Court Sides With Cops On High-Speed Chase
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.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. 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.
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!!!!!!
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.
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?"
...Because they're still free to commit more crimes.
I say give the cops more power.
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???
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.
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.