What is considered a constitutional violation of the 4th Amendment?

The 4th Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, and these landmark cases illustrate different contexts in which this protection is enforced, thereby highlighting constitutional violations.

In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court established that using deadly force against a fleeing suspect is a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer or others. This case emphasizes that the use of force must be reasonable and necessary, according to the circumstances.

Scott v. Harris further refines the application of the 4th Amendment, where the Court ruled that a police officer's decision to use a high-speed chase to stop a fleeing suspect was justified because the suspect posed an imminent threat to public safety. This case highlights how the standard of reasonableness is assessed in the context of police actions and the necessity to protect the community.

Graham v. Connor introduces a framework for evaluating claims of excessive force during arrests, determining that such cases must be evaluated under the "objective reasonableness" standard from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. It reinforces that law enforcement's actions should align with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures.

All these cases demonstrate different ways in which enforcement might cross constitutional lines, addressing the balance between effective law enforcement and protecting individual