In the case of Ashcroft, Attorney General of Missouri v. Mattis (1976), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. The court held that under certain circumstances, it was constitutionally permissible for police to shoot and kill a fleeing suspect who posed no immediate threat to them or others. This decision came in response to an appeal from Missouri's attorney general John Ashcroft against a lower court ruling which had found such actions unconstitutional unless there was probable cause to believe that the suspect posed significant physical danger. However, this judgment was later overruled by Tennessee v Garner in 1985 where it was decided that using deadly force against unarmed and non-dangerous fleeing suspects violated their Fourth Amendment rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Ashcroft v. Mattis, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Missouri's use of deadly force statute in cases where a fleeing felon is pursued by law enforcement. He argued that this ruling contradicted previous court decisions which emphasized proportionality in the use of force and violated constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for police officers to act as both judge and executioner when dealing with suspected felons who pose no immediate threat to others' safety or their own capture. This approach could potentially lead to unnecessary loss of life due to misjudgments or mistakes made during high-pressure situations. Instead, he advocated for limiting the use of lethal force only under circumstances where there is an imminent danger posed by a suspect.