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 ...
“Pursuit? Whats that? Are we still allowed to do those?”
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.
Common sense prevails.
So who was the goober holdout in this 8-1 vote who thought that the police should have been more polite to this idiot behind the wheel?
Oh Lord! Forget I said anything.
Um, because the speed limits can change and are different in different states? And because people don’t necessarily operate their vehicles on public roads? Or because in case of emergency, you MIGHT need to go a lot faster in order to save a life?
Anyone who would engage in a high-speed chase is a danger to the community.
* * *
What is the point of having a law on the books if you’re not going to enforce it? Doesn’t matter if its a gas skip or a carjacking. The police need to be able to chase perps down.
Sad, but I see your point...
My view is that one who would take off and initiate a dangerous high speed chase is a scofflaw worthy of being caught......and likely guilty of more that simply evading arrest over a minor infraction.....
I wouldn’t have to think too long to give the LEO authorization to shoot the bastards immediately upon capture, if the chase resulted in ANYONE even being INJURED as a result of the chase....
In my realm — as King, it would go without saying that drunken drivers, escaping felons, drug mules, etc, etc....would be shot IMMEDIATELY upon capture..
Don’t Pass Go, Don’t collect $200 -— all they get is lead in the head...
I have sympathy for the kid.
So from time to time, I'll read an article in my local newspaper about a policeman who loses control of his patrol car during a high speed chase and hits a bystander or runs into a piece of property or whatnot.
What would you say to those people that are injured as a result of the police chase? I think the real question here was whether, as a policy matter, we want to encourage police chases for low-level offenses. Clearly, the Supreme Court found that we want to encourage police chases, but I'm not sure it is the best policy, especially given the technology that is available today.
On the one hand, I tend to agree with you. Speeding tickets, minor property crimes, etc, hardly seem worth putting the lives of everyone on the road at risk to capture them. Myself and a couple friends were very luck a couple of years back when, stopped at a traffic light on a highway, a car running from the police, and then the police close behind, blew by us doing about 100 mph, on the other side of the island at the intersection. Could have very easily taken us out.
OTOH, if it is known that the police will not pursue in all but the most serious cases, I can see the number of runners increasing greatly. And we do want speeders, drunks, etc, to pull over when they see the flashing lights behind them, right?
I’ve seen quite a few of those police chase shows (World’s Wildest Police Chases, etc), and some of the pursuits the cops engage in, which started as nothing more than a simple traffic stop, are quite frightening. I remember one where the cops are so intent on stopping a guy that they do the “P.I.T.” manouever on him on a two-lane highway with heavy oncoming traffic. It was only sheer luck (OK, probably some skill and planning, too) that they didn’t send him spinning in the path of an oncoming car.
And exactly what kind of labor would he be doing? ;-)
You can blow your whistle really, really loud and shout “Halt!”
I’d tell ‘em to sue the perp and his family for all they worth, right down to their organs and the fillings in their teeth.
I have mixed feelings about this decision, and you raise some good points.
I think that the police’s response has to be proportional to the threat, and running someone off the road for a suspended driver’s license seems extreme. I guess the reason for the suspension could be a factor. I am also concerned about other innocent drivers on the roadway that would be harmed as a result of a driver fleeing from police.
Difficult decisions - maybe it is better to have a jury of your peers decide if the police’s decision to chase was reasonable or disproportionate to the threat.
Rationalizations. If you are really willing to discuss the subject, give some better reasons. Do you really think the primary reason for having a car that can accelerate from 0 to 60 in 3.8 seconds is just in case you have to rush to the hospital?
Yes, I'm sure those folks who are running from the police have plenty of insurance and money coming out their ears.
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.