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.

[dblbar]

"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.

Although I agree wholeheartedly about the person fleeing the police, what about the innocent bystander who is also paralyzed just because he happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time......

[itwasntme000]

In a situation like this!!!
Unless their was a chopper overhead and ground units in forward positions, this was abso-freakin-lootley the right thing to do. If the kid was dumb enough to run its his own fault.

[apdepetris]

Makes sense to me. If a person flees from police then it is their choice. It's not the cops' fault that this guy decided to run from police in a 90 mph car chase. They were just trying to bring a dangerous situation to an end that could have caused harm to any number of innocent bystanders.

I'm tired of hearing about criminals suing officers because they committed a crime, chose to run, and then got hurt in the process. This isn't a case of excessive force by officers.

[smeckel1]

Yes, dblbar, the safety of the bystander during the chase is important - but many chases are instigated without the officer fully understanding why the suspect is running. As a peace office, you must assume the worst. What if the driver is a wanted murder or rapist? What if a victim is still in the car alive? or dead? Do you risk the lives of bystanders then?

Also remember, while highly trained, Peace officers are putting themselves at great risk during these chases too. They understand the risks to bystanders - usually.

Being in the wrong place/wrong time will always happen no matter what you do or what laws exist. I'm just glad I wasn't under the overpass in the Bay Area Sunday, or in the Kansas City, MO Mall for the shooting Sunday.

[goldesprit]

read this excerpt:
"A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders..."

If the police officer had pulled off the road, THAT is an "attempt to terminate" the (leathal to bystanders)chase.

Sure, if the policeman did that it would be not a violation.

This was an escalation of the chase.

CBS and the "Judge" that made the above spun comment know this only too well.

That language serves to cloud the issue for further judgement and discussion.

THAT is no (pardon the pun)"accident".

Nor will the repercussiions in other cases, when the statement is used to cloud those "accidents".

Parylizing innocent people is a warlike thing to do--there must be several thousand better ways to go.

I really don't know what goes through someones heaed, out running the police? You can't out run Motorola!!

[chuckabn]

Hmmm, ran from the police and ended up paralyzed. Guess the lesson should be DON'T BREAK THE LAW and RUN FROM POLICE!!!!! The officer was simply trying to end the chase, thusly protecting innocent bystanders. This criminal chose to run and has to live with the consequences of his actions. At least he didn't paralyze some innocent child or kill someone going ninety miles per hour. The officer should be commended for risking his life to protect the citizenry. Same, same for the Border Patrol agents who ridiculously are serving time for wounding an illegal immigrant drug dealer. Law enforcement should adhere to high standards and rules of law, but NOT punished for doing their jobs to protect and serve.

[undermyboot]

Great- "innocent bystanders" can now be run over with impunity by cowboy hoodlums with badges. LMFAO. Welcome to the American Police State brought to you by the Supreme Court and *** Cheney. Enjoy your stay you pu**ys.

[susanhelit]

Criminals don't stop running just because the police stop chasing. We've seen that plenty of times. Putting an end to the chase - that's what saves the innocent bystander from harm, not letting criminals run free if they are willing to drive crazy.

8 to 1 - that's a huge, huge margin. Conservative and moderate and liberal justices alike - they can see the issue here, and they agree with the police. The blame for all the damage is on the criminal who runs, no one else.

[undermyboot]

You cannot write "DlCK" on CBS? How will the idiots who run this thing self-identify without "DlCK". Or are you not allowed to mention the Vice President's first name? Shhhh! It's a secret! The FBI will get you! LMAO

[susanhelit]

Harris was no innocent - he was paralyzed while being a criminal. He took risks that could have killed many people, just to avoid a stupid ticket! That's insanely depraved indifference to innocent lives there! Do you even think of that?

How many innocent human lives do you think avoiding a ticket is worth? I think that anyone who thinks that way needs to be in jail for a very long time. He's running through parking lots - if your child, or you, happens to be in the wrong spot, you'd have been run down by him, because he's trying to drive places the police won't go at unsafe speeds they won't drive at because unlike Harris, the police are trying to save innocent lives!

[undermyboot]

Trust the cowboy thugs who wear badges! After all, they are well educated and have a history of good judgement! Dey gots da GEDs and da experience as High School bullies (before being expelled). Until we lasso in these power-mad goons the USA will forever be a Police State. Every cop should have a camera and microphone attached to their heads to record every action and every word spoken. Surveil the police, not the people.

[bizzzz-2009]

For every complaint you hear about a "bad cop" using unacceptable brutality to subdue a criminal, there's another good cop somewhere that just got shot in the head because he didn't react quick enough.
It getting to be a lose/lose situation for police officers. When they respond with force, their criticized, when they don't show up, their criticized. I got an idea, police your own neighborhoods if you think it's so easy. You won't because the criminals in your neighborhood scare the s**t out of you, but you demand somebody do it.

[susanhelit]

Heh - the police dashcams have been great - they show the allegations of police brutality often to be completely false - and catch the few bad cops. They also do a great job of showing what police really put up with from criminals.

There are some bad cops - just like there are some bad everyone else-s. That doesn't change the facts here, nor in the vast majority of all other cases.

[inventagod2]

The censors at SeeB.S. want you to respect our little ***tator...

[undermyboot]

SusanHelit says the police are trying to save innocent lives? LMFAO They are trying to get their arrest rates up and get promoted. They don't give a d*mn about innocent lives.

READ THE F-ING ARRTICLE! It's not just about the fool who fled the police. Now the Supremes have said that the police can do what they want, and if it kills "INNOCENT BYSTANDERS" that's OK with them. Well I hope YOU or someone YOU LOVE are standing at a street corner one day when one of these ignorant thugs (the ones with badges) comes racing around the corner and flattens YOU or THEM. Your family will be glad to know that action was sanctioned by the government. You "law and order and any cost" people make me sick. SPLAT.

[lawandorder6]

Another one for the BAD GUYS. The Court has lost all sense of right and wrong. Thye Cops will be coming in and eating your dinner before long. I never have been for guns, but that might have to change with this kind of thing going on.

[r-u-kidding]

Good. I'm glad somebody finally stood up for the police. Hopefully people will now think twice before running away from police officers knowing that they won't give up.

Now if George Bush would just pardon the border patrol officers jailed for shooting a drug runner. I can't believe our government prosecuted our own guys for shooting an illegal alien drug runner....that's the real crime.

[warfire911]

Why don't we just give the police rocket propelled grenades to stop speeders. Then we could give rpg's to bystanders so they can shoot the speeding cops too. We too, should assume the worst, this rogue cop is armed and dangerous, I better run from or subdue him. Police are an arm of the government. Maybe we should toy with that constitution thingy, perhaps some kind of language that says the government cannot assume a person is guilty of criminal activities without some sort of evidence. Because if we had that, the police would have no justification for continuing chase and imposing corporal punishment without due process.

[olebd]

Hooray for the law. The streets are full enough with incompetent drivers. The last thing we need is some ****** who has a warrant or something to hide stashed in his car endangering the lves of everybody else.

[booyaw_77]

Is this the same siren going off? A cop going 90 mph to go to a imus apology? Is that the same guy behind me? Chase'n me?

[booyaw_77]

Lets find out if dat cop is wear'n his seatbelt.

[susanhelit]

Don't want to get hit with a PIT, or other manuever from the police? Don't run from them! Don't risk my life, the officer's life, and your life, just to get out of a traffic ticket - or maybe and quite often an arrest for drugs, DUI, or whatever. None of it is worth risking someone else's life over, and every time a criminal runs, that is precisely what they are doing.

The Supreme Court, and 8 of it's judges got it exactly right - when a chase turns dangerous (as they often are), the police have not only a right, but a responsibility to the public to end it - and doing so by PIT manuever, or bashing the criminals car off the road is just fine. Don't want to end up paralyzed? Don't run at 100 miles an hour. If this guy was driving slower, under control, not dangerously, he'd have been fine, and the police wouldn't have had any license to hit his car - we've all seen the hour long chases that can happen when someone drives reasonably.

But when you are driving dangerously, the police have to get you off the road - gently if you'll allow them, not gently if not. Better they hurt you than the innocent bystander you're going to smash into.

[booyaw_77]

The supreme court is hacked. Its been hacked by rove and right wing lunatics. They couldn't get a slam dunk right.

[tps25pentium]

You wouldn't side that kid if he drove over your loved one during that chase. A car at dangerous speeds is almost like a weapon of mass destruction. It contains flammable gasoline under pressure; a ticking time bomb. The cops saved the community and innocent civilians from a criminal who could have killed many innocent and law-abiding citizens. They need to be thanked for their bravery.

[haneyr-2009]

Once again CBS has given only enough info from their prospective to let their blog sites be clogged up with people making totally uninformed statements.

To the person still living under his boot, you need to crawl out from under there and wipe the dirt from your eyes, ears, and mouth. You are obviously a well educated person (disregarding your command of the English language) who has spent a great deal of his time wanting (whining??) to know why you aren't taken seriously by anyone above the level of a GED education.

Driving 93 MPH in a two ton block of metal in a manner that is intended to elude someone else is endangering lives no matter where that is happening. Next I suppose it will be OK if someone walks down a street with a shotgun and shoots it at buildings. They are not shooting at people so its OK not to shoot them first.

When the guilty of our society begin to control our actions then it is they who will be coming into our houses to eat our food because the police will be sitting in the station waiting for bad guys to voluntarilly come and give themselves up. After all why should they risk their lives for people who don't want to be saved.

[anderstine]

Any time there is a high speed chase. It had better be a murder or a bank robber or a terrorist otherwise now the cops are breaking the law. Too many times police get emotionally involved with a chase. Not good in any situation, ever!

[fiteit1]

No person fleeing from the police should be able to sue. Anyone entering your property and get hurt shouldn't be able to sue, an intruder that gets a baseball bat upside the head shouldn't be able to sue. The cops (intruders) that shot that 92-year old lady should be sued and loose their job as should the higher ups that Okayed such a search without substantiating the informant. Innocent bystanders that get hurt or killed should be able to sue both the fleeing person and the cops, running from the cops is not innocent.

Police in pursuit have two choices, continue to chase or back off and get them the next time. That choice can only be made by the officer and his or her surrounding environment, city streets, country roads, or freeways, how much congestion or how many pedestrians, how many other officers can get in front of the chase, spike strips, helicopters. We can judge from the comfort of our living rooms while we wait on dinner to be served, they can%u2019t.

The only thing that the innocent have to fall back on to is try not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and be able to be awarded a very large lump sum from the pursuer and pursued.

[toolmangler-2009]

Posted by UnderMyBoot at 03:54 PM : Apr 30, 2007

That is the most stupid sounding thing I have heard. If you want less crime and more real jutice, start telling the authorities where to find these people before they get on the roads at high-speed. Nah, to use your vernacular "Y'ALL aint no snitch, you won't drop a dime on a real "sh-- --ad" who is probably bangin' yo sis or pumpin' her full. quit stepping on the only people "you" pay to take a bullet for you here at home. Just like all other things man attempts to do, crime prevention has its problems but half of them would disappear if John Q Citizen would step up instead of cuttin' out.

[booyaw_77]

"They need to be thanked for their bravery."

Doesn't sound very professional to me. This ain't no god damned Clint Eastwood movie, jackie. Real cops ain't gotta be thanked by nobody. They take their pay? They do their job? And they go home and raise their families. Leave the thank'n to the movie stars and the politicians.

[pared1]

If you're driving at a reckless speed "YOU" are the one responsible for your actions.

[booyaw_77]

"If you're driving at a reckless speed "YOU" are the one responsible for your actions."

In the 21st century there's other ways besides the dumbazzzzzed high speed nascar driver play'n demolition derby. Nowadays we got helicopters and stuff like that, that eases the lunatics mind long enough to bag him. Peacefully.

[anderstine]

I'm in favor of governers on all auto engines that do not allow your car to go faster than the top speed of our highways 65mph (here in Oregon). That would help lotz. There is also the goofy video games and movies that promote the highspeed use of cars! And the promotionl aspect of car chase TV shows!

[booyaw_77]

It doesn't surprise me that this supreme court messes up the rules of engagement.

[pared1]

Nowadays we got helicopters and stuff like that, that eases the lunatics mind long enough to bag him. Peacefully.
Posted by booyaw_77 at 05:49 PM : Apr 30, 2007


Sure and by the time a helicopter was called (if one was available) how many innocent people might of been killed.

[vidman6]

I Hit a cop once after he cut me off illegally, but the court sided with the cop (of course). His cam didn't catch enough of the angle to see my car. They need even more cameras in their cars.

My brother saw a cop cause a pileup of over 4 cars once (the cop was the initial blow and it smashed 4 cars together) and I wouldn't doubt if some of them got hurt. It was a high speed chase on city streets.

Yes we need a camera on their helmets too, make em all wide angle. If their camera is not on and someone has a lawsuit then the cop should be held responsible.

[booyaw_77]

"Sure and by the time a helicopter was called (if one was available) how many innocent people might of been killed."

Sirens blaring, tires squeeling, WHATS HE RUNNING FOR? I know yaz ain't short'a tax money.. so it can't be that yer calling a "high speed chase" professional.

[haneyr-2009]

Be careful Anderstine, you are going down the slippery path when you try to use personal ideals to qualify legal actions.

In your case you want to further limit the actions of police officers in pursuing criminals.

Murderers should be pursued you say. What if he is a drug dealer and kills another drug dealer? I might suggest this is not really a murder but a quick delivery of justice. So it's OK for him to speed so the other drug dealers don't catch him.

Bank robbers are really bad. They steal money from an FDIC bank and that is not good. So let's chase him really fast and maybe he can crash so a lot of innocent bystanders can help collect the loose change lying on the street and in his car.

Terrorists should be caught no matter what. Do they have to be ones that killed someone or robbed a bank? What if they only think they want to be a terrorist and drive around with a ton of dynamite in the car, but then change their minds on the way to the school?

How would we know them if we saw them speeding 93 MPH in a 55 MPH zone with several police cars chasing them? How about if we pass a law that says a criminal has to stop first and tell the police what they did wrong and then they can start the high speed chase?

News report to criminals. If you don't commit one of the rules for a high speed chase, put a sign on your car saying so and drive as fast as you want. And hope that while you are driving that non-lethal car at 93 MPH you don't break rule 1.

[anderstine]

The police would not have goveners on their motors, making the stop much easer.

[booyaw_77]

You guys just like the teevee show. Buncha masochists.

[mklapp]

The issue is not whether it is ever permissible for police to summarily execute an extra-judicial sentence upon a suspect in the field. It is whether, upon exercising such judgement, the suspect is entitled to a day in court regarding the suitability of such a summary judgement.

The disturbing element here is the court's overwhelming agreement that no,as citizens we are not entitled to a day in court. In fact, the court is moving toward declaring open season upon citizen suspects. Not only may our property be permanently confiscated for the offense of becoming a suspect (or even knowing a suspect), but we are closing in on the premise that we may be summarily executed without a trial.

Let me repeat that. This is not about whether it is ever permissible to do such a thing. It is about whether there are ever any consequences when the police substitute their judgement for a judge and jury. Apparently the prevailing thought supports summary execution of a man rushing an expectant wife or poisoned child to the hospital. This ruling says no officer or jurisdiction may ever be sued for or otherwise enjoined from this type of behavior.

Once more for ditto heads: citizen complaints against abusive authorities can not be heard in court. Only the officer's story is sufficient to pass judgement. No more due process, like Saddam's Iraq and Nazi Germany.

This is one more blow against the presumption of innocence and a civil society based on laws and human right.

Sheesh!

[toolmangler-2009]

Posted by mklapp at 06:05 PM : Apr 30, 2007


I am not sure I read you right but if I did, George Orwell wrote about that some time ago. Its called "1984" (ckeck out "Animal Farm" by the same guy, most enlightening (Southern fer educational).

[justfacts2]

Maybe I missed something or I didn't read the article clearly enough. The person who is suing and is paralyzed, was he the one the cops were trying to catch? Or was he an innocent bystander that the cop decided to ram off the road to get out of the way? If it is the latter, than this is just absurd! It makes me shudder to think what in the world the cops are going to do now that the courts have ruled in their favor. If the guy paralyzed is who the cops were chasing then he shouldn't have tried to outrun the cops in the first place.

[susanhelit]

Driving that way is the equivalent of running down the street, shooting a gun, randomly. You may hit no one. But you are endangering everyone. And the police have to stop you, period. Doesn't matter what crime, or even if it was no crime that you did before you started running along firing that gun. Running along, firing the gun is the crime.

The court got it right - read their opinion. Not only is this guy a danger to any innocent who might come into the path (and people running from the cops don't stop running when the police stop chasing), but saying that we'll let you go if you endanger a few lives - crank the speed up to 90, weave into opposing traffic, blow a few stoplights - that's a pretty clear message to criminals what to do.

The criminal who is running is at fault, entirely. This could have been ended anytime, by pulling over. This could have been a safe chase - drive the speed limit, and they won't need to hit your car. But it wasn't, and Harris, and only Harris made that choice.

[susanhelit]

Oh, and helicopters, etc. - they aren't always available, and they don't stop the person from running! The running is the problem - that is what is endangering the public.

Cops aren't magic - they can't just solve every problem without ever hurting anyone. When a criminal is so determined that they don't care how many other lives they might take, they've forfieted their right to gentle treatment.

[noview1]

If you run from the cops, you face the consequencies of your own actions. You are the one making the decision. I just wish he was finished off, so we didn't have to waste the money on medical care and the subsequent legal battles.

[susanhelit]

mklapp, "The disturbing element here is the court's overwhelming agreement that no,as citizens we are not entitled to a day in court." - the court's opinion clearly adresses this (not referenced in the above article, but in findlaw's text of the supreme court opinion) - that a day in court is right when there is any doubt, but in this case, the videotape clearly shows Harris's story to be a pure fairytale. A case that is clearly a lie - that doesn't deserve a day in court. If there were a chance Harris's story was true, then, sure, it would deserve a day in court.

[mklapp]

Posted by SusanHelit at 06:32 PM : Apr 30, 2007

Again, this argument goes to this specific case.

The courts ruling, however, applies to ALL cases that may EVER be brought against ANY policeman REGARDLESS of the circumstances. They can NEVER, EVER be decided in ANY trial. See the difference? It really is irrelevant to the case law that this particular defendant was guilty of any crime. The argument that police were wrong CANNOT EVEN BE MADE in a court of law. Were it made, I might well agree with the policeman's judgement IN THIS CASE.

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?

[susanhelit]

You are wrong. The court did not say word one about no lawsuits allowed. It said that, "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"

They said not one word to say that an OJ Simpson, or Kara Knott, leading the police on a non-dangerous chase, couldn't sue if they were bumped off the road. And had there been no videotape, they were clear that the lawsuit in this case could have proceeded to determine the truth (you should read the whole decision - findlaw has it).

There's two sides to this decision. First, and foremost - if you run from the police, and are a danger to others, they can, without worrying about losing a lawsuit, do what they need to to get you off the road in the safest possible manner to the innocent public, the police, and you (in descending importance, imho). You can, of course, sue, and claim you weren't driving dangerously. You can't sue and say you were driving dangerously, but they had no right to hurt you.

Second - they say that in this particular case, driving dangerously was clearly established by the proof of the video tape, so no trial is needed to discover the truth.

[cgene1]

There are people here that would argue whether water was wet or not.