Jim Porter: High-speed car chase suspect sues police | SierraSun.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Jim Porter: High-speed car chase suspect sues police

Jim Porter
Special to the Sun

TRUCKEE/TAHOE, Calif. and#8212;-The U.S. Supreme Court just issued a ruling giving police officers significant protection from lawsuits filed by suspects who lead them on high-speed chases and#8212; then crash.

High-speed chase

Victor Harris, 19, was exceeding the speed limit when a deputy activated his blue flashing lights. Instead of pulling over, Harris sped off on a two-lane road at night at speeds approaching 100 miles per hour.

Harris evaded a police trap, then took off again with a string of officers following. O.J. revisited; but faster. Six minutes and 10 miles after the chase had begun, Officer Scott asked for permission to employ the Precision Intervention Technique (PIT) maneuver, which causes a fleeing vehicle to spin to a stop. He was told and#8220;go ahead and take him out.and#8221; Tough guy cop talk.

Instead, Officer Scott applied his push bumper to the rear of Harrisand#8217; vehicle causing the vehicle to leave the roadway, run down an embankment and overturn. Harris was rendered a quadriplegic.

One guess what Harris did next.

Suspect v. deputy

Harris sued Scott and others claiming a violation of his federal constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to be free of and#8220;an unreasonable search and seizure,and#8221; specifically the seizure.

The trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals found that Scottand#8217;s pushing on the rear of the car constituted and#8220;deadly forceand#8221; so he was not immune from a lawsuit. Victory for Harris. Temporary victory.

Eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices watched a video tape of the chase from a camera on Scottand#8217;s vehicle. The justices were clearly fascinated by the tape and found it told a story different than Harrisand#8217;: and#8220;far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sortand#8230;and#8221;

First car chase case

This is the first time the Supreme Court has heard a police chase case. They concluded Harris posed a and#8220;significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or othersand#8221; before Scott implemented his deadly force push tactic.

Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative justices on the court, wrote the opinion, so you know he landed on the side of the police. And indeed the entire court, did with only Justice Stevens dissenting.

Just back off

One of the arguments Justice Scalia used that made sense to me was, as he wrote, and#8220;We are loathe to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other peopleand#8217;s lives in danger. It is obvious what perverse incentives such a rule would create: every fleeing motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times and runs a few red lights. The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to immunity-earned-by-recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officerand#8217;s attempt to terminate a 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.and#8221;

Concurring opinion

My favorite Justice, Breyer, agreed with the conclusion of the majority opinion; however, he felt that Justice Scaliaand#8217;s statement of law was too absolute, that under some chase circumstances, whether a high-speed chase violates the Fourth Amendment may depend on the specific facts.

This ruling is good news to that bizarre TV program and#8220;Worldand#8217;s Wildest Police Chases,and#8221; as the chase goes on.

We have gone from American-supported brutal dictators, to duties to tell about your herpes, and now high-speed car chases. Whatand#8217;s next in the and#8220;Law Reviewand#8221;?

Jim Porter is an attorney with Porter Simon, with offices in Truckee, South Lake Tahoe and Reno. He is a mediator and was the Governor’s appointee to the Fair Political Practices Commission and McPherson Commission, both involving election law and the Political Reform Act. He may be reached at porter@portersimon.com or at the firmand#8217;s website http://www.portersimon.com.


Support Local Journalism

 

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Lake Tahoe, Truckee, and beyond make the Sierra Sun's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.

For tax deductible donations, click here.

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User