Civil Service Supervisor Practice Exam 2025 – All-In-One Guide to Exam Success!

The ruling in Tennessee v. Garner is significant because it established explicit guidelines regarding the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. This case specifically addressed the constitutionality of using deadly force against a fleeing, unarmed suspect. The Supreme Court determined that the use of deadly force is not reasonable unless it is necessary to prevent an officer or others from being in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. This ruling emphasized the necessity for a clear threat to justify such extreme measures, thereby ensuring the protection of individual rights against excessive use of force by authorities.

In contrast, the other choices relate to different legal principles. Graham vs. Connor pertains to the standard for evaluating claims of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, Chimel vs. California focuses on search and seizure procedures, and Miranda vs. Arizona deals with the requirement for informing suspects of their rights during custodial interrogation. Each of these cases has its own impact on law enforcement practices, but Tennessee v. Garner specifically addresses the limits of using deadly force in encounters with suspects, making it the correct answer to the question.