High court: police can use violent means to end high-speed chases
The Supreme Court's 8-to-1 decision involved a Georgia teenager, who sued a police deputy who rammed the teen's speeding car, causing serious physical damage.
from the May 1, 2007 edition
Page 3 of 3
The police pursuit of Harris began at 10:42 p.m. when a deputy sheriff clocked Harris's Cadillac as traveling 73 miles per hour in a 55 m.p.h. zone. The officer flashed his blue emergency lights, but Harris just kept going.
The deputy took chase and was soon joined in the pursuit by Deputy Scott. Harris drove his Cadillac at speeds reaching at least 90 m.p.h. on a windy, two-lane country road. He passed other cars, ignoring the double yellow, no-passing lines in the road, and he ran two red lights. At one point police tried to block Harris in a shopping center parking lot, but after colliding with one of the police cars, Harris was able to return to the highway and again reach speeds of 90 m.p.h. or more.
Although he was not the initial officer in the chase, Deputy Scott requested permission from his supervisor to attempt a maneuver in which he would tap Harris's Cadillac from behind and cause the car to fishtail and come to a halt. The tactic is called a "precision intervention technique." Scott was given approval. But Harris was going too fast to permit the tactic.
Instead, Scott rammed the Cadillac. Harris lost control of his car, it swerved off the highway, and rolled down an embankment. Harris, who was not wearing his seat belt, was paralyzed by injuries suffered during the crash.
Harris filed suit against Scott, charging that he violated the motorist's rights under the Fourth Amendment when he rammed the Cadillac and caused the wreck.
Specifically at issue in the case was whether Scott acted reasonably when he rammed the Cadillac to end the chase.
The answer to that question requires some balancing, the high court said.
"It is clear from the videotape that respondent posed an actual and imminent threat to the lives of any pedestrians who might have been present, to other civilian motorists, and to the officers involved in the chase," writes Scalia.
"It is equally clear that Scott's actions posed a high likelihood of serious injury or death to [Harris]," Scalia adds.
The court considered both the number of lives placed at risk and the relative culpability of those involved in the chase.
"It was [Harris], after all, who intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in the reckless, high-speed flight that ultimately produced the choice between two evils that Scott confronted."
"Multiple police cars, with blue lights flashing and sirens blaring, had been chasing [Harris] for nearly 10 miles, but he ignored their warning to stop," Scalia writes. "By contrast, those who might have been harmed had Scott not taken the action he did were entirely innocent."
The justice added: "We have little difficulty in concluding it was reasonable for Scott to take the action that he did."
| For further information: | |
| • | Video of the car chase US Supreme Court website |
| Please Note: The Monitor does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window. | |
RSS feed
