Skip to comments.
Court: High-speed chase suspects can't sue police
CNN Washington Bureau ^
| April 30, 2007
| Bill Mears
Posted on 04/30/2007 10:35:55 AM PDT by Eyes Unclouded
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave police officers significant protection from lawsuits by suspects who lead them on car chases.
The justices ruled 8-1 against Georgia teenager Victor Harris, who was left a quadriplegic after a police vehicle rammed his car off the road in 2001.
A police officer used "reasonable force" when ramming the teen's speeding car, the high court ruled. A videotape of the pursuit played a key role in the decision.
"The car chase that [Harris] initiated in this case posed substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others," Justice Scalia wrote for the majority. "[Deputy Timothy] Scott's attempt to terminate the chase by forcing [Harris] off the road was reasonable."
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that Harris' lawsuit against the deputy could go forward. The justices overturned the lower court ruling, meaning the suit can be dismissed.
Eight of the nine justices said they had closely viewed the videotape of the six-minute nighttime chase. It was taken from the dashboard of Scott's car and from the vehicle of another deputy from a neighboring county.
Similar pursuits have been aired, sometimes live, on many cable and broadcast television stations, and entire programs have been built around such incidents, such as "World's Wildest Police Chases." Tape fascinates justices
The tape seemed to fascinate some of the justices. Scalia referred to the videotape repeatedly in his opinion, calling it a "wrinkle" that clearly swayed the bench.
Scalia wrote, "The videotape tells a different story."
He continued, "Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at greater risk of serious injury."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: abuseofpower; carchases; dangertothepublic; donutwatch; ohkidthesedays; recklessdriving; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-146 next last
To: Ben Mugged
This wont changed anything out west (Phoenix and Los Angeles County). They will still let the suspect go if speeds reach unsafe speed. This will also do nothing to curtail lawsuits by bystanders.
To: xjcsa
What does acceleration speed have to do with speed limits or with your argument? Is accelerating from 0 to 60 in 3.8 seconds illegal? Yes it is. Look under the highway statutes under unlawful show of speed (usually applied to acceleration and associated with screeching tires and smoke). It has to do with the marketing of speed. Please explain to me why car manufacturers advertise their zero to sixty times with such emphasis. Does it have anything to do with safety? (I'll give you a hint, watch any street racer movie).
102
posted on
04/30/2007 12:36:58 PM PDT
by
Ben Mugged
(Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.)
To: Ben Mugged
Do you think you have a right to break speed laws because you don't like them?
That's not what's at question. What's at question is whether you think it should be illegal to own a car that exceeds the speed limit.
103
posted on
04/30/2007 12:38:03 PM PDT
by
JamesP81
(Eph 6:12)
To: Ben Mugged
Please explain to me why car manufacturers advertise their zero to sixty times with such emphasis. Does it have anything to do with safety?It proabably has something to do with performance.
On a side note - are you Ralph Nader, or just an impersonator? ;-)
104
posted on
04/30/2007 12:41:13 PM PDT
by
xjcsa
(xjcsa...source of number one Google result in search for the word "ecotard" [pleased with self])
To: Ben Mugged
Yes it is. Look under the highway statutes under unlawful show of speed (usually applied to acceleration and associated with screeching tires and smoke)
Actually, most sports cars capable of 0-60 in 4 seconds or so can do it without screeching the tires at all. The contact patches are usually wide enough, and most vehicles nowadays have traction control which would prevent any breaking of traction and tire screeching anyway.
105
posted on
04/30/2007 12:42:16 PM PDT
by
JamesP81
(Eph 6:12)
To: JamesP81
That's not what's at question. What's at question is whether you think it should be illegal to own a car that exceeds the speed limit. If the owner intends to obey the law, then explain the purpose of owning a car that can go 185 MPH? I really don't mind someone killing themselves because of speed. I very much mind it if they kill someone else while exercising their "right" to own and drive to excess a vehicle capable of that kind of speed.
I own a 1998 C5 Corvette. I drive it consistently below the speed limit on public highways. I also drive it for sport at Laguna Seca where I often exceed 140 MPH. I get challenged by rice rockets to street races all the time and I refuse to participate. I feel I am a responsible driver and also that I am the exception and not the rule. If I had a teenage driver, and if I allowed that driver access to my Corvette, I would have an electronic speed limiter installed to enforce my belief that when on public highways one should obey public law.
By the way, mine is an evolved opinion with much experience to the contrary.
106
posted on
04/30/2007 12:50:13 PM PDT
by
Ben Mugged
(Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.)
To: Publius Valerius
well, thank goodness we didnt let that guy run from a $75 speeding ticket.You make a strong case. I know, we should make speeding tickets $150 then! /liberal
107
posted on
04/30/2007 12:50:49 PM PDT
by
CGTRWK
To: BurbankKarl
Now the plaintiff can get a special car for the handicapped (paid for by taxpayers) and a special gimp’s plate and rights to reserved gimp parking.
108
posted on
04/30/2007 12:57:21 PM PDT
by
docbnj
To: Little Ray
To: Always Right
Ginsberg isn’t as liberal as Stevens. Sad to show how the most liberal member of the court is a Republican appointee.
110
posted on
04/30/2007 1:03:50 PM PDT
by
zendari
To: Eyes Unclouded
11th circuit judges:
Barkett: Clinton
Birch: Bush Sr.
Cox: Reagan
111
posted on
04/30/2007 1:14:07 PM PDT
by
zendari
To: Ben Mugged
own a 1998 C5 Corvette. I drive it consistently below the speed limit on public highways. Funny I was just thinking about this just today.
I have a 2006 GTO and thought I could get better gas mileage if I drove it like a Ford Escort.
The the right brain kicked in and said if I wanted the mileage of a Ford Escort I would have bought a Ford Escort.
So, honestly, what's the enjoyment of driving a car such as yours like a Ford Escort?
To: hophead
Not in Baltimore. Police can only chase if the suspect was involved in a very violent crime. Even then they have to call supervisors for permissionWe have a version of that where I work and you can make an argument for the first part but checking with a supervisor seems a bit silly to me which isn't the case here. Rather the supervisor should call of the pursuit if it sounds like it's going sideways.
113
posted on
04/30/2007 1:18:50 PM PDT
by
Horatio Gates
(Oleoresin capsicum: WOT Protestor tested. Cop approved.)
To: VeniVidiVici
He doesn’t get as many tickets. Corvettes can get tickets sitting at stoplight. Especially red ones...
114
posted on
04/30/2007 1:19:49 PM PDT
by
Little Ray
(Rudy Guiliani: if his wives can't trust him, why should we?)
To: Publius Valerius
This is just a guess, but I think that if you were struck by a police car who went out of a control in a high-speed chase and wound up in a wheelchairor worseI doubt your first reaction would be, well, thank goodness we didnt let that guy run from a $75 speeding ticket.
And if the guy ran, not from the $75 speeding ticket, but because he had outstanding warrants for robbery, murder, rape, and general misconduct, and didn't want the officer to determine his identity? When he kills or paralyzes someone else during a robbery after leaving the cops sitting lonely beside the road...the victim will surely be thinking, "Thank God that guy didn't hurt someone getting away from the cops last time."
Believe it or not, MOST people actually pull over, suck it up, and accept their speeding ticket. The ones who don't, generally are doing something else that they are very much more worried about than speeding.
115
posted on
04/30/2007 1:27:02 PM PDT
by
NonLinear
(This is something almost unknown within Washington. It's called leadership.)
To: Dr. Zzyzx
Gas skips, bank robberies, etc. are a loss of property, and the killing of innocent bystanders just to catch a guy that stole a tank of gas or $50,000 is not worth it. If everyone applied your sorry reasoning, we'd see a VAST increase in such crimes. Hell, if we are not going to pursue property crimes, why have a government at all?
116
posted on
04/30/2007 1:32:29 PM PDT
by
Sloth
(The GOP is to DemonRats in politics as Michael Jackson is to Jeffrey Dahmer in babysitting.)
To: VeniVidiVici
So, honestly, what's the enjoyment of driving a car such as yours like a Ford Escort? Sometimes I wonder myself. It's too low to the ground and construction zones terrify me. The front air dam has just 5 1/2 inches of ground clearance and I cannot go into parking lots with speed bumps. It is comfortable at cruise speed on the freeway and it gets almost 30 MPG on cruise. With the top off it really looks cool.
But when I go to Laguna Seca with the local club and unloose all those ponies in the straights and pull 1.5 Gs in the corners the thrill is just great. I used to get those thrills on the open highway but it has simply gotten too crowded and too many of the fellow drivers are well-intentioned amateurs. I feel safe at Laguna Seca at 140 MPH with a BMW 530i drafting me and I feel threatened on the 101 freeway at 75 with a Ford Exploder 10 feet off my rear bumper. It's a matter of trust.
117
posted on
04/30/2007 1:34:21 PM PDT
by
Ben Mugged
(Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.)
To: Ben Mugged
lease explain to me why car manufacturers advertise their zero to sixty times with such emphasis. Does it have anything to do with safety?
It has everything to do with safety. There are two-lane highways that include legal passing zones. Of necessity, when utilizing the passing zone, one may encounter oncoming traffic that is sufficiently far away, and with such an approach velocity as to allow a pass to be safely made, within the posted speed limit, but a finite time window is available.
If your car can accelerate from S1 (below the speed limit) to S2 (the speed limit) in a short enough time, you can accomplish the pass safely. If your car cannot, then the pass cannot be safely made.
If your estimation of the oncoming car's velocity of approach is in error, then you MAY even find the need to exceed the speed limit, particularly if the discovery is made at the point of commitment. If an officer of the law detects your excursion above the speed limit, please be prepared to pull over and take your ticket.
118
posted on
04/30/2007 1:58:35 PM PDT
by
NonLinear
(This is something almost unknown within Washington. It's called leadership.)
To: Ben Mugged
If the owner intends to obey the law, then explain the purpose of owning a car that can go 185 MPH?
I feel no need to explain that to anyone. It's legal to own a Corvette (as I probably will pretty soon. Been looking at a 96 C4) and that's good enough for anyone else. My driving record speaks for itself. I've never had a speeding ticket.
I'd like to take it to a track on occasion just to see what it's capable of, but again, whether or not I do that is simply not anyone else's concern.
On a personal note, I'd try to get some of those ricers to go to the track with you. I'm sure they wouldn't, but it would be fun to crush them in a quarter mile drag run.
If I had a teenager and a Corvette, I simply wouldn't let him drive it, unless not until he REALLY demonstrated some maturity to make me think he could be trusted with it.
BTW, my commuter car (a 1997 Nissan Sentra 1.6 liter) is capable of 120 mph. Why would I need a car that could go so fast?
119
posted on
04/30/2007 2:02:44 PM PDT
by
JamesP81
(Eph 6:12)
To: geezerwheezer
I feel the Supremes have finally found some “sense” and are using it in every facet of the law. His name is John Roberts.
120
posted on
04/30/2007 2:10:24 PM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-146 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson