Court Sides With Cops On High-Speed Chase

Supreme Court Rejects Arguments Of Man Paralyzed in Crash Stemming From Police Pursuit

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court on Monday gave police officers protection from lawsuits that result from high-speed car chases, ruling against a Georgia teenager who was paralyzed after his car was run off the road.

In a case that turned on a video of the chase in suburban Atlanta, Justice Antonin Scalia said law enforcement officers do not have to call off pursuit of a fleeing motorist when they reasonably expect that other people could be hurt.

Rather, officers can take measures to stop the car without putting themselves at risk of civil rights lawsuits.

"A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death," Scalia said.

The court sided 8-1 with former Coweta County sheriff's deputy Timothy Scott, who rammed a fleeing black Cadillac on a two-lane, rain-slicked road in March 2001.

Victor Harris, the 19-year-old driver of the Cadillac, lost control and his car ended up at the bottom of an embankment. The nighttime chase took place at roughly 90 miles an hour.

Harris, paralyzed in the crash, sued Scott.

Lower federal courts ruled the lawsuit could proceed, but the Supreme Court said Monday that it could not. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

"No surprise here," said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "The Court has been moving in this direction for a while now, moving towards protecting police officers in these sorts of situations where there is a civil case. But I'm not sure we're going to see now an aggressive new approach by law enforcement officers to run cars off the road. There are plenty of other reasons why that policy doesn't make sense."

During oral arguments in February, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to one of Hollywood's most tense car chases when he called the police dashboard video of the pursuit of Harris the "scariest chase I've seen since 'The French Connection.'"

Stevens, however, said that a district court judge and three appellate judges who watched the same video concluded that issue should be decided after a trial, not by a judge in a pretrial ruling.

He said that was preferable to the case "being decided by a group of elderly appellate judges," a reference to himself and his colleagues on the court. At 87, Stevens is the oldest justice.

In an unusual move, the court posted the dramatic video on its Web site.

Scalia said people could watch the tape and decide for themselves. "We are happy to allow the videotape to speak for itself," he said in a footnote that accompanied the ruling.

The case is Scott v. Harris, 05-1631.

[toolmangler-2009]

want you people, particularly you republicans, to think about something. A fundamental fundament of jurdictional jurisprudence:

I take it that 3rd grade is as far as you made it in school my friend. No doubt it was racism that made you stop going to school. Down with whitey right? YOu make no sense and only advertise your lack of intelligence by posting.
Posted by cbville72 at 09:37 PM : Apr 30, 2007


Your penchant for verbosity is only exceeded by your perusal of Roget's Thesaurus. read any other books lately?
"fundamental fundament of jurdictional jurisprudence"

sssshhhheeeeeeeessssshhhhh!!!!!!

[susanhelit]

This wasn't a wallet, nor a screwdriver. Just because the cops are sometimes wrong, doesn't mean they weren't right in this case, as they most often are. This was a high speed chase, and the danger to the public was and is obvious on the videotape that any of us can see.

The police must be held to a very high standard, but both sides must be represented. We must ensure they are punished, strongly, when wrong, but also protected, strongly, when right. In this case, they were right.

[octavianfdlr]

Kaliveotin said: "Remember the homeless woman in L.A. who was shot to death for raising a screwdriver in the air to protect her shopping cart from officers and was SHOT TO DEATH without reason."

To this I would add: "Remember the man in NY, NY who was shot to death when he thought a police officer was demanding identification, and he pulled out a wallet? The court found that the police had a right to defend themselves. Against a wallet?"

[bks59]

The comments are certianly foreteling about Our understanding and ethics of the world today. It appears that many are very comfortable with giving up their civil liberties and expect the rest to give theirs away too. Why are the police trained to assume the "worse", most people are law abiding. Police ought to stay with in the confines of the law just as you and I. The juduciary has prosecutors and judges to pursue and enforce our laws. And we know to what extent prosectors may go, Duke University, why should any law enforcement be given greater authority?

[yo_marc]

Re: In this day and age very few known suspects avoid the law for long.

...Because they're still free to commit more crimes.

I say give the cops more power.

[disheartened-2009]

Well Said!!!!

[grammawhamma]

The only "cop haters" I know are the "law breakers".

[disheartened-2009]

You know, I seriously doubt when someone becomes a cop that part of the "job description" they signed up for stated:
1: If you shoot and kill someone that threatens your life or another's life, expect to be criticized for not "just wounding" the person.
2: If you shoot and only wound someone that threatens your life or another's life, expect to be sued.
3: If you try to stop a car, the car flees, and you don't pursue because your policy doesn't let you, expect to be criticized by the public for letting the "bad guy" go.
4: If you try to stop a car, the car flees, crashes, and the jack*ss driver gets injured, expect to be sued.
5: WARNING:
For criminals: Innocent until proven guilty
For cops: Guilty until proven innocent.

What the heck is wrong with this world???

[disheartened-2009]

I unfortunately witnessed a very bad crash, although no cops were chasing this guy. A man got high, STOLE a car, he SAW a cop, got paranoid (because he was HIGH and in a STOLEN car), sped away, hit another car, and drove like a maniac down the road before crashing head-on into a solid brick wall at about 60mph. The car burst into flames. He was unconcscious. By the looks of the car...he shoulda been dead! The cops showed up and pulled him from the burning car. They didn't high-five each other for getting another "arrest".
Now, after reading most of the postings, I gather that the general moronic opinion would be that IF a cop had been chasing THIS guy, then all of the events that unfolded would have been the COPS fault. Not the STUPID, HIGH, CAR THIEF that put INNOCENT lives in jeopardy???

Cops make split-second decisions in life or death situations. And I suppose anyone can make the argument..."that's the career they chose"...and that would most definitely be true. But when someone's main goal at the end of their day is to make it home alive to see their wife and kids, I think it is sick that anyone has the nerve to criticize them. Now, I fully believe that if a cop does something immoral or causes a crash or something then they should be held accountable. BUT the COP did NOT cause the crash referred to in the SC ruling. The kid did. It never would've happened if the kid would've just stopped and owned up to whatever he did.

[kaliveotin]

You people are idiots, our government is totally out of control. The mandate of police is to protect and serve. The only time a high speed chase should be tolerated when public safety is "highly threatened" by the chase is when a suspect is KNOWN to have hurt someone and is a current or future threat. In this day and age very few known suspects avoid the law for long. Endangering innocent lives by choice makes no reasonable sense. Of course the Supremely right-wing court excuses the police and other law enforcement agencies. They already have a liscense to commit murder, and dutifully assist
scores to commit suicide. Why doesn't "law enforcement" shoot to disarm? In some cases why do they shoot at all? Remember the homeless woman in L.A. who was shot to death for raising a screwdriver in the air to protect her shopping cart from officers and was SHOT TO DEATH without reason. The courts held he was acting properly too.

[cbville72]

I want you people, particularly you republicans, to think about something. A fundamental fundament of jurdictional jurisprudence:

I take it that 3rd grade is as far as you made it in school my friend. No doubt it was racism that made you stop going to school. Down with whitey right? YOu make no sense and only advertise your lack of intelligence by posting.

[hawksprings]

This was the right call by the justices, way to go!

When the shiny lights come on, you're supposed to pull over and stop.

The cop's tactic of nudging the rear of the suspects car is a common one. The cop had no idea the car would hit a pole and paralyze the kid, and no way of predicting it would happen.

Tough break kid. You should have pulled over.

...

[susanhelit]

Ah, the classic - innocent until proven guilty.

Harris was proven guilty. He had a trial, and was convicted for what he did (IIRC). But in this case, it's the officer who is the defendant - he's being sued. So, he should be the one innocent until proven guilty. Oops!

And I'm the furthest thing from a Republican - but the Constitution does not say we have to entertain even visibly and obviously false lawsuits, judges are not supposed to let people be harassed by a lawsuit that has no grounds - as this one does not.

[mklapp]

The officer in question could not sue because reporting on a trial is progress is protected. Not because Everyone knows the truth already. Even Saddam got a trial.

[susanhelit]

He ran from the police. He did so in such a way to seriously endanger the public. They used the necessary force to stop him from hurting the public. That's all.

Then he tried to sue, saying that he wasn't dangerous at all. The courts said - 1. Police are allowed to stop you when you are dangerous, even if it might hurt you, and 2. The video clearly shows you were dangerous, so no go on the lawsuit.

[dowjones20k]

Posted by mklapp ..... The court did not say this guy was right or wrong. It said no jury can ever sit in judgment of any policeman. Are you really comfortable with that?

*****

Actually the SC said " officers can take measures to stop the car without putting themselves at risk of civil rights lawsuits".

That is all they ajudicated .... Policeman can stop a fleeing suspect without worrying that the scum bag will turn around and sue them for paralyzing themsleves out of stupidity.

[booyaw_77]

The devil is on my side.

[lawandorder6]

Yes you are sick. booyaw_77 go away, sick, sick, sick. You need help. BAD!!!!!!!!!!!

[booyaw_77]

I want you people, particularly you republicans, to think about something. A fundamental fundament of jurdictional jurisprudence: "Presumption of innocence". So.. sick are you to the american dream. So disparaged your souls, that you declare wars on people who did nothing wrong to you. That you find yourselves angry at the whole world. The only sane ones..

Get out of my government and don't ever come back again.

[lawandorder6]

Does any one know what the h--l he/she is talking about. booyaw_77 you are a little off of it, right?