April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Police officers can end a high- speed chase that threatens innocent bystanders by forcing a fleeing suspect's car to crash, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. The justices, voting 8-1, said a Georgia police officer didn't violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment by bumping a car that was traveling as fast as 90 miles an hour on a two-lane highway. The car's driver, Victor Harris, crashed and was rendered a quadriplegic. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said Harris had put officers and bystanders at ``great risk of serious injury.'' He called the pursuit ``a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort.'' Police began pursuing Harris, then 19, after clocking him driving 73 miles per hour in a 55-mile-per hour zone in March 2001. A videotape shows that police pursued Harris for six minutes. During that time he averaged more than 80 miles an hour, crossed the double yellow line to pass other cars and may have run two red lights. The court took the unprecedented step of posting the videotape on its Web site along with the opinion. Justice John Paul Stevens was the lone dissenter. He said his colleagues were ``unduly frightened'' by images on the videotape that looked like explosions or lightning but actually were the headlights of passing vehicles. Generation Gap? Stevens, the court's oldest justice at age 87, said the other justices might have reacted differently ``had they learned to drive when most high-speed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhighways.'' The Supreme Court in 1985 said police can't use deadly force on a fleeing suspect who doesn't pose a threat of serious physical harm. In that case, the court ruled against an officer who shot and killed a boy running away after stealing a purse. Harris sought to win damages from Timothy Scott, the Coweta County deputy who bumped the fleeing car and caused the crash. Harris's lawyer told the justices during argument that police should have either continued the chase or simply let the man escape. Scalia today said the court was ``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.'' Two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, added concurring opinions saying they didn't understand the court to be giving police unbridled discretion to force a fleeing car to crash. Breyer pointed to the ``highly fact-dependent nature of this constitutional determination.'' The Bush administration backed the police officer in the case. A federal appeals court in Atlanta said the suit could go forward. The case is Scott v. Harris, 05-1631. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atNaW3U67q5o&refer=us Interesting, happened in Georgia too.
Very interesting, especially in these times when many departments are making their chase policies so restrictive...... it's sad what happened to the defendant, but not sad enough for me to feel sorry for him...... I hope he doesn't get a dime
Exactly what bluelinescooby said, it's sad what happened, but then again it is his fault he started running in the first place and putting other people's lives at risk.
I feel like if you break the law and it puts people in danger you give up your right to be treated with respect, dignity and with regard to personal safety. There's no way criminals should get paid for breaking the law in my opinion. Then again I'm all for the death penalty.
You can really get a different feel for the case depending on the media outlet. The review I first read quoted the dissenting justice saying something to the effect of "His driving is no worse than a bad speeder. He stopped at intersections to wait for traffic and was using his signals." BTW, I've always supported the death penalty in theory, but with the number of overturned death row convictions based on DNA I don't anymore. It's too easy for a few people to point to a "similar" looking person who gets the shaft. Listen to "Hurricane" from Dylan sometime...
Right! And I don't mean to threadjack. But it's just that I say for real-world no-shit murder 1 convictions there should be an automatic death penalty. No passing go or any of that shit. Punish them as swiftly as possible in fact so they can no longer be a drain on society. And now back to your regularly scheduled... whatever! Lol.
yes I heard the same as Brian .if you are using your blinker and stopping for lights then how much of a threat are you. What if you see the blue lights and wait a few moments to pull over to a safe area and the cop thinks you are running so he runs you off the road.and injures your wife.I would need more info. before making a call
I haven't viewed the video of the incident so I can't say either way, but understand that the ruling handed down in Scott v. Harris is specific to that case..... it's not a blanket ruling for every pursuit that ends in a crash, and I don't envision departments across the state making their chase policies more lenient because of it. There is a huge difference between driving another block or so to find a spot to pull over and leading the police on a 90-100mph chase. If you want more info research the case law and not just what the media is reporting about it...... an 8-1 vote in the Supreme Court isn't a close call, and the actual wording of the decision will explain why.....
Hey blueline, do you know or could you ballpark a figure of how many people that run from the cops actually get away? It seems with the radio, helicopters etc... that it would be near imposible. Yet, it happens every day.... As is was said in "O Brother, where art thou..." , That don't make NO sense!!!!
:dunno Ha, I wouldn't even know where to begin, it depends on so many factors...... the totality of the circumstances, the charges, traffic and weather conditions, availability of resources, etc..... I had to let a kid run about a year or so ago because, even though it was 1 in the morning and traffic was light, it wasn't compliant with our pursuit policy so I had to let him go. Luckily for me, the kid was kind enough to stuff his car into a guardrail about 3 miles after I stopped following him. Things like this are highly dependent on the specific situation and what's going on around you......