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, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 next last
To: glorgau
And exactly what kind of labor would he be doing? I don't know. Maybe running some kind of machinery 8 hours a day using pedals ?
To: glorgau
Testing pain killers, allegy medicines, and anti-venoms for insect and snake bites.
“Oops. That one doesn’t work too well, does it?”
42
posted on
04/30/2007 11:17:58 AM PDT
by
Little Ray
(Rudy Guiliani: if his wives can't trust him, why should we?)
To: HarmlessLovableFuzzball
OK, that was in bad taste. The point is I can’t feel sorry for this guy. He is 100% responsible for what happened to him.
To: LibertarianSJ
"Taxpayers should sue the teen for damages to the police car! He should not get his driving permit back until the bill is paid."
" Umm... yeah. The kid's a quadriplegic. I don't think he'll be driving at all anymore."
Since he's a quad and a criminal, what do you think the chances are that he has medical insurance? Naw, the taxpayers will be on the hook paying for his medical care via Medicaid until he gets an infected sacral decubitus and bites the dust.
44
posted on
04/30/2007 11:19:17 AM PDT
by
macmedic892
(I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.)
To: Publius Valerius
Maybe, maybe not. But they can take steps to make sure they NEVER do...
45
posted on
04/30/2007 11:19:25 AM PDT
by
Little Ray
(Rudy Guiliani: if his wives can't trust him, why should we?)
To: Publius Valerius
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.
There is much to what you say here, and I agree that it's not appropriate to chase someone at 100 mph in order to write him a speeding ticket.
46
posted on
04/30/2007 11:19:46 AM PDT
by
JamesP81
(Eph 6:12)
To: Dr. Zzyzx
Well, Dr. Zzyzx—After you have “Been there”, come back and tell me what is “Reasonable”.
You see, the General Public gives “Situational Approval”. If it is someone who has harmed them, they want a forceful pursuit. If they might get hit in their car, they dont want you to chase anyone.
Damned if you do—Damned if you do not.
47
posted on
04/30/2007 11:19:59 AM PDT
by
radar101
(Dream Team--Hunter&Thompson)
To: Al Gator
Translation here please.Sevenofnine speaks her own language; I doubt a translator's available.
48
posted on
04/30/2007 11:21:52 AM PDT
by
xjcsa
(xjcsa...source of number one Google result in search for the word "ecotard" [pleased with self])
To: Little Ray
Id tell em to sue the perp and his family for all they worth, right down to their organs and the fillings in their teeth.
No. Punish the actor of the crime, not his family. This one of the stupidest ideas I've come across all year.
49
posted on
04/30/2007 11:21:59 AM PDT
by
JamesP81
(Eph 6:12)
To: Little Ray
Maybe, maybe not. But they can take steps to make sure they NEVER do... Ok, so what--let's say you've got a $10 million judgment against the guy that was running from police. Unless he can pay--which, chances are, he can't--you've got a worthless piece of paper.
Again, my question is, then, what do you tell to the innocent person who is injured or had his property destroyed by the police chase policy? Somehow, I don't think having a piece of paper will be comforting to them.
To: Al Gator; K4Harty
Y’all were wondering about that poster’s comment —
“How about suing the suspect of the car chase that work for me I wonder was victim was on CELL PHONE HELLO”
—
Well, let me give it a try, with some appropriate punctuation and a word or two added....
How about suing the suspect of the car chase? That works for me. I wonder..., was the “victim” was on his CELL PHONE? HELLO??!!
It appears that some people do a “brain dump” without punction, along with a few missing and misplaced words....
Does that work? LOL
To: Ben Mugged
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?
Are you advocating we outlaw all cars that can exceed the speed limit?
And FYI, I'm planning on buying such a car (the one I'm looking at only does 0 to 60 in 5.2, but that's enough to suit me). Should I go to jail?
52
posted on
04/30/2007 11:24:00 AM PDT
by
JamesP81
(Eph 6:12)
To: xjcsa
I gave it a shot at post #51... :-)
To: hophead
My in-law is a state trooper and he sometimes brings over his tapes of chases and “incidents”. It’s like a popcorn and movie night. fun stuff.
To: glorgau
In addition to becoming a quadriplegic he should have also got 10 years of hard labor.
And exactly what kind of labor would he be doing? ;-)
Turn his power chair into a steam roller and have him out paving highways? (Make sure to install a speed governor on his HoverRound so he can't get away.)
55
posted on
04/30/2007 11:25:28 AM PDT
by
macmedic892
(I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.)
To: Publius Valerius
Clearly, the Supreme Court found that we want to encourage police chases...I'm not sure that's true; it seems to me that they found that it's the police department's decision whether to encourage them or not.
56
posted on
04/30/2007 11:26:27 AM PDT
by
xjcsa
(xjcsa...source of number one Google result in search for the word "ecotard" [pleased with self])
To: Ben Mugged
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?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?
57
posted on
04/30/2007 11:29:02 AM PDT
by
xjcsa
(xjcsa...source of number one Google result in search for the word "ecotard" [pleased with self])
To: xjcsa
Fair enough—I suppose the better articulation is that it found that it did not want to discourage them.
To: HarmlessLovableFuzzball
I don't know. Maybe running some kind of machinery 8 hours a day using pedals?How does a quadriplegic operate pedals?
59
posted on
04/30/2007 11:29:58 AM PDT
by
xjcsa
(xjcsa...source of number one Google result in search for the word "ecotard" [pleased with self])
To: Publius Valerius
Just wait until Sheryl Crow has her way and then that piece of paper will come in quite handy.
60
posted on
04/30/2007 11:30:33 AM PDT
by
rednesss
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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