Explain the key legal limitations on the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects as defined in Tennessee v. Garner.

Tennessee v. Garner established key legal limitations on the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects, significantly restricting when law enforcement officers can use such force. The Supreme Court held that it is unreasonable for an officer to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. This means that deadly force cannot be used simply to prevent a suspect from escaping, even if the suspect has committed a crime. The Court specifically rejected the common law rule that allowed deadly force to be used to apprehend any fleeing felon. The key limitation is the requirement of an immediate threat. The officer must reasonably believe that the suspect is dangerous and that their escape would pose a substantial risk of harm to the officer or to other people. Factors that might contribute to this belief include the nature of the crime committed (e.g., violent felony), the suspect's possession of a weapon, or the suspect's demonstrated intent to harm others. If the suspect poses no immediate threat, the use of deadly force is unconstitutional, even if the suspect is a fleeing felon. For example, if an officer is pursuing a suspect who has committed a non-violent property crime, like burglary, and the suspect is unarmed and running away, the officer cannot use deadly force to stop them. The Court emphasized that the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to Fourth Amendment protections and that such force is only justified when it is necessary to prevent a significant risk of harm. The Garner decision significantly narrowed the circumstances under which deadly force can be used against fleeing suspects, emphasizing the need to balance law enforcement interests with the individual's right to life and liberty.