Police officers cannot legally shoot someone simply because that person runs away. Federal law places strict limits on deadly force, and a fleeing person’s actions, any immediate threat, and the circumstances leading up to the shooting can all affect whether the force was constitutional.
When someone runs from a police officer, the situation can quickly become dangerous. Officers may have only seconds to assess what is happening, while the person being pursued may be frightened, confused, or attempting to avoid arrest.
But does running away give police the right to shoot?
In most circumstances, no. Police cannot use deadly force solely to prevent an unarmed, non-dangerous person from escaping.
Under the Fourth Amendment, police use of deadly force must be objectively reasonable. Courts examine whether an officer faced circumstances that justified such extreme action, including whether the fleeing person posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.
These legal protections have become especially relevant in cases involving disputed firearm evidence, foot pursuits, and questions about whether someone was armed at the moment police fired.
The October 2026 fatal police shooting of 18-year-old Zadarious Dorsey in Newnan, Georgia, illustrates why these distinctions matter. His family’s attorneys contend that he was unarmed when an officer shot him during a foot pursuit. Authorities have reported recovering a handgun approximately 42 feet from where he fell.
Those competing accounts raise important legal questions about police shootings involving fleeing individuals.
To understand the answers, it helps to examine what the Constitution actually permits.
Can Police Shoot Someone Just for Running Away?
No. Running away from a police officer does not automatically justify the use of deadly force.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, including unreasonable uses of force by law enforcement.
When an officer shoots someone to stop or apprehend that person, the shooting constitutes a seizure governed by constitutional protections.
The Supreme Court addressed this issue directly in the landmark 1985 decision Tennessee v. Garner.
The Court held that police generally cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed, nondangerous person.
The decision established that deadly force used to prevent escape may be constitutionally permissible when it is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe the person poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. When feasible, a warning must also be given.
That means the legal analysis involves much more than whether someone complied with commands.
A person might run from the police without presenting a threat serious enough to justify deadly force.
The key distinction is between attempting to escape and posing a significant danger.
Does Refusing to Stop Make Someone a Threat?
Not necessarily.
An officer may order someone to stop, and refusing a lawful order can have legal consequences. But noncompliance alone does not establish a threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Investigators must examine the surrounding circumstances.
For example, a person who runs from an officer investigating a minor offense presents a different situation from someone fleeing after threatening others with a firearm.
Even in the second situation, the officer’s actions must be evaluated under the applicable constitutional standard.
Police cannot automatically treat every fleeing individual as a deadly threat.
What Does Tennessee v. Garner Say About Shooting Fleeing Suspects?
Tennessee v. Garner remains one of the most important Supreme Court decisions governing police use of deadly force.
The case arose after Memphis police officer Elton Hymon responded to a suspected burglary in 1974.
During the encounter, the officer saw a teenager named Edward Garner running away.
Garner reached a fence and attempted to climb over it.
The officer believed Garner was probably unarmed but fired his weapon to prevent him from escaping.
Garner was shot in the back of the head and died.
His father filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the shooting.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Constitution did not permit deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect under those circumstances.
Why the Garner Decision Still Matters
Before Garner, some laws gave officers broad authority to shoot suspects attempting to escape, particularly if they were suspected of felonies.
The Supreme Court rejected the idea that a person’s suspected offense automatically justified killing them to prevent escape.
Instead, the Constitution requires an evaluation of the threat and the need for force.
The decision is particularly important in cases involving:
- Unarmed people running from police.
- Individuals fleeing after relatively minor suspected offenses.
- Foot pursuits that escalate into shootings.
- Officers who claim they believed someone posed an immediate danger.
- Disputes about whether a weapon was present or visible.
Although Garner established constitutional limits, it did not prohibit every use of deadly force against a fleeing individual.
Courts must still evaluate whether the circumstances justified the officer’s actions.
When Can Police Legally Use Deadly Force Against a Fleeing Person?
Police may use deadly force in certain circumstances where an officer reasonably perceives a significant threat of death or serious physical injury and the force is constitutionally justified.
Under Garner, deadly force to prevent escape may be permissible when the officer has probable cause to believe the person presents the required level of danger and the use of force is necessary to prevent escape.
Consider several hypothetical situations.
Situation 1: Someone Runs After a Minor Offense
A person suspected of a minor, nonviolent offense begins running from an officer.
The person is unarmed, has not threatened anyone, and does not appear to pose an immediate danger.
Running away under those circumstances would not, by itself, justify shooting the person.
Situation 2: Someone Flees After Threatening Others With a Gun
A person threatens others with a firearm and runs toward a populated area while continuing to present a serious danger.
Depending on what the officer reasonably knows and observes, deadly force may be legally justified.
The threat, necessity, warnings, and total circumstances remain important.
Situation 3: Someone Drops a Weapon While Running
An officer sees a person holding a firearm during a pursuit.
The person drops or throws the gun away but continues running.
If the person no longer poses a significant threat when the officer shoots, the earlier possession of a weapon does not automatically justify deadly force.
However, investigators must evaluate whether the officer reasonably perceived that the threat had ended, what the officer could actually see, and whether any other danger remained.
Situation 4: Someone Makes a Sudden Movement During a Pursuit
A fleeing person reaches toward a waistband or pocket.
The officer believes the movement may indicate an attempt to retrieve a firearm.
Whether deadly force is reasonable depends on the totality of the circumstances, not simply on the movement itself.
Investigators may consider what the officer observed, other available information, the person’s actions, and whether the officer’s perception of danger was objectively reasonable.
These examples illustrate why police shooting cases are highly fact-dependent.
How Does the Fourth Amendment Apply to Police Shootings?
The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable government searches and seizures.
When a police officer intentionally shoots someone to restrain or apprehend them, the shooting implicates the Fourth Amendment.
The central question is whether the force was objectively reasonable.
In Graham v. Connor, decided in 1989, the Supreme Court established the governing framework for evaluating excessive force during arrests and investigatory stops.
Courts consider the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene rather than relying solely on hindsight.
Among the relevant factors are:
- The severity of the suspected crime
Was the officer responding to a serious violent offense or a minor suspected violation?
- The immediate threat to officers or others
Did the person pose a danger serious enough to justify the force used?
- Resistance or attempted escape
Was the person resisting arrest, actively threatening someone, or attempting to flee?
These factors help courts evaluate reasonableness, but no single factor automatically determines the outcome.
Importantly, the constitutional standard is objective.
An officer’s sincere belief that force was necessary does not, by itself, establish that the force was reasonable.
Likewise, an officer’s actions are not automatically unconstitutional simply because later evidence shows that the perceived threat did not exist.
The court must consider what a reasonable officer would have understood under the circumstances.
Does the Law Consider What Happened Before the Shooting?
Yes. This is an especially important development in modern excessive force law.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court decided Barnes v. Felix, clarifying that courts cannot evaluate an officer’s use of force by arbitrarily limiting their review to the final moments before a shooting.
The case involved the fatal shooting of Ashtian Barnes during a traffic stop in Texas.
Officer Roberto Felix Jr. had stopped Barnes over suspected toll violations.
During the encounter, Barnes began driving away. The officer stepped onto the vehicle’s door sill and fired into the car.
Lower courts had evaluated the shooting under a restrictive approach focused on the final moments when the officer perceived danger.
The Supreme Court rejected that limitation.
Why Barnes v. Felix Matters for Excessive Force Cases
The Court explained that the Fourth Amendment requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances.
That includes relevant events leading up to the use of force.
Earlier actions may help explain why an officer perceived a particular movement as threatening—or why that perception was unreasonable.
For example, courts may examine:
- Why the officer initiated the encounter.
- What information the officer had about the person.
- Whether warnings were given.
- How the situation developed.
- What the person did during the encounter.
- What the officer could reasonably perceive before using force.
The Court did not decide that the shooting in Barnes was unconstitutional. Nor did it establish that an officer’s role in creating a dangerous situation automatically makes later force unreasonable.
Instead, the Court clarified that earlier relevant circumstances cannot simply be excluded from the constitutional analysis.
For families evaluating police shootings, this means the investigation may need to reconstruct the entire encounter rather than focus exclusively on the instant when the officer fired.
Can Police Shoot Someone Who Had a Gun but Dropped It?
The fact that someone previously possessed a firearm does not automatically justify shooting that person after the threat has ended.
However, the answer depends on whether the officer reasonably perceived an ongoing threat when deadly force was used.
There is an important difference between possessing a gun and using or threatening to use it.
Depending on the circumstances, a person carrying a firearm may still have constitutional protections against unreasonable force.
Even when someone unlawfully possesses a weapon, officers must justify the use of deadly force under the applicable constitutional standard.
What If the Officer Did Not See the Gun Being Dropped?
That fact may complicate the legal analysis.
An officer may reasonably perceive a continuing threat if the person appeared to be armed and the officer did not observe the person discard the weapon.
But the officer’s account must still be evaluated against the evidence.
Investigators may compare:
- Body-worn camera footage.
- Surveillance video.
- Witness statements.
- The location of the recovered firearm.
- Lighting and visibility.
- The officer’s position.
- The person’s hand movements.
- The timing of gunshots.
If an officer claims to have seen someone holding a weapon, but physical or video evidence contradicts that account, the discrepancy may become important in an excessive force lawsuit.
Conversely, evidence supporting the officer’s description may affect whether the shooting was legally justified.
The investigation must consider both possibilities.
Our companion article, Gun Found Away From a Police Shooting: How Does That Affect an Excessive Force Case?, examines these questions in greater detail. (Planned Article 3.)
How Does the Zadarious Dorsey Police Shooting Illustrate These Legal Questions?
The October 3, 2026, shooting of Zadarious Dorsey in Newnan, Georgia, presents a real-world example of why deadly force during a foot pursuit can require extensive investigation.
According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, a Newnan police officer approached a stopped vehicle after following it through the area.
Several occupants ran, and the officer pursued Dorsey.
The GBI’s preliminary account states that the officer ordered Dorsey to stop, deployed a Taser unsuccessfully, and then reported seeing Dorsey pull a gun from his waistband.
The officer shot Dorsey multiple times.
Dorsey died from his injuries.
His family and attorneys dispute the officer’s account and contend that Dorsey was unarmed when he was shot.
Why the Recovered Firearm Matters
The Coweta Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office subsequently reported that a handgun was recovered approximately 42 feet from where Dorsey fell.
Forensic testing identified Dorsey’s DNA on the firearm.
These findings are significant, but the publicly disclosed evidence does not establish precisely when the gun left his possession.
That timing could affect how the shooting is evaluated.
If evidence establishes that Dorsey had discarded the weapon before the officer fired, investigators would need to examine whether the officer reasonably perceived a continuing threat.
If evidence instead establishes that the officer reasonably believed Dorsey remained armed and presented a significant danger, that could affect the constitutional analysis.
Neither conclusion should be assumed without reviewing the complete evidence.
Why the Beginning of the Pursuit Also Matters
Dorsey’s attorneys have questioned why the officer pursued him.
Under Barnes v. Felix, relevant circumstances leading up to the use of deadly force can be part of the Fourth Amendment analysis.
In the Dorsey case, that may include the initial encounter with the vehicle, the officer’s observations, the pursuit, and what occurred immediately before the shooting.
A separate legal question is whether the officer had reasonable suspicion or another lawful basis to detain Dorsey.
An unlawful pursuit or attempted stop does not automatically establish that a subsequent shooting was unconstitutional. The use of force must still be evaluated under its own legal standard.
The broader circumstances, however, may provide important context.
Read the full case overview: Zadarious Dorsey Police Shooting: What We Know About the Newnan Case. (Companion Article 1 — confirm published URL.)
What Evidence Matters in a Fleeing-Suspect Police Shooting?
Evidence can be decisive when an officer’s account differs from the accounts of witnesses or surviving family members.
A civil rights investigation may involve several categories of evidence.
Body-Camera Footage
Body-worn cameras may record commands, movements, the timing of shots, and what occurred during a pursuit.
However, a body camera’s position and field of view may not perfectly match what the officer saw.
Surveillance Video
Video from nearby buildings or traffic cameras may provide different angles.
This footage can be particularly valuable when an officer’s body camera does not clearly show a person’s hands or the location of a weapon.
Firearm and Ballistic Evidence
The recovery location of a firearm, spent cartridge casings, bullet trajectories, and other physical evidence may help investigators reconstruct events.
DNA or fingerprint testing may establish a connection between a person and a weapon, but that evidence does not necessarily prove when the person possessed it.
Autopsy and Medical Findings
Gunshot wound locations, bullet paths, and other medical findings may help determine the person’s position when shot.
These findings must be interpreted carefully alongside video and other physical evidence.
Witness Statements
Witnesses may have observed parts of the encounter that cameras missed.
Statements can also help investigators determine whether an officer’s account is consistent with what others saw or heard.
Police Communications and Records
Dispatch recordings, radio traffic, incident reports, and departmental policies may help establish what officers knew and how the encounter unfolded.
An attorney may also examine whether potentially relevant evidence was preserved and whether additional records should be requested through appropriate legal procedures.
Can Families File a Civil Rights Lawsuit After a Fatal Police Shooting?
Potentially, yes.
When an officer uses unconstitutional force, the injured person or the appropriate representative of a deceased person’s legal interests may be able to pursue a federal civil rights claim.
One of the principal legal mechanisms is 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This federal statute permits civil actions against people who, acting under color of state law, violate rights protected by the Constitution or federal law.
A fatal police shooting may give rise to a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim if the evidence establishes that the officer’s actions violated constitutional protections.
Depending on the circumstances and applicable state law, surviving relatives or estate representatives may also have grounds for wrongful death or survival claims.
Who Can Be Held Responsible?
Potential defendants depend on the facts and the legal basis for the claim.
They may include the individual officer who used force.
A municipality may also face liability in certain circumstances, but it is not automatically responsible under federal civil rights law merely because it employed the officer.
Claims against a city or other local government generally require proof that an official policy, custom, or qualifying governmental decision caused the constitutional violation.
State-law claims can involve additional requirements, including immunity defenses and notice provisions.
A civil rights attorney can investigate which claims and defendants are legally appropriate.
What About Qualified Immunity?
Qualified immunity is a legal defense that may protect government officials from individual liability for damages in certain federal civil rights cases.
Whether the defense applies depends on the alleged constitutional violation and whether the relevant law was clearly established.
The doctrine does not mean every police shooting is protected, nor does the existence of a constitutional violation automatically defeat the defense.
Courts examine the applicable law and the specific facts.
Does an Officer Have to Be Criminally Charged First?
No.
A federal civil rights lawsuit is a separate legal proceeding from a criminal prosecution.
An officer may face no criminal charges, yet a civil claim may still be available if the facts and law support it.
Criminal and civil cases involve different legal standards, procedures, and burdens of proof.
A family’s right to explore civil litigation does not necessarily depend on the outcome of a criminal investigation.
What Compensation May Be Available After an Unlawful Police Shooting?
If an excessive force or related civil claim is successful, recoverable damages depend on the type of claim, the injuries, the governing law, and the available evidence.
Potential damages can include:
- Medical expenses associated with the shooting.
- Pain and suffering were legally recoverable.
- Lost earnings or financial support.
- Funeral and burial costs under applicable claims.
- Other losses recognized under federal or state law.
- Punitive damages against eligible individual defendants in appropriate circumstances.
Not every category is available in every case.
For example, punitive damages generally cannot be recovered against a municipality under § 1983.
The amount and type of potential recovery also depend on whether claims are brought on behalf of the injured person, an estate, or qualifying surviving family members.
Ben Crump Law provides additional information about civil rights claims through its civil rights lawyer and wrongful death lawyer resources.
How Can a Civil Rights Lawyer Help After a Police Shooting?
Families may face significant obstacles when attempting to understand what happened during a fatal encounter with law enforcement.
Police departments, investigators, prosecutors, and government agencies may possess evidence that is not immediately available to the public.
A civil rights attorney may help by:
Investigating the encounter. An attorney can examine the timeline, witness accounts, video, and physical evidence to determine what the records support.
Preserving evidence. Prompt preservation requests may help prevent relevant recordings, records, or electronic data from being lost.
Consulting experts. Qualified specialists may assist with video analysis, forensic reconstruction, medical findings, and police practices.
Evaluating constitutional claims. An attorney can assess whether the available facts support an excessive force claim or another alleged rights violation.
Identifying responsible parties. Legal counsel can evaluate potential claims against individual officers or government entities while accounting for immunity defenses.
Pursuing accountability. Depending on the evidence, representation may involve negotiation, litigation, or other available legal remedies.
Families should also be aware that civil rights claims have filing deadlines.
Those deadlines vary based on the jurisdiction and type of claim. State-law claims against government entities may involve additional notice requirements.
Prompt legal review can be important.
Frequently Asked Questions About Police Deadly Force and Fleeing Suspects
Is it legal for police to shoot someone in the back while running away?
Not automatically. The location of a gunshot wound does not alone determine whether a shooting was constitutional. Courts evaluate the total circumstances, including whether the person posed a significant threat and whether deadly force was justified.
Can police shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect?
Under Tennessee v. Garner, officers generally cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect. Other circumstances involving a significant threat of death or serious injury may change the analysis.
Is running from the police enough reason to use deadly force?
No. Running away, by itself, does not justify shooting someone. Deadly force requires a substantially greater justification under the Fourth Amendment.
Can police shoot someone who is carrying a gun?
Possessing a firearm does not automatically justify deadly force. The officer must have an objectively reasonable basis for using the level of force involved. Whether the person threatened others, displayed the weapon, or appeared to present an immediate danger may be significant.
What if someone drops a weapon before the officer shoots?
The timing and the officer’s reasonable perception matter. If a person discarded a weapon and no longer posed the required threat, deadly force may be unconstitutional. Investigators must examine what happened and what a reasonable officer could have understood at the time.
Does the Fourth Amendment protect someone suspected of a crime?
Yes. Fourth Amendment protections apply to people suspected of criminal activity. Those protections do not disappear because someone is accused of a crime, resists an encounter, or attempts to escape.
Can police be sued for shooting a fleeing suspect?
Potentially. When deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment, an appropriate claimant may pursue a federal civil rights claim under § 1983, subject to applicable procedural requirements and defenses.
Does the entire police encounter matter in an excessive force case?
Yes. The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Barnes v. Felix confirmed that courts must consider the totality of relevant circumstances, including events leading up to the use of force.
Police Accountability Begins With Understanding the Law
Police officers are sometimes required to make difficult decisions in dangerous situations.
But the Constitution does not give law enforcement unlimited authority to use deadly force.
The fact that someone is fleeing, refusing commands, or suspected of a crime does not automatically justify shooting that person.
Instead, the law requires an objective assessment of the threat, the circumstances, and the force used.
The fatal shooting of Zadarious Dorsey in Newnan underscores how important those distinctions can be when officers and families disagree about what happened.
Questions about whether a firearm was present, when it was discarded, and what the officer reasonably perceived must be evaluated against the totality of the evidence.
For families seeking answers after a fatal police shooting, understanding these constitutional protections is an important first step.
Ben Crump Law advocates for individuals and families whose civil rights may have been violated by police misconduct or excessive force.
If you believe a loved one was seriously injured or killed through an unlawful use of force, contact Ben Crump Law or call 800-959-1444 for a free consultation.
Related Reading
- Zadarious Dorsey Police Shooting: What We Know About the Newnan Case — Review the disputed accounts, foot pursuit, and ongoing Georgia investigation. (Companion Article 1 — verify publication.)
- Gun Found Away From a Police Shooting: How Does That Affect an Excessive Force Case? — Learn how firearm location, body-camera footage, and forensic evidence may affect legal liability. (Companion Article 3 — planned.)
- Civil Rights Lawyer — Learn about constitutional protections and potential civil rights claims.
- Wrongful Death Lawyer — Understand legal options following a preventable death.
Sources and Legal Authorities
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) — Constitutional limits on deadly force against fleeing suspects.
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) — Objective reasonableness standard for police excessive force.
- Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) — Requirement to consider the totality of relevant circumstances, including events preceding a shooting.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Federal civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights.
- Georgia Bureau of Investigation — October 3, 2026, Newnan Officer-Involved Shooting — Preliminary investigative account.
- Coweta Judicial Circuit District Attorney — October 26, 2026, Evidence Update — Firearm recovery location and DNA findings.
