Ruling on High speed chases

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by ber950, Apr 30, 2007.

  1. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,559
    1
    38
    Supreme Court Rules to Protect Officers From Lawsuits in Speedy Car Chases
    Monday , April 30, 2007



    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 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, 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.


    http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,269265,00.html
     
  2. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    When a person runs from the cops and endangers other, all reasonable measures must be taken. If that ends up with the dumbass paralyzed...so be it.
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    255
    83
    Great ruling, but it sucks that it took a dose of reality (the video) to wake these Justices up. The video is not even that hairy. What did they think a car chase was like?
     
  4. Dan H

    Dan H New Member

    1,075
    0
    0
    Driving Miss Daisy :lol:
     
  5. peashooter

    peashooter New Member

    127
    0
    0
    My neighbor is a Dekalb County Cop told me today no more high speed chases unless it was an armed Robbery. That is there new rule. They just try to follow with a Helicopter.
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,081
    255
    83
    Policies like that are simply guaranteed to encourage people to run.
     
  7. peashooter

    peashooter New Member

    127
    0
    0
    Policies like that are simply guaranteed to encourage people to run.

    My neighbor didn't like it either, but he has to do as they say. Just ties there hands a little more.