman outside gesturing to another house. She told the officers she hear glass breaking. When they got to the other house they saw the deceased fleeing the scene. The Memphis police officer admitted to seeing no weapon on the deceased, yet he ordered the deceased to stop. The deceased continued to flee, so the officer shot the deceased as the deceased was attempting to hop over a fence. The district court held that the officers act was constitutional. Procedural History: The District Court concluded that Hymon’s actions were authorized by the Tennessee statute, which in turn was constitutional. The officer does have the authority to shoot at a fleeing suspect when the officer reasonably believes that the escapee poses a threat to the safety of others. An officer with probable cause has the authorization to seize a suspect, but he may not always do so by killing or lethal force. But the officer in this case could not have reasonably believed that the deceased posed such a threat to justify lethal force. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that killing a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and such a seizure would only be reasonable if the suspect posed a threat to the safety of police officers or the community at

More about State V Marshall 426 Case Study

Open Document