Following American independence, most States adopted the British common law 'fleeing felon' rule by statute or court decision. This rule permits police officers to use deadly force against any person charged with a felony who resists arrest either by assault on the officer or through flight from the officer. Dramatic technological and organizational changes in American law enforcement, however, have brought pressures to modify the 'fleeing felon' rule to apply only to 'dangerous' felony suspects. The modification has come in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), which held that killing a fleeing suspect is a fourth amendment 'seizure,' subject to the requirement that it be 'reasonable.' The Court further reasoned that, 'A State statute or rule that makes no distinction based on the type of offense or the risk of danger to the community is inherently suspect because it permits an unnecessarily severe and excessive police response that is out of proportion to the danger to the community.' The dissent, on the other hand, reasoned that the use of deadly force as a last resort to apprehend any fleeing criminal suspect is not unreasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendement. Part 2 of this article will examine the burgeoning area of fourth amendment doctrine to give practical effect to the standard mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court. 34 footnotes.