Posted on 02/26/2007 4:40:18 AM PST by Ellesu
A Supreme Court ruling could decide how and when law enforcement can chase suspects: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a case expected to lay down new rules about when and how law-enforcement officers can chase suspects and use their vehicles to stop them. At issue before the court is whether a Georgia police officer went too far when he rammed his vehicle into the car of a driver who refused to pull over for speeding. The car went down an embankment, and the crash left the 19-year-old driver paralyzed from the neck down. Civil liberties advocates and critics of police chases are concerned that a ruling for the officer in the case would give law enforcement the green light to use more aggressive tactics even for minor offenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
If anyone has seen the video of this incident, I'd say police were justified in using whatever force required to stop him including shooting him. He was doing a whole lot more than speeding... I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
I agree with every word you wrote. What in hell is going on when the Supremes need to get involved in a car chase? Must be the influence of the demorats on the court and some ambulance chasing scumbag for a lawyer, and some dumbassed minority driving a cadillac in a dangerous manner. Go figure!
So, are the justices going to take up doing the car chases, so they can ensure the chases are done to their specifications?
[The last thing LEOs need is "back seat directions" from judges.]
I haven't seen a video of this chase and I don't know the details. I have seen videos where any method should have been used to stop the chase. When a driver endangers everyone on the street with his recklessness while trying to evade arrest he should be stopped as soon as possible without regard to damage to him.
Your concern is justified. In the 60's, it was the Miranda Case where suspects had "rights" to remain silent. It is coming down where we the citizens will not be protected by law since the criminals have the right to remain silent and run away at the same time without worry of being apprehended.
Our rights as citizens to protect ourselves will come down to the 2nd Amendment. With the Castle Doctrine being adopted in more states, we the people will have the right to carry concealed weapons. If anyone threatens us, we have the right to defend ourselves, shoot the assailent and run away without being pursued.
I really think the court has overstepped the boundries of the U.S. Constitution.
It is well defined what the feds have jurisdiction over and the rest belongs to the states.
I would gi ve you 2 cents for the Supreme court .
He is at fault for the consequences of his actions, not the police officer that he forced into using such measures to apprehend him.
He obviously committed multiple felonies in his flight from police. Why was he not prosecuted?
Yes, he sustained horrible injuries due to his actions.
He should still be prosecuted.
saving budget, since he ain't going to be driving anymore...?
They haven't ruled yet. The appeals court already decided for the criminal, so there may be two possibilities: they want to set in stone that cops can't do this, or they are thinking about shooting down the pro-criminal ruling. I tend to believe the latter. They could have just denied certiorari if they were leaning towards the criminal.
The arguments will be posted soon here if you want to get an idea of what's going on.
It just opens up the police and the local government up to lawsuits, so it doesn't save money in the long run.
Defending against the civil suit without a verdict that he committed crimes that are more serious than speeding is going to be far more expensive.
If you got a conviction, it would cost even more to incarcerate him - special needs, don't ya know.
Just place him under house arrest.
In addition, what ambitious prosecutor want to prosecute a quadriplegic? He'd look like a monster.
SO instead he lets the media and the guy's civil attorney make the officer look like a monster. The prosecutor should do his job.
Just wait until they decide between orange pop and orange juice.
The headline really ought to be "Court to allow criminals to flee unhampered."
word.
Too bad the 4th amendment makes no mention of excessive force, and the thug here doesn't own the highways.
Once the bad guys all discover that they can run away and the cops will break off the chase, it just encourages them to do it more often.
Only problem with this is supreme court has no say in the matter.
It's a federal civil rights suit. Federal. The Court most certainly does have a say, per the Constitution and federal law.
> It's a federal civil rights suit. Federal. The Court most certainly
> does have a say, per the Constitution and federal law.
There is nothing in the constitution that extends such civil rights overview to the federal govt. States never surrendered such power to the federal govt. 95% of feds civil rights laws are unsupported by any liberal reading of the 14th amendment. Federal laws most be in pursuance to the constitution, not in pursuance to 5 liberal justices.
Try section 5 of the 14th Amdendment: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
>>
Savrin added: "Scott personally observed Harris driving recklessly and dangerously at extremely high speeds, through red lights and on the wrong side of the road.<<
And why wast that? Maybe because he was being chased? Hmmmmmmm?!!! (as rush would say)
I've outran the cops twice in my life. My motto is this: lose 'em in the first ten seconds or pull over.
Regardless, this will be a moot point in a decade. The police will simply remotely shut down your ignition system. It will probably actually be less than ten years, but in ten years most cars on the road will be susceptible.
There was a liberal senator in 1871 by the name of John Sherman who tried to pass legislation that would effect local police matters...it was voted down by 90% of the House who had adopted the 14th...saying under NO pretense does the federal govt. have any jurisdiction what-so-ever over local police matters. Read about the effect of Binghams House report in 1871 on the interpretation of the 14th amendment here.
Why don't they just get the tag number? Or follow from a distance, or helicoptor. No reason to risk the suspects life, not to mention the cops and possible innocent bystandanders. Afterall, this was just a speeding violation.
Thanks for your thoughts and the link.
I'd stop him. I mean, he's the fellow that's causing the danger, endangerment, isn't he?Unfortunately, we have Ginsburg:
If Scott had stopped pursuing Harris at that point, maybe Harris would not -- maybe he would have slowed down.However, Ginsburg may be playing devil's advocate, since she pretty harsh to the criminal's side, too. In general, they weren't too nice to the criminal's side:
MR. JONES: Well, those are not the facts before the Court, Mr. Chief Justice. The facts are that he was driving fast but he was under control. He only crossed the center line to pass and when he passed, he used his turn signal when he passed.Gotta love those lines! Looks like the tape was very convincing:JUSTICE KENNEDY: He used the turning signal. That's like the strangler who observes the no smoking sign.
...
JUSTICE SCALIA: He created the scariest chase I ever saw since "The French Connection."
JUSTICE BREYER: All right. If Scott didn't know it, I mean, my goodness, then I don't see the relevance of whether it was speeding or not. And I was with you when I read the -- the opinion of the court below. And I read the other brief. I was on the other side. Then I've been shifting back and forth. Then I look at that tape, and I have to say that when I looked at the tape, my reaction was somewhat similar to Justice Alito's.Looks Breyer's on the cop's side with Alito.
And let's end with an encouraging quote from Scalia:
And it doesn't seem to me that we have to adopt a rule that will, that will discourage police officers. There's, there's enough disincentive to engage in this kind of activity in the fact that the police officer may hurt himself.In reading this, it appears the issue is whether the cop can get a summary judgment that his actions were justifed, or whether it should go to a jury. It seems the justices are thinking he was obviously justified as a matter of law, so no jury, it gets killed by summary judgment.
Post it to FR if you think it is whorty.
A very good point. I'm not sure how the chase got started. If he was speeding and got scared when the cops chased him, its one thing. But if he was reckless before the cops started its quite another. IMO its not the chase itself that was wrong, but wrecking the car. They could have simply taken his tag number and backed off. It would be another thing if it was a bank robbery or murder.
I thought traffic offenses fell to the individual states for jurisdiction, not the feds. The supreme court needs to concentrate on their own business and not the business of the states.
That was another point of the questioning. I didn't concentrate on that, but read the transcript and see if you can figure out what way the justices are leaning. I saw a few comments that said it didn't matter because the important thing is the criminal endangering the public during the chase itself.
IMO its not the chase itself that was wrong, but wrecking the car. They could have simply taken his tag number and backed off.
They brought that up. Doesn't help much if the car's stolen.
Better that the crock gets away with a stolen car, than that he t bones a school buss. Which is what happened a few years ago. Safety is more important than enforcing the law.
That is very much correct.
Which is why they're saying the cop was justified in running him off the road, thus ending the chase. BTW, what ever happened to the upcoming portable EMP devices I heard about that were supposed to be able to disable a modern car?
If the cops want to end the chase, all they need to do is take their foot off the gas pedal and put it on the brake pedal.
That is very much correct. The 14th admendmant gives the Federal court the authority. We as a nation at that time decided we wanted to have a stronger nation with a very strong federal government. Not a super confederacy of individual states. But some people prefer to live in the dark ages.
You sure you are citing the right Amendement for your argumetn?
That's true, but the answer to that question will impact pursuit guidelines. If the police can be sued for such actions, then they are very likely going to adopt policies that don't allow them to be sued.
Second, as a policy matter, I'm not really sure that it's a great idea to be endorsing high-speed chases for such low-level charges. High speed chases often end in tragedy, many times for innocent bystanders.
I understand that many of you will say that that disallowing high speed police chases simply encourages criminals to flee, but in the age of computer databases of license plates and helicopters that can follow people from the air, it seems to me that the risk often doesn't outweigh the reward.
I just know that I would be pretty upset if I, or a member of my family--was struck and seriously injured by a policeman who was chasing after someone who drove 73 in a 55.
Yes. It says we should all have equal protection and gives the federal government the power to ensure such. That gives the Federal Government the power to protect you from a dog catcher who won't catch dogs, or from getting injured by police who drive you off the road for speeding.
Then criminals will know that all they have to do to get away is drive fast.
Nonsense, the criminal must be stopped and caught before he can be tried in a court.
You are talking Anarchy.
Why hAVE COPS AT ALL???
This should be a federal case only if you buy into SCOTUS' "incorporation doctrine" which is not very convincing IMO. This is really a state issue not a federal issue. It is yet another example of expanding federal power
Looks like some jurisdictions may have to get out the Sheriff's posse again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.