2d 1546; (1989), in which the court found that it is constitutionally unreasonable to use deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances are. Kerr 875 F.2d 1546 at 21. This helps our case by a Supreme Court Judge stating that it is unconstitutional to use deadly force against fleeing suspects. I have also found that it has been proven that serious bodily harm is in fact deadly force. So with any case in which it was ruled as excessive force, for example in Kerr. Therefore there are two rulings that use of deadly force is unconstitutional. We were able to prove that the use of a K-9 is deadly force, by in Robinette v Barnes 854 F.2d 909, they conclude that a dog properly trained to attack, would be classified as deadly force. Thus all the dogs in all these cases, including the one involving out client, were trained to attack the first open, vulnerable part on the body, therefore proving that the attack of a K-9 on a person is deadly force. Also to back that case up, I have found another case that states that "a dog trained to find a suspect and bark until the dog's handler arrives would plainly not qualify as an instrument of deadly force, however a German Shepherd that is behaviorally conditioned to go to attack a person would qualify as an instrument of deadly force" Chew v. Daryl Gates 27 F.3d 1432 at 67. It is also a decision in Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1, which the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon held to violate the fourth amendment. Thus, our client being unarmed, when he fled form the Police, his fourth amendment, the right not to be seized unlawfully was violated, and his constitutional rights took from him. .
II. Supreme Court Precedent.
In Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 the Unite States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspected felon unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the injury to the officer or others, and that the Tennessee statute was unconstitutional insofar as it authorized the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon.