Court ponders police chase liability

[TexKan]

By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
1:32 PM PST, February 26, 2007


WASHINGTON -- Can a police officer be sued for hitting into a fleeing car during a high-speed chase and causing an accident that leaves the driver badly injured or dead?

The Supreme Court took up that question today in a case from rural Georgia, and the likely answer appeared to be "no."

The case has drawn wide attention because it could set national rules to limit police chases. More than 300 people per year are killed in police chases. Most of the victims are the motorists who tried to flee the police, but a substantial number are innocent bystanders. Each year, several police officers die in such chases.

But during the oral arguments today, most of the justices said they were not inclined to restrict the police from using force when they are pursuing a dangerous speeder.

The fleeing motorist "is creating a grave danger" to others on the highway, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"We are talking about 90 miles per hour on a two-lane road," said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., referring to the case before the court.

Six years ago, 19-year-old Victor Harris was paralyzed after losing control of his speeding Cadillac in Coweta County, Ga. He had been clocked going 73 mph on a highway where the speed limit was 55.

When a police officer flashed his blue light, Harris sped away. He was pursued through the parking lot of a small shopping center, where he collided with a police car.

Still undeterred, Harris raced down a dark and winding two-lane road, sped through red lights and swerved back and forth across the lanes to avoid other cars.

"Go ahead and take him out," a police supervisor radioed to Deputy Timothy Scott. Unable to stop Harris safely, Scott rammed into the rear bumper of the Cadillac, causing it to spin. The car careened over an embankment and the accident left Harris a quadriplegic.

That was the "scariest chase I ever saw since 'The French Connection,' " said Justice Antonin Scalia, referring to a police videotape of the chase that was supplied to the court. "It was frightening ... cars coming in the opposite direction, at night, on a two-lane winding road," he said.

Several other justices said they, too, had watched the videotape and agreed with Scalia's description. Harris had "created a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to others. How would a jury find otherwise?" asked Justice David H. Souter.

In his client's defense, Harris' lawyers said the young man had been driving "under control" and used his turn signals when he changed lanes.

"He used the turning signal! That's like the strangler who observes the 'no smoking' sign," interjected Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Despite the scary scene captured on the police video, Harris won two preliminary victories in the lower courts. He had sued Scott, alleging that the ramming of his car by the deputy amounted to excessive force and therefore violated the 4th Amendment and its ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Lawyers for the police expected this claim would be rejected. Instead, both a federal judge and the U.S. court of appeals in Atlanta said the suit should go before a jury.

More than 20 years ago, the high court had said an officer may not use "deadly force" to stop a fleeing suspect unless he poses a true risk to the public or the police. That ruling arose when a police officer, answering a burglary call, encountered a teenage boy in the backyard and shot him in the back of the head.

Last year, the appeals court in Atlanta said the same rule against the use of "deadly force" should apply in cases involving high-speed chases. If that rule were upheld by the Supreme Court, it could force the police to break off high-speed chases and to let fleeing motorists get away.

But most of the justices said today they leaned in favor of a ruling that says police may use reasonable force to stop a dangerously speeding vehicle.

It will be several months before the justices issue a ruling in the case of Harris vs. Scott.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
david.savage@latimes.com



I know the cops in Houston are gonna be happy bout this - chases are almost a daily thing.

[K C Muffin]

Interesting. I honestly don't know. It's like Monday-morning quarterbackin' - can't change the outcome and looks like the cop was following orders......

[spike52]

Originally Posted by K C Muffin

Interesting. I honestly don't know. It's like Monday-morning quarterbackin' - can't change the outcome and looks like the cop was following orders......

What we need is a nationwide "No chase policy".
It worked great in Newark, N.J. a few years back..

[Detector]

Then what? A no-shoot policy? Yeah that'll work

A no chase policy would have the same effect as a no shoot policy. Once criminals know what you can't do they will exploit it.

[K C Muffin]

Well, no-chase, but couldn't we use modern technology a little better? Get a locator on them and try to get ahead of them. Then lay down the stop sticks - that's dangerous, too, but not if you stop traffic first... They've been used up here pretty successfully.

[wordsmythe]

I'd rather see every single criminal with a car get away before one single innocent bystander get killed or injured because they were being chased.

[Detector]

I'd rather see every single criminal with a car get away before one single innocent bystander get killed or injured because they were being chased.

Playing God? So what happens when that criminal that got away does it again, and again, and again until they eventually kill an innocent bystander, store clerk or others?

Once they know if they run they won't be chased isn't it in their best interest to run? even if they wouldn't have before they would be more likely to run, and they don't need to be chased to kill innocent bystanders.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Detector

Playing God? So what happens when that criminal that got away does it again, and again, and again until they eventually kill an innocent bystander, store clerk or others?

Once they know if they run they won't be chased isn't it in their best interest to run? even if they wouldn't have before they would be more likely to run, and they don't need to be chased to kill innocent bystanders.

Sounds like better police work is needed if the only way they can catch one is at high speed.

[spike52]

Originally Posted by Detector

Then what? A no-shoot policy? Yeah that'll work

A no chase policy would have the same effect as a no shoot policy. Once criminals know what you can't do they will exploit it.

Sorry,
I fugot the sarcasm tags...

[TexKan]

We had a terrible wreck in Houston during a chase - the city enforced a no chase policy and the police union put up bill boards advertising Houston as the criminal friendly city. It was a riot! Needless to say there is a modified chase policy now. The billboards came down and the chases continue. All chases are sancitoned by the supervisor. In Houston - they will chase ya down to the ground if need be. They figgure you are a bigger risk when you are running. Nothing says you have to stop - any criminal can drive 30mph and never pull over and have a chase. They choose to speed and put others at risk - I prefer they get stopped - it's safer for the majority to have them off the street. Ya have to wiegh the odds. I don't thinks cops chase every person - they do call tags in you just don't hear about those.