We're starting with a look at the impact that cameras are having in U.S. law enforcement. Civilians have them on their phones. Police are increasingly using body cameras. The footage that these cameras capture and the public's access to it, is having a tremendous influence in the court of public opinion.

 

For example, some of the massive protests in different U.S. cities that have followed the controversial deaths of suspects at the hands of police. And some other investigations that have cleared officers of wrong-doing when body cameras confirmed they followed the law in confrontations with suspects.

 

With multiple protests and investigations going on in different cities around the country, we're taking a look today at how the use of police force is defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

When can police shoot someone?

 

The legal standard for deadly force has been in place since the 1980s, when the Supreme Court in two cases, one was "Tennessee vs. Garner," the other "Graham vs. Connor," explained when cops can use deadly force.

 

In the "Garner" case, Memphis police shot 15-year-old Edward Garner when he was trying to climb a fence after escaping from a home burglary.  

 

He was unarmed. In finding that it was wrong to kill the teen, the Supreme Court said, "Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so." So bottom line, as an officer, you don't shoot, you apprehend, unless you believe the suspect is a danger to you or to others in the community.

 

In 1989, the Supreme Court further clarified the law in "Graham vs. Connor." In that case, Dethorne Graham, a diabetic, went into a convenience store to get orange juice because he felt the onset of an insulin attack. But when he got into that convenience store, he saw the long lines. He then quickly exited. A police officer saw him, thought that his exit from that convenience store was suspicious and proceeded to follow him and stop him. Other backup officers arrived and slammed Graham's head onto the police car hood. Graham received several injuries and sued, and the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

There, the Supreme Court found that the officer's actions were justified. Why? Because the officers reasonably believed that the force that they used was necessary to prevent or detect a crime in progress. The law entrusted decision as to when to use deadly force on the officer, and then courts determine whether or not the officer's actions were reasonable, right then and there at the scene, not in hindsight. The law recognizes that cops have to make split-second decisions right at the scene, with the information they have.