Washington – Police may use tactics that put fleeing suspects at risk of death to end high-speed car chases, the Supreme Court said Monday in ruling against a Georgia man who was paralyzed after his car was run off the road.
In a case that turned in part on a video of the chase in suburban Atlanta, the court said it is reasonable for law enforcement officers to try to stop a fleeing motorist to prevent harm to bystanders or other drivers.
“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,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in his majority opinion.
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. The nighttime chase reached speeds of up to 90 mph.
Victor Harris, the 19-year-old driver of the Cadillac, lost control and his car ended up at the bottom of an embankment.
Harris was rendered a quadriplegic.
The court, in a nod to modern technology, for the first time posted the dramatic video on its website.
Many large police forces have strict rules for when officers can begin high-speed pursuit, limiting chases to instances where there has been a felony crime committed, a misdemeanor crime involving a weapon, or suspected drunken drivers who are an obvious road hazard.
Harris was wanted only for speeding.
Unreasonable seizure?
Harris sued Scott after the crash, claiming the deputy’s decision to ram the Cadillac violated Harris’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure.
Lower federal courts ruled that the lawsuit could proceed, but the Supreme Court said Monday that the officer could not be sued for his actions. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.
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.”
During oral argument, justices repeatedly invoked the video to support how recklessly they believed Harris was driving.
Stevens, however, said that a district court judge and three appellate judges who watched the same video concluded otherwise.
Those judges determined the issue should be decided after a trial, not by a judge in a pretrial ruling.
In the courtroom, Stevens 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.
