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 ...
Justice Scalia rocks. Nobody has his direct approach to the law. He writes opinions for the public and not just lawyers. I especially love this tidbit from his opinion:
But wait, says respondent: Couldn’t the innocent public equally have been protected, and the tragic accident entirely avoided, if the police had simply ceased their pursuit? We think the police need not have taken that chance and hoped for the best. Whereas Scott’s action—ramming respondent off the road—was certain to eliminate the risk that respondent posed to the public, ceasing pursuit was not. First of all, there would have been no way to convey convincingly to respondent that the chase was off, and that he was free to go. Had respondent looked in his rearview mirror and seen the police cars deactivate their flashing lights and turn around, he would have had no idea whether they were truly letting him get away, or simply devising a new strategy for capture. Perhaps the police knew a shortcut he didn’t know, and would reappear down the road to intercept him; or perhaps they were setting up a roadblock in his path. Given such uncertainty, respondent might have been just as likely to respond by continuing to drive recklessly as by slowing down and wiping his brow.
Second, we are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger. It is obvious the perverse incentives such a rule would create: Every fleeing motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times,and runs a few red lights. The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injuryor death.
The Italian Stallion Rocks!
If you have to ask the question, you won't understand the answer.
I would avoid the C4 corvette and move on to a good C5. You will be happier with the performance. Avoid the 1997 (first year C5) because of fuel pump problems.
I've owned at different times a 1957, 1963, another 1963, and a 1998. My second 1963 was a stroker 383 with 600+ HP.
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.
There is a oxymoron somewhere in there. Wrapped up in the terms teenager, Corvette and responsible.
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?
I agree.
Police have to apply a balancing test. There have definitely been cases of cops who were too zealous to engage in a high-speed chase over a relatively minor offense, but at the other extreme, if they had a firm policy of never engaging in a pursuit, a lot of folks will simply choose not to pull over. You'd never catch a car thief again.
In California, which has the most experience with these chases, the police usually hang back several car lengths, enough to keep the fleeing car in sight but not enough to pressure him to drive faster, They then radio ahead, try to close off on-ramps and get innocents out of the way, and try methods like spike strips before resorting to ramming. it also helps to have a helicopter to aid in the pursuit. The most famous example is the OJ chase, but they've refined the techniques since then, and not everyone is as calm as AC was.
In this case, the driver was recklessly endangering dozens of other motorists, and the officer asked his supervisor for permission to end the pursuit. Sounds like the department had procedures in place. Those procedures in any department are in flux, adjusting to different traffic and changes in driver behavior, not to mention new technology.
The elusive Holy Grail would be a way for police to disable a vehicle harmlessly -- something like a low-intensity EMP that would simply cause the engine to conk out. That won't be ready for a while.
Something that I would think would be feasible with existing technology would be a system that could attach a tracking device to a fleeing vehicle -- we have systems that can direct fire from a moving tank to a target a mile away with pinpoint precision, so I'm sure it's possible to build a system that would fire a harpoon with a radio beacon from a patrol car into the trunk lid of a car a hundred yards ahead. Basically an after-the-fact lo-jack. Making it cost-effective, that's another question.
Where the police have a huge advantage over a runner is that they're spread out all over the place, and they are equipped and trained to coordinate their efforts -- an old cop saying goes, you might outrun a Ford, but you can't outrun a Motorola.
My C5 Corvette is capable of speeds exceeding 185MPH but is limited by the manufacturer to 165. Supposedly that is because the commercially available tires are not certified above that speed. Chevrolet limits the speed. They do it by reducing the fuel as the cars computer senses you are approaching the maximum speed allowed. The manufacturer could just as easily set the maximum speed to 100 MPH. Why don't they? The current determinate is the liability realized by the tire vendor. If the car is driven at 185 and the tires fail and the driver dies, the tire manufacturer gets sued. If the driver loses control at 165 and everyone says "stupid guy" and go on with life. I have had numerous discussions why the tire vendor can be at fault and not the car manufacturer. Ford was successfully sued because the Ford Explorer had a tendency to roll over when a tire goes flat at speeds above 75 MPH. The driver breaks the law, kills himself and maybe his family, and Ford gets sued? The car was not designed to be driven above the speed limit. Why then is the car not limited to a safe speed?
I, too, have sympathy. I'm sorry that he's crippled for life because of something stupid he did when he was young. Same as I would be if he ended up paralyzed because he jumped off a bridge into shallow water, or tried jumping off a 30-foot wall on a skateboard. The fact that I feel sorry for the kid doesn't mean that someone else should pay.
(Note: I think we're on the same page; I'm not posting to disagree with you.)
No, the Supreme Court found that the "victim" did not have a legitimate cause of action to sue the police for injuries that resulted from his own criminal actions. This case did not involve injuries or property losses to a bystander.
The current SCOTUS is inclined to rule narrowly, though the reporting hasn't yet adapted to reflect that. For example, SCOTUS did not ban partial-birth abortion -- it merely ruled that it was not beyond the constitutional powers of Congress and the president to do so. Whether it's good policy is beyond their scope, as it should be. We elect people for that.
I sort of agree. It is well established that the type of maneuver the cop used constitutes deadly force. Also established is a set of circumstances during which deadly force can be used.
I think in general, police shouldn't run a car off the road in any situation where they couldn't shoot. After watching the video from this case, I'd say the guy was reckless enough that he was causing a significant danger to other drivers and the officer did the right thing.
Arguing that the police 'forced' the chase on him is a bit specious - you can run from the police without speeding and running lights.
In all cases, I think a helicopter is the best option if it's available.
Perhaps, unless it was their car and they let him drive it knowing he had a suspended license. There aren't any 19 year-olds I know that drive caddy-racs...
And there are plenty of times when a fast 0-60 time is a safety feature. There are some really bad highway merges in this country, and the faster I can get from ramp speed (or even in some bad merges, a dead stop), so I can merge without cutting right in front of or right behind another driver, the safer everyone is.
It also helps in passing in a short passing zone, or clearing a wide intersection. It it takes me two seconds instead of five to make a left turn across three lanes, that's less time for an oblivious on a call phone to pull out and hit me.
I drive pretty fast, but not recklessly or carelessly, and I don't cut off other drivers or tailgate. If I have a car with a little jump, one that can open up a safe distance before I make a lane change, that's safer than trying to squeeze into a narrow opening. Keeping in mind, of course, that defensive driving means trying to maintain safe following distance when you're surrounded by other drivers who are drunk, stupid or both.
In more than twenty years of driving, I've had four serious accidents (no serious injuries, but enough property damage to call the cops), of which I was charged in two, and two speeding tickets. One was in Parker, Florida, and the other was two miles north of the NC-Virginia line on 95. I'm not saying speed trap, but ... yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Careful... You are starting to use the same line of reasoning the gun-grabbers use when they want to take my AR-15 away. Why allow ownership of a semi-automatic baby-killing assualt rifle with 30-round magazines when nobody really needs one.
Of course, I do understand that one is protected by The Constitution while the other is not. But in the end it comes down to freedom. Prior restraint is generally a no-no in a free country. Punish speeding but don't outlaw cars capable of speeding. There are lots of dual-use items that could be outlawed if we start down that slippery slope.
What's even more interesting is how much opposition there was to Stevens' appointment by Ford because he was viewed as too conservative in the Brennan/Blackmun/Warren era. The pendulum, she do swing.
Minor semantic niggle -- police shouldn't run a car off the road in any situation where they *wouldn't* shoot. Firing a gun while maintaining control of a car and being able to actually hit a moving target at that speed is Hollywood stuff. Hitting a car with a car is easier because you're not dividing your attention.
But your basic point is valid -- trying to ram or spin out a fleeing vehicle is potentially deadly force, same as use of a firearm. And the same calculus applies -- is it necessary? Is it justified? Does it decrease the risk to innocent bystanders? Does it increase the risk to bystanders?
Yeah, when I said "couldn't" I meant "couldn't because the law wouldn't allow it".
A car is a very public item while a gun is not. You wouldn't permit an 18 year old to set up a gun range on a busy street but we do allow him to get behind the wheel of a 500 HP 3000 pound car on that same street.
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.