Editorial: Suspects, be warned -- Courts: Flee cops, risk getting rammed

Sacramento Bee ^ | 5/4/7 | Editor

[SmithL]

Police officers and local and state governments that indemnify them are rightly applauding a common-sense opinion handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court this week. It grants police qualified immunity when they ram suspects in an effort to end high-speed chases.

The case before the court involved a deputy sheriff in Georgia who rammed a car being driven by a fleeing suspect, sending the car over an embankment, where it flipped over. The fleeing teenage driver, who was not wearing a seatbelt, was left a paraplegic. He sued claiming that the officer had used unreasonable force in violation of his 4th Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The officer asked that the case be thrown out. As a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duty, he claimed qualified immunity.

The lower courts ruled that the teenager deserved to have his case heard before a jury. After the high court justices viewed the video of the high-speed chase themselves, a highly unusual act, eight of the nine justices reversed that ruling.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia relied heavily on the evidence of the police video of the chase.

"Far from being the cautious controlled driver the lower court depicts," Scalia wrote, "what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-type car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent by-standers alike at great risk of serious injury."

In a first-of-its-kind filing, the court attached the videotape of the chase to its written opinion. Members of the public now have the ability to see for themselves what the officer saw and what the court evaluated. (To read the opinion and watch the video go to www.sacbee.com/links)

Scalia rightly blamed the driver for placing "himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in the reckless, high-speed flight...

[Hegemony Cricket]

Wow! Now, let’s extend this logic to those who break into houses, rob convenience stores, etc. IOW, if you intentionally put yourself in a dangerous and illegal situation, don’t be surprised at any ill that may befall you...

[Dilbert San Diego]

I was surprised to see Ruth Bader Ginsburg go with the majority on this one. Only John Paul Stevens dissented in this 8-1 opinion.

And yes, legal precedent could apply this reasoning to other cases too. Dems. are all in favor of precedent being engraved in stone, at least on abortion related cases.

[Dick Vomer]

What crime is being committed when I try to kill someone with a vehicle. If I didn't intend to kill them, but say, injured or threatened to injure someone with an automobile.

My point is that in order to stop these assh#les from doing 30 - 60 minute joy rides driving away from police, that the person fleeing with an auto be charged with (insert charge, attempted murder/assault/manslaughter, whatever) for every car or person they pass on the road.

With video tape it should be easy to calculate.

Then have a minimum mandatory of say 1-2 years for every conviction that must be served consecutively, not concurrently.

So if you pass 10 cars and 20 people on the sidewalk, you get a nice little 30-60 years put on to your auto theft sentence..MANDATORY. In one year you'd stop all the auto chases except for those that have just entered the country and can't speak the language and flee or idiots that need to be removed from the gene pool anyway.

[ASOC]

THe city where my sis is an officer does not allow high speed pursuit, expect in rare cases. The shift super normally has to give verbal approval.

That said, they get nearly all the folks they wanted.

Here in Anchorage, the cops tend to run at very high speed going to a call - several have been injured in accidents.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think I agree with their decision, but if they reveiwed the tape to determine whether the act was justified, wasn’t that making a decision of fact, not of law, and isn’t that what should have been presented to the Jury to decide?

I’m confused then — didn’t the Supreme Court just act like a Jury, examining evidence and then deciding that, based on that evidence, the police officer was justified? Isn’t that what a jury would have done in a court case, if they had allowed it to go to court?

I thought the Supreme Court intervened when it was a matter of law, not fact — for example, if they decided that the mere act of not stopping for police meant it was OK for police to hit your car.

[pogo101]

Questions of fact ordinarily are for juries, yes. But this was a question of law, namely whether a reasonable officer in defedants’ position (i.e., seeing the plaintiff driving like a maniac for half an hour at 85 mph, etc.)reasonably could have believed that the use of force was legal.

The trial court and 11th Circuit ruled that it wasn’t clear that a reasonable officer could so believe. SCOTUS viewed the tape and disagreed.

Obviously law and fact questions can intermingle, and this was just such a case.

[AFPhys]

AWESOME ruling!

I agree with the USSC completely about this... I’m shocked that I find myself agreeing with Ginzberg on anything.

This could really help LE in many cases in the long run.

[sportutegrl]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb

maybe they just wanted to watch an episode of world’s wildest police videos.

[NucSubs]

Here in NJ it’s a cop-fun free for all. Cops are killing people left and right in vehicle accidents. They are NOT chasing Bin Laden either.

[sig226]

That’s interesting. I remember New Jersey was one of the first to put a lid on it after a couple of spectacular, and disastrous, chases on the southern end of Route 17. I guess they abandoned the policy.

Maybe Corzine was in high speed pursuit? :)