Court: High-speed chase suspects can't sue police

CNN Washington Bureau ^ | April 30, 2007 | Bill Mears

[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."

[BurbankKarl]

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.

[Ben Mugged]

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).

[JamesP81]

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.

[xjcsa]

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? ;-)

[JamesP81]

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.

[Ben Mugged]

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.

[CGTRWK]

“well, thank goodness we didn’t let that guy run from a $75 speeding ticket.”

You make a strong case. I know, we should make speeding tickets $150 then! /liberal

[docbnj]

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.

[scratcher]

LOL

[zendari]

Ginsberg isn’t as liberal as Stevens. Sad to show how the most liberal member of the court is a Republican appointee.

[zendari]

11th circuit judges:

Barkett: Clinton
Birch: Bush Sr.
Cox: Reagan

[VeniVidiVici]

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?

[Horatio Gates]

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 permission

We 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.

[Little Ray]

He doesn’t get as many tickets. Corvettes can get tickets sitting at stoplight. Especially red ones...

[NonLinear]

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 wheelchair—or worse—I doubt your first reaction would be, “well, thank goodness we didn’t 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.

[Sloth]

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?

[Ben Mugged]

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.

[NonLinear]

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.

[JamesP81]

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?

[Moonman62]

I feel the Supremes have finally found some “sense” and are using it in every facet of the law.

His name is John Roberts.