|
The United States Supreme Court concluded
that an officer’s decision to terminate a pursuit
by ramming the fleeing motorist, who’s driving posed
a serious threat to other motorists, does not violate the
4th Amendment.
Victor Harris was clocked speeding by a
deputy while driving a vehicle that was actively registered
to him. When the
deputy attempted to pull Harris over, Harris fled. The
result was a six-minute pursuit that traveled nine miles.
During
the pursuit which reached speeds of 90 miles per hour,
Harris crossed the center line, placing other motorists
at risk
and passed through two red lights. At one point he collided
with a police cruiser that attempted to block his path
in a parking lot.
During the pursuit, Deputy Scott sought
a supervisor’s
permission to use the PIT maneuver against Harris to stop
the chase. The supervisor authorized Scott to “take
him out.” At that point Scott determined that he
was traveling too fast to use the PIT maneuver so he decided
to ram Harris straight on instead. Harris was rendered
a
quadriplegic as a result of the crash caused by the ramming.
In its review of the case, the United States
Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that
they must only look at the facts found by the United State
Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit which had concluded that Harris had
fled in a somewhat safe manner. The Court decided that
the facts, with respect to Harris’ dangerousness during
the chase, were evident from a review of the video of
the pursuit. They suggested that the United States Court
of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit should have reviewed the
tape instead of relying on the trial court record. The Court
concluded that the facts as alleged by the plaintiff with
respect to the chase were clearly contradicted by the
tape.
The Court concluded that Harris’ actions during
the pursuit did pose a significant danger to other motorists.
In analyzing the case, the Court determined
that the reasonableness of the officer’s decision to terminate the pursuit
must balance the danger to Harris by the officer’s
actions against the danger to the public that the deputy
was trying to eliminate. Additionally, the Court considered
culpability. In other words, who has the most blame? The
Court pointed out that Harris had the most blame. “It
was [Harris], after all, who intentionally placed himself
and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in the
reckless, high-speed flight that ultimately produced
the choice between two evils that Scott confronted.
Multiple
police cars, with blue lights flashing and sirens blaring,
had been chasing respondent for nearly 10 miles, but
he ignored their warning to stop. By contrast, those
who
might have been harmed had Scott not taken the action
he did were entirely innocent. We have little difficulty
in concluding it was reasonable for Scott to take the
action that he did.
The Court also rejected the argument
regularly propounded by plaintiffs’ experts in pursuit cases, that if law
enforcement simply stopped, the suspect would stop fleeing.
The Court asserted: “But wait, says respondent: Couldn’t
the innocent public equally have been protected, and the
tragic accident entirely avoided, if the police had simply
ceased their pursuit? We think the police need not have
taken that chance and hoped for the best. Whereas Scott’s
action—ramming [Harris] off the road—was certain
to eliminate the risk that [Harris] posed to the public,
ceasing pursuit was not. First of all, there would have
been no way to convey convincingly to respondent that the
chase was off, and that he was free to go. Had [Harris]
looked in his rearview mirror and seen the police cars deactivate
their flashing lights and turn around, he would have had
no idea whether they were truly letting him get away, or
simply devising a new strategy for capture. Perhaps the
police knew a shortcut he didn’t know, and would reappear
down the road to intercept him; or perhaps they were setting
up a roadblock in his path. Given such uncertainty, [Harris]
might have been just as likely to respond by continuing
to drive recklessly as by slowing down and wiping his brow.”
“Second, we are loath to lay down a
rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get
away whenever
they drive so recklessly that they put other people’s
lives in danger. It is obvious the 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 impunity-earned-by
recklessness.
Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: "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.”
Decision 8-1
Jack Ryan
LLRMI/PATC 4-30-07
|
Survey
In November and December of 2006 a survey
was conducted that addressed vehicle Pursuit Policy and Tactics, with
specific emphasis on Ramming and Precision Immobilization Technique
(P.I.T.). Over 1000 surveys were taken from all accross the country.
View
Survey Results Here
Lower Courts Summary
Harris v. Coweta County
Summary of events leading to Supreme Court hearing of oral arguments.
In Harris v. Coweta County, the United
States Court of Appeal for the 11th Circuit analyzed a
ramming during a police pursuit under deadly force principles
and refused to grant the officer summary judgment or qualified
immunity. The supervisor, who authorized Deputy Scott to
perform the Precision Immobilization Technique during the
pursuit was granted summary judgment and dismissed from
the case because, while he authorized the P.I.T. maneuver,
the deputy did not P.I.T. Harris’ vehicle but instead
rammed the vehicle. The United States Supreme Court has
decided to consider the decision of the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeal in this case.
Finish
Article Here
Quick Reference
Only $3.00 at the PATC
Bookstore
Details & Ordering
View all Critical Task Checklists
and hundreds of other reference materials at the PATC
Bookstore.
|
