Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1 held that deadly force against a fleeing felon is constitutionally permissible only when:
Explanation
Garner rejected the common-law 'any fleeing felon' rule and held the Fourth Amendment forbids deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. The old any-felony rule (a), bare possession of a weapon (b), and refusal to stop (c) are insufficient by themselves. Garner's principle is codified for California peace officers in PC §835a(c)(1) and informs the universal standard private security must respect.
Law Reference: Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1This topic, taught in full in the California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide. California Guard Card — Complete Study Guide (2026) — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- The U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386 established that the constitutional reasonableness of force is judged from:
- Penal Code §835a, as amended by AB 392 (2019), declares that the authority to use physical force is a 'serious responsibility' to be exercised:
- Under Penal Code §835a(c)(1), as amended by AB 392, deadly force by a peace officer is justified only when necessary in defense of human life — specifically when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force is necessary to:
- Penal Code §835a(a)(2) (consistent with SB 230's training mandate) requires officers to:
- Penal Code §692 provides that lawful resistance to the commission of a public offense may be made by:
- Under Penal Code §693, resistance by the party about to be injured may be made:
Last reviewed: · editorial process