Supreme Court Rules to Protect Officers From Lawsuits in Speedy Car Chases

**Logan13** · 04-30-2007, 08:49 PM

Supreme Court Rules to Protect Officers From Lawsuits in Speedy Car Chases
AP
04/30/07
WASHINGTON — 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 ***uty 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, 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.

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

Scalia described a "Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury."

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.

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.

**sooners04** · 05-03-2007, 04:29 AM

Kick Ass!!!!

**Benches505** · 05-03-2007, 05:43 AM

Maybe in this case I agree but if a cop in high speed chase runs over someone or something along those lines the ***artment should be able to be sued. They need to call those things off and just use a chopper or get the plate and get them later. Too dangerous for the rest of us not involved in the chase and some of these cops have the rambo complex

**mcpeepants** · 05-03-2007, 01:09 PM

This ruling is basically a big FU to any passers-by that get injured by cops during a high speed chase.

**Logan13** · 05-03-2007, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by mcpeepants

This ruling is basically a big FU to any passers-by that get injured by cops during a high speed chase.

Why do you not put the blame on those causing the high speed chase?

**mcpeepants** · 05-03-2007, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Why do you not put the blame on those causing the high speed chase?

I put the blame on the person the hits the passer-by whether it happens to be the cop or the suspect. If they are hit by the suspect, they can sue, but now if they are hit by the cop, they can't.

**gigem** · 05-03-2007, 01:18 PM

i think that the criminal should be to blame BUT the police should be forced to use discretion when it comes to innocent people i think they are fn up on that call to an extent. maybe not automatically liable but after a ruling of the police action and how they handled it

**Logan13** · 05-03-2007, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by mcpeepants

I put the blame on the person the hits the passer-by whether it happens to be the cop or the suspect. If they are hit by the suspect, they can sue, but now if they are hit by the cop, they can't.

passer-bys would not get hit if the assailant would not choose to run from the law.

**Snrf** · 05-03-2007, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

passer-bys would not get hit if the assailant would not choose to run from the law.

they also wouldn't get hit if the cops called off the chase, if you got paralyzed by a cop chasing someone over some piddly charge like grand theft auto how would you feel?

it happens, and there are better ways of dealing with it. Not many areas don't have access to a chopper nowadays

**Logan13** · 05-03-2007, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Snrfmaster

they also wouldn't get hit if the cops called off the chase, if you got paralyzed by a cop chasing someone over some piddly charge like grand theft auto how would you feel?

it happens, and there are better ways of dealing with it. Not many areas don't have access to a chopper nowadays

So now you expect every city to have a helicopter? I think that you have been watching too much TV. Small & Medium sized towns do not have access to such things. Cops are reacting, not acting to the situation. Theory does no good to solve this, the Supreme Court touched on this fact as well.

**gigem** · 05-03-2007, 01:58 PM

theres really no good way to solve this problem yes the guy shouldnt run but i feel unless the criminal at large will directly affect the citizens murderer etc back off

**Logan13** · 05-03-2007, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by gigem

theres really no good way to solve this problem yes the guy shouldnt run but i feel unless the criminal at large will directly affect the citizens murderer etc back off

That's the point, he is affecting the citizens safety.