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 ...
At one point, Harris is shown pulling into a shopping center parking lot, with Scott, a Coweta County deputy, and two colleagues trying to block him. Harris then hits Scott's vehicle while fleeing. The officer radioes his supervisor, requesting permission to use potentially deadly force to stop Harris.
"Let me have him, my car's already tore up," Scott says on the tape.
How about suing the suspect of the car chase that work for me I wonder was victim was on CELL PHONE HELLO
How about suing the suspect of the car chase that work for me I wonder was victim was on CELL PHONE HELLO
Lol!
ping
Had he simply pulled over, he'd have gotten a ticket and would be walking around today, free as a bird............
“Your honor, if they weren’t chasing me, I wouldn’t have had to run!”
While not a shock, I was expecting Ginsburg.
He probably doesn't have any money, but how about suing his law firm for tying up valuable judicial resources with this case in the first place. The state should seek to recover its legal fees spent defending the officer and the police department from this litigation lottery attempt by a felonious criminal and his ambulance-chasing attorney.
“How about suing the suspect of the car chase that work for me I wonder was victim was on CELL PHONE HELLO”
Excuse me?
Translation here please.
It must be sad to go through life with less sense than Justice Ginsburg.
The little gimp will now sue the manufacturers of the car he and the officer were driving.
I was surprised there was only one lib dissenter. Maybe Ruth was asleep again.
Pursuit? Whats that? Are we still allowed to do those? /sarc
Unless a officer knows that a guy just shot someone and now is running, I don’t think that a high-speed chase is worth the danger it poses to the community. 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. My friends’ teenage daughters were run into the freeway barrow pit while an officer chased down a gas skip. If there are good reasons that I’m not seeing, I’d appreciate some illumination.
Might not be a bad idea. Why is a car manufacturer allowed to produce a car that can exceed the maximum legal speed? In Georgia the maximum legal speed is 75 MPH and yet some new vehicles are capable of speeds exceeding 185 MPH.
I feel the Supremes have finally found some “sense” and are using it in every facet of the law. For them to write the comments chastizing the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (really taking them to the cleaners) tells me they are demanding the Appeals judges need to wake up and smell the coffee. I don’t know which of the appeals judges found for the loser, and I can only guess who might have appointed them. I’d be interested in knowing.
I read it 4 times and still don’t get it.
In addition to becoming a quadriplegic he should have also got 10 years of hard labor. That would teach the little punk to run from the cops.
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.