 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Scott v Harris |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Deputy Timothy Scott, petitioner
here, terminated a high-speed
pursuit of respondent’s car by
applying his push bumper to the
rear of the vehicle, causing it to
leave the road and crash.
Respondent was rendered
quadriplegic. He filed suit under
42 U. S. C. §1983 alleging, inter
alia, the use of excessive force
resulting in an unreasonable
seizure under the Fourth
Amendment . The District Court
denied Scott’s summary
judgment motion, which was
based on qualified immunity.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on
interlocutory appeal, concluding,
inter alia, that Scott’s actions
could constitute “deadly force”
under Tennessee v. Garner,
471 U. S. 1 ; that the use of
such force in this context would
violate respondent’s
constitutional right to be free
from excessive force during a
seizure; and that a reasonable
jury could so find.
Held: Because the car chase
respondent initiated posed a
substantial and immediate risk of
serious physical injury to others,
Scott’s attempt to terminate the
chase by forcing respondent off
the road was reasonable, and
Scott is entitled to summary
judgment. Pp. 3–13.
(a) Qualified immunity requires
resolution of a “threshold
question: Taken in the light most
favorable to the party asserting
the injury, do the facts alleged
show the officer’s conduct
violated a constitutional right?”
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194 .
Pp. 3–4.
(b) The record in this case
includes a videotape capturing
the events in question. Where,
as here, the record blatantly
contradicts the plaintiff’s version
of events so that no reasonable
jury could believe it, a court
should not adopt that version of
the facts for purposes of ruling
on a summary judgment motion.
Pp. 5–8.
(c) Viewing the facts in the light
depicted by the videotape, it is
clear that Deputy Scott did not
violate the Fourth Amendment .
Pp. 8–13.
(i) Garner did not establish a
magical on/off switch that
triggers rigid preconditions
whenever an officer’s actions
constitute “deadly force.” The
Court there simply applied the
Fourth Amendment ’s
“reasonableness” test to the use
of a particular type of force in a
particular situation. That case
has scant applicability to this
one, which has vastly different
facts. Whether or not Scott’s
actions constituted “deadly
force,” what matters is whether
those actions were reasonable.
Pp. 8–10.
(ii) In determining a seizure’s
reasonableness, the Court
balances the nature and quality
of the intrusion on the individual’
s Fourth Amendment interests
against the importance of the
governmental interests allegedly
justifying the intrusion. United
States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 .
In weighing the high likelihood of
serious injury or death to
respondent that Scott’s actions
posed against the actual and
imminent threat that respondent
posed to the lives of others, the
Court takes account of the
number of lives at risk and the
relative culpability of the parties
involved. Respondent
intentionally placed himself and
the public in danger by
unlawfully engaging in reckless,
high-speed flight; those who
might have been harmed had
Scott not forced respondent off
the road were entirely innocent.
The Court concludes that it was
reasonable for Scott to take the
action he did. It rejects
respondent’s argument that
safety could have been assured
if the police simply ceased their
pursuit. The Court rules 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.
Pp. 10–13.
433 F. 3d 807, reversed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion
of the Court, in which Roberts,
C. J., and Kennedy, Souter,
Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and
Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J.,
and Breyer, J., filed concurring
opinions. Stevens, J., filed a
dissenting opinion.
here, terminated a high-speed
pursuit of respondent’s car by
applying his push bumper to the
rear of the vehicle, causing it to
leave the road and crash.
Respondent was rendered
quadriplegic. He filed suit under
42 U. S. C. §1983 alleging, inter
alia, the use of excessive force
resulting in an unreasonable
seizure under the Fourth
Amendment . The District Court
denied Scott’s summary
judgment motion, which was
based on qualified immunity.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on
interlocutory appeal, concluding,
inter alia, that Scott’s actions
could constitute “deadly force”
under Tennessee v. Garner,
471 U. S. 1 ; that the use of
such force in this context would
violate respondent’s
constitutional right to be free
from excessive force during a
seizure; and that a reasonable
jury could so find.
Held: Because the car chase
respondent initiated posed a
substantial and immediate risk of
serious physical injury to others,
Scott’s attempt to terminate the
chase by forcing respondent off
the road was reasonable, and
Scott is entitled to summary
judgment. Pp. 3–13.
(a) Qualified immunity requires
resolution of a “threshold
question: Taken in the light most
favorable to the party asserting
the injury, do the facts alleged
show the officer’s conduct
violated a constitutional right?”
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194 .
Pp. 3–4.
(b) The record in this case
includes a videotape capturing
the events in question. Where,
as here, the record blatantly
contradicts the plaintiff’s version
of events so that no reasonable
jury could believe it, a court
should not adopt that version of
the facts for purposes of ruling
on a summary judgment motion.
Pp. 5–8.
(c) Viewing the facts in the light
depicted by the videotape, it is
clear that Deputy Scott did not
violate the Fourth Amendment .
Pp. 8–13.
(i) Garner did not establish a
magical on/off switch that
triggers rigid preconditions
whenever an officer’s actions
constitute “deadly force.” The
Court there simply applied the
Fourth Amendment ’s
“reasonableness” test to the use
of a particular type of force in a
particular situation. That case
has scant applicability to this
one, which has vastly different
facts. Whether or not Scott’s
actions constituted “deadly
force,” what matters is whether
those actions were reasonable.
Pp. 8–10.
(ii) In determining a seizure’s
reasonableness, the Court
balances the nature and quality
of the intrusion on the individual’
s Fourth Amendment interests
against the importance of the
governmental interests allegedly
justifying the intrusion. United
States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 .
In weighing the high likelihood of
serious injury or death to
respondent that Scott’s actions
posed against the actual and
imminent threat that respondent
posed to the lives of others, the
Court takes account of the
number of lives at risk and the
relative culpability of the parties
involved. Respondent
intentionally placed himself and
the public in danger by
unlawfully engaging in reckless,
high-speed flight; those who
might have been harmed had
Scott not forced respondent off
the road were entirely innocent.
The Court concludes that it was
reasonable for Scott to take the
action he did. It rejects
respondent’s argument that
safety could have been assured
if the police simply ceased their
pursuit. The Court rules 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.
Pp. 10–13.
433 F. 3d 807, reversed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion
of the Court, in which Roberts,
C. J., and Kennedy, Souter,
Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and
Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J.,
and Breyer, J., filed concurring
opinions. Stevens, J., filed a
dissenting opinion.
| United States Supreme Court Scott v. Harris (05-1631) Police allowed to force fleeing high-speed vehicle off the road Decided April 30, 2007 |
| Official Syllabus: |
In short: Police officer's attempt
to terminate a high speed
vehicle chase by forcing the
vehicle off the road was
reasonable, and thus did not
violate the fourth amendment.
to terminate a high speed
vehicle chase by forcing the
vehicle off the road was
reasonable, and thus did not
violate the fourth amendment.
Reasonableness. When you
become a police officer, think
about that word all the time, and
apply it to everything you do all
of the time.
There are many people, including
judges, who see just about any
application of force by a police
officer as excessive force. When
an application of force is applied
under dangerous circumstances
for a reasonable purpose, but the
outcome of the application
results in death or serious injury,
the original reasonableness for
the application of force is lost on
a lot of people.
While Scott v Harris is cloaked
in the issue of excessive force,
it's really all about police officers
engaging in high speed vehicle
pursuits. It just happened that
in Scott v Harris the police
officer took overt action to end
the pursuit by bumping the
suspect's car with his vehicle's
push bar. Ergo...the issue of
excessive force.
The Supremes, in an 8 to 1
majority found for the officer,
and they placed responsibility for
the tragic outcome squarely
where it belonged...on the man
who began it all. Even with such
a lopsided majority opinion based
on videotaped evidence, a district
and appellate court didn't see it
the same way.
As you begin your police career,
don't make the mistake of
believing this decision has settled
the debates over police vehicle
pursuits. You'll learn that the
interpretation of law, as well as
its application, is about the most
fluid thing you'll ever encounter.
The Supreme Court came to a
most proper and reasonable
conclusion in Scott v Harris. Had
the Justices possessed the same
mindset as the judges in the
lower courts, they would have
redefined the nation's streets
and highways as raceways. They
would have subjected every police
officer, who dared use any force
to stop a vehicle, to being a
defendant in front of a jury.
While police dodged the bullet on
this one, don't think for a
moment that your
responsibilities involving vehicle
pursuits have been lessened in
any way. Any time you initiate
or participate in a high speed
pursuit of a suspect vehicle, and
the pursuit ends with death or
serious injury -- to anyone --
your conduct will be exhaustively
scrutinized.
Here's the rub. Opponents of
police vehicle pursuits want the
total elimination of police pursuit
of speeding vehicles. The
reasoning is simple...if cops don't
chase, the suspects will slow
down, and they won't kill
anybody. Of course, if you've
just been carjacked, and you're
locked in the trunk of your car,
you may want the cops to keep
chasing you. The point here is
simple...no one can predict what
will or will not happen.
You'll find out pretty quickly
what your police department's
policy is on chasing vehicles.
Every department will have some
kind of written directive
regarding vehicle pursuits, but
those directives won't be much
help to you since the reason for
initiating a pursuit will be the
determining factor. I'm still
trying to figure out the
difference between a speeding 16
year old car thief and a speeding
35 year old bank robber killing
someone.
When it comes to vehicle
pursuits, criticism of your actions
can occur no matter what you do.
Some time ago, I was watching a
Baltimore police chase which
happened to occur during the six
o'clock television news.
Baltimore County Police chased a
speeding vehicle into Baltimore
City. While the city police
helicopter responded, no other
Baltimore City Police units
participated in the chase.
Shortly thereafter, Baltimore
County broke off their pursuit,
and the city police helicopter
departed.
Now...the conventional wisdom
dictated that the suspect would
cease his speeding and reckless
driving. As the news helicopter
continued to follow the suspect,
the conventional wisdom failed to
apply. Earlier, the news anchor
people were discussing the
possibility that the police might
cease the pursuit. As the suspect
continued to speed through
intersections and cutting off
motorists, the anchor wisdom
fest changed to, "Where are the
police? This guy is dangerous."
Not long after the anchorman's
prophetic observation, the
suspect did crash into two other
cars. Fortunately, no one was
seriously injured.
While the Supreme Court settled
Scott v Harris with a conclusion
which is painfully obvious. It's a
little scary to realize that two
lower courts would have
"reasonable juries" decide every
use of force to stop a speeding
vehicle. Had the Supreme Court
agreed with the lower courts, it
wouldn't be long before the mere
activation of your emergency
lights would be considered a use
of force. If activating your lights
to signal a driver to stop causes
become a police officer, think
about that word all the time, and
apply it to everything you do all
of the time.
There are many people, including
judges, who see just about any
application of force by a police
officer as excessive force. When
an application of force is applied
under dangerous circumstances
for a reasonable purpose, but the
outcome of the application
results in death or serious injury,
the original reasonableness for
the application of force is lost on
a lot of people.
While Scott v Harris is cloaked
in the issue of excessive force,
it's really all about police officers
engaging in high speed vehicle
pursuits. It just happened that
in Scott v Harris the police
officer took overt action to end
the pursuit by bumping the
suspect's car with his vehicle's
push bar. Ergo...the issue of
excessive force.
The Supremes, in an 8 to 1
majority found for the officer,
and they placed responsibility for
the tragic outcome squarely
where it belonged...on the man
who began it all. Even with such
a lopsided majority opinion based
on videotaped evidence, a district
and appellate court didn't see it
the same way.
As you begin your police career,
don't make the mistake of
believing this decision has settled
the debates over police vehicle
pursuits. You'll learn that the
interpretation of law, as well as
its application, is about the most
fluid thing you'll ever encounter.
The Supreme Court came to a
most proper and reasonable
conclusion in Scott v Harris. Had
the Justices possessed the same
mindset as the judges in the
lower courts, they would have
redefined the nation's streets
and highways as raceways. They
would have subjected every police
officer, who dared use any force
to stop a vehicle, to being a
defendant in front of a jury.
While police dodged the bullet on
this one, don't think for a
moment that your
responsibilities involving vehicle
pursuits have been lessened in
any way. Any time you initiate
or participate in a high speed
pursuit of a suspect vehicle, and
the pursuit ends with death or
serious injury -- to anyone --
your conduct will be exhaustively
scrutinized.
Here's the rub. Opponents of
police vehicle pursuits want the
total elimination of police pursuit
of speeding vehicles. The
reasoning is simple...if cops don't
chase, the suspects will slow
down, and they won't kill
anybody. Of course, if you've
just been carjacked, and you're
locked in the trunk of your car,
you may want the cops to keep
chasing you. The point here is
simple...no one can predict what
will or will not happen.
You'll find out pretty quickly
what your police department's
policy is on chasing vehicles.
Every department will have some
kind of written directive
regarding vehicle pursuits, but
those directives won't be much
help to you since the reason for
initiating a pursuit will be the
determining factor. I'm still
trying to figure out the
difference between a speeding 16
year old car thief and a speeding
35 year old bank robber killing
someone.
When it comes to vehicle
pursuits, criticism of your actions
can occur no matter what you do.
Some time ago, I was watching a
Baltimore police chase which
happened to occur during the six
o'clock television news.
Baltimore County Police chased a
speeding vehicle into Baltimore
City. While the city police
helicopter responded, no other
Baltimore City Police units
participated in the chase.
Shortly thereafter, Baltimore
County broke off their pursuit,
and the city police helicopter
departed.
Now...the conventional wisdom
dictated that the suspect would
cease his speeding and reckless
driving. As the news helicopter
continued to follow the suspect,
the conventional wisdom failed to
apply. Earlier, the news anchor
people were discussing the
possibility that the police might
cease the pursuit. As the suspect
continued to speed through
intersections and cutting off
motorists, the anchor wisdom
fest changed to, "Where are the
police? This guy is dangerous."
Not long after the anchorman's
prophetic observation, the
suspect did crash into two other
cars. Fortunately, no one was
seriously injured.
While the Supreme Court settled
Scott v Harris with a conclusion
which is painfully obvious. It's a
little scary to realize that two
lower courts would have
"reasonable juries" decide every
use of force to stop a speeding
vehicle. Had the Supreme Court
agreed with the lower courts, it
wouldn't be long before the mere
activation of your emergency
lights would be considered a use
of force. If activating your lights
to signal a driver to stop causes
that driver to speed off and kill himself or another innocent motorist or
pedestrian, you could find yourself being judged by a jury.
Look...here's what you've got to understand right from the beginning.
Chasing cars is really...really dangerous business. Forget about Scott v
Harris, and consider only the dangers to yourself and other innocent
people. My advice to you is to not continue any high speed pursuit; unless,
you have a really...really good reason to do so. Going back to my example
of the carjacking...if I know you're locked inside the trunk of your
speeding car, I'm going to continue to chase your car, because I know that,
statistically, your chances of coming out of that trunk alive are not good;
unless, I rescue you.
In most cases, you'll have people fleeing from you, before you have any
idea of why they're trying to get away from you. The type of police
department you join is going to have a lot to do with reasons to chase a
vehicle. For instance, a state police or highway patrol agency responsible
for patrol of highways and interstates will likely have a much more liberal
pursuit policy than an agency which patrols a densely populated urban
area. The level of training you receive in pursuit and intervention
techniques will also give you a good indication of your department's level
of commitment to vehicle pursuits.
Eight of nine Supreme Court Justices clearly understand what you will
understand when you become a police officer. It's a dangerous world, and
police officers cannot be deprived of their ability to protect society even if
the bad guys get hurt in the process. However, when you chase a vehicle,
you must keep the protection of innocent people foremost in your mind
and ensure that your actions do not place the safety of innocents in
jeopardy. Hey...there's nothing easy about it.
pedestrian, you could find yourself being judged by a jury.
Look...here's what you've got to understand right from the beginning.
Chasing cars is really...really dangerous business. Forget about Scott v
Harris, and consider only the dangers to yourself and other innocent
people. My advice to you is to not continue any high speed pursuit; unless,
you have a really...really good reason to do so. Going back to my example
of the carjacking...if I know you're locked inside the trunk of your
speeding car, I'm going to continue to chase your car, because I know that,
statistically, your chances of coming out of that trunk alive are not good;
unless, I rescue you.
In most cases, you'll have people fleeing from you, before you have any
idea of why they're trying to get away from you. The type of police
department you join is going to have a lot to do with reasons to chase a
vehicle. For instance, a state police or highway patrol agency responsible
for patrol of highways and interstates will likely have a much more liberal
pursuit policy than an agency which patrols a densely populated urban
area. The level of training you receive in pursuit and intervention
techniques will also give you a good indication of your department's level
of commitment to vehicle pursuits.
Eight of nine Supreme Court Justices clearly understand what you will
understand when you become a police officer. It's a dangerous world, and
police officers cannot be deprived of their ability to protect society even if
the bad guys get hurt in the process. However, when you chase a vehicle,
you must keep the protection of innocent people foremost in your mind
and ensure that your actions do not place the safety of innocents in
jeopardy. Hey...there's nothing easy about it.
| Copyright © 2006 - 2008 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
| Online Video Learning Systems: Police Exam - U.S. Border Patrol Exam |