Which Supreme Court case held that deadly force may not be used to seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect when there is no immediate threat?

• A. Graham v. Connor
• B. Miranda v. Arizona
• C. Tennessee v. Garner
• D. Roe v. Wade

Answer: (C)

Under the Fourth Amendment, deadly force may not be used to seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect when there is no immediate threat. This principle comes from Tennessee v. Garner, which struck down the old rule that officers could use deadly force merely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect. The Court held that deadly force is permissible only if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. If there is no such threat, officers must rely on nondeadly alternatives to apprehend.

This fits within the broader use-of-force framework established in Graham v. Connor, which requires officers to evaluate force based on objective reasonableness given the circumstances known at the time. However, Tennessee v. Garner provides the specific limitation for deadly force against fleeing, unarmed, or non-dangerous suspects. The other listed cases address different issues (Miranda v. Arizona concerns police warnings during interrogation; Roe v. Wade concerns abortion rights) and do not govern this particular use-of-force scenario.