Which case specifies that officers must have probable cause to apply deadly force?

• A. Pennsylvania v. Mimms
• B. Tennessee v. Garner
• C. Maryland v. Wilson
• D. Terry v. Ohio

Answer: (B)

The identification of the case that specifies that officers must have probable cause to apply deadly force is indeed Tennessee v. Garner. This landmark case established that law enforcement officers may only use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if they have probable cause to believe that the individual poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

The context provided by the ruling highlights the balance between the necessity of enforcing the law and the rights of the individual, emphasizing that the use of deadly force should be limited and justified only under circumstances that clearly substantiate the threat. The court ruled that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable seizures, constrains the use of deadly force, thereby reinforcing the principle that force must be reasonable under the circumstances presented.

In contrast, other cases listed do not center on the requirement for probable cause regarding deadly force application. Instead, they address different aspects of police encounters or the procedural conduct of officials. For example, Pennsylvania v. Mimms involves the officer's right to order a driver out of a vehicle, while Terry v. Ohio covers the concept of stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion. Maryland v. Wilson focuses on the authority to order passengers out of a vehicle during a traffic stop. None of these cases specifically set