Smokey and the Scalia
Today the SCOTUS ruled in Scott v. Harris that it is not a 4th Amendment violation if a police officer "terminates" a high speed chase when the lives of bystanders are endangered. The ruling is 8-1 (Stevens dissenting). But what's really interesting is the Court put the video of the chase up on its website.
You need to watch the whole thing. The first half is from the officer that's in the lead car until towards the very end, when Officer Scott passes him and then rams the car. They have a term for that maneuver but I can't think of it right now. Anywho, watching the video as a potential juror, I can EASILY conclude that it was unreasonable to end the chase. ALL they had was the fact that Harris was not stopping. That's it.
I realize I'm from California. NASCAR racing did not originate from here because our drivers were trying to outrun the cops. We also have police departments with policies not to pursue someone on the ground unless they have information about the suspect, such as wanted for a felony, etc. THAT is a reasonable way of avoiding danger to the public. Food for thought.
You need to watch the whole thing. The first half is from the officer that's in the lead car until towards the very end, when Officer Scott passes him and then rams the car. They have a term for that maneuver but I can't think of it right now. Anywho, watching the video as a potential juror, I can EASILY conclude that it was unreasonable to end the chase. ALL they had was the fact that Harris was not stopping. That's it.
I realize I'm from California. NASCAR racing did not originate from here because our drivers were trying to outrun the cops. We also have police departments with policies not to pursue someone on the ground unless they have information about the suspect, such as wanted for a felony, etc. THAT is a reasonable way of avoiding danger to the public. Food for thought.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 10:30 AM
17 Comments:
in the second half of the video (camera from the car that did the bump), was it the car being chased that hit him going the other way at first? if so, the driver seems pretty reckless, and it might be reasonable to conclude that he posed a danger if allowed to drive off.
as much as car chases are entertainment on the news in LA, the rules for avoiding chases on the ground in a city environment make a lot of sense. it's more crowded with more chance of things ending badly. plus, you got helicopters that can easily track the suspects. seems like there might be different considerations in more suburban areas.
that said, i'm not sure i think the supreme court needs to take this out of the jury's hands. i think stevens has a point that there is enough question to allow a jury to reach a decision.
how about a post about the patent cases that came down today?
Much like a dysfunctional law firm, us bloggers have different interests. I couldn't care less about patents. TF, however, will probably have volumes to say about them.
I must disagree with your conclusions Armen. The driver was not merely refusing to stop, he was swerving through oncoming traffic, blowing stop signs and stop lights, avoiding roadblocks by hitting another police car, and traveling at speeds of up to 85 mph on a two-lane road at 5am. If he had hit a car traveling the speed limit (55mph) head on, it would have been almost certain death for the driver of the speeding car and the other motorist. The decision to “take him out” looked pretty reasonable to me.
Should the police have let him go? Now that’s an odd incentive: if you start speeding recklessly, we’ll let you continue and pursue at a distance until you run out of gas, crash, or hit another car and kill a bunch of innocent people. Can you tell me where I might find a police department’s policy to do this after a driver refused to stop and endangered dozens of lives? The only example I can think of where the police did otherwise was in the O.J. chase, and that’s hardly a paragon of good policing.
Also, I think you miss the point of the case. It was not a question of whether it was reasonable for the police to stop a dangerous motorist with force. We the taxpayers may conclude that we don’t think police should destroy the cruisers we pay for to stop chases. Fine. But this case was about something else: whether ramming the car was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the driver’s constitutional rights. Do your really suggest that you should have a fundamental right not to be forcibly stopped in a car when your actions are imminently likely to kill somebody?
Moreover, let’s consider what was at stake. The question was whether the driver, who initiated the whole mess by fleeing, should be able to recover damages from the officer who pushed his car off the road. In order to withstand summary judgment, you need to show you have a clearly established constitutional right. Not merely a right, but one a reasonable officer should clearly know about. Certainly, the use of force at issue is a serious issue, and you should only be subjected to being rammed off the road in the gravest situation. Such as this chase over 10 miles of two-lane roads, where it’s a wonder that only the driver was injured. I find it entirely appropriate that the Court found that the driver did not have the right to be free of being forcibly stopped under these circumstances.
What about the incentive structure this sets out for the cops?! Their little NASCAR move easily could have killed the driver who was suspected of nothing more than reckless driving. What if someone had been walking on the side of the road? They could have been killed too! It is amazing they can now get eight votes for this kind of out-of-control police behavior. I guess that's what happens when the Democrats get to nominate only two justices over a forty year period and then they use those two opportunities to nominate moderates. I for one am hoping there are a lot of retirements starting in 2009 and that President Clinton/Edwards/Obama has the guts to put some real liberals on the Court. I am sick and tired of these activist reactionary justices!
Forget even the Fourth Amendment. What about the Due Process Clause? Shouldn't that protect us from the cops wantonly doing things that could kill us? This is an egregious affront to our system of ordered liberty.
1:34: what you say is almost too stupid to react to. But I'll at least point out that the one dissenter in this case was appointed by the one President who never received a single vote as Prez or VP.
1:38: it would be wanton if they rammed you off the road if you were just minding your own business. But disobeying lawful orders & virtually every traffic law there is for a ten mile chase, hitting a police car with your own vehicle, and repeatedly swerving into oncoming traffic is a much greater risk to "ordered liberty" than forcibly stopping a driver who is likely to kill someone.
Was there a safe and easy way to stop the driver? No. Should police be allowed to do this in any situation? No. But under these circumstances, please tell me what would have been preferable. Letting the driver get away is not a sufficient answer.
California PD policies don't necessarily prevent needless high speed chases. Less than a year ago in Oakland, for example, two teenagers were killed and another was permanently disabled when their car was hit by a suspect fleeing police in a high speed chase on surface streets. The reason for the chase? The driver's music was too loud.
1:34 and 1:38 actually shocked me with their departure from reality. Rights are important, but I cannot understand how you see a DP violation here. His due process was having the option to pull the hell over.
It is called a PIT.
I really hope that 1:38 was a joke. 1:34 is quite beyond ridiculous. If freaking Ginsburg signs on, and people STILL complain about liberty, then they should probably be PIT'd themselves.
No opinion here, except that I loved the snarky footnote 1 in Stevens' dissent.
"I can only conclude that my colleagues were unduly frightened by two or three images on the tape that looked like bursts of lightning or explosions, but were in fact merely the headlights of vehicles zooming by in the opposite lane. Had they learned to drive when most high speed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on super highways—when split-second judgments about the risk of passing a slowpoke in the face of oncoming traffic were routine—they might well have reacted to the videotape more dispassionately."
Does everyone here realize the driver was 19 years old and was paralyzed from the waist down when the cops forced his car off the road into a ditch? Also, does everyone realize that the majority--who Stevens referred to as "my colleauges on the jury"--held that as a matter of law the young man's claim could not go to a jury because no reasonable jury could find the police used excessive force? Finally, does everyone realize this kid's only offense was speeding, the cops had already taken down his license plate number and they gave him a speeding ticket in his hospital bed (presumably, he had to have someone receive it for him since he can't use his hand anymore)?
Ok, Callagy, you can go ahead and call me stupid now. I just wanted to get all that out there.
If he knew how to do a j-turn, he would have been fine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTVnpr2ZqZg
Warning: This video is awesome.
Anyways, the discussion is a little ridiculous. It doesn't matter how old the suspect was. If he was endangering others, then the maneuver was justified. Although it's impossible to tell for sure from the horrible video footage whether this was the case, it does appear that he was running stop lights at high speed. Isn't this similar to shooting a suspect who is firing his gun in public?
This is totally ridiculous! If we don't allow people to start high speed chases then where will FOX get all that video for "World's Scariest Police Chases"?!
Are YOU going to help fill their valuable airtime?!
Haha.
Seriously though, when RBG, DHS, and SGB get on board with the "Catholic Five" that's saying something.
You know Stevens would have got on board too, but he's got to dissent for liberal street cred.
I read through the dissent hoping for just such a footnote Brad, but no dice.
^37. In addition to drastically reducing our civil liberties, this decision has the dire result of reducing future film footage for World's Wildest Police Chase Videos(tm), a hallmark of American society. See United States v. Fox Television, Inc. ___ U.S. ___.
Also, re 1:56, he longer was just speeding. I decline to waste time researching this, but I believe that engaging in a high-speed chase evading the police results in felony charges. Not to mention reckless endangerment to others. If he had just been driving along at speed limit +20 and got rammed by a police officer with no warning, then I would agree with you.
Wow, the Federalists are really burning up this blog during finals. The tone is downright gleeful here! I suppose the liberals are busy studying up so they can later find ways to achieve justice in the courts despite awful decisions such as this one.
4:08, do you wake up and think to yourself, "wow, today I'll try to make an idiotic statement to hurt the image of anyone who is remotely liberal." I'm really trying to understand what it is deep down that makes you such a nitwit. Is it the food? The air you breathe? 8-1 decision...federalists?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I love being a liberal, but god I hate liberals.
Oh common. SCOTUS says it's okay under the 4th amendment to shoot TO KILL someone who's fleeing to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. How is PITing a reckless driver any different? It's less likely to kill, yes that's true. That would mean it's safer.
If you are a reckless driver, you "poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury" anymore than a person waving a gun around (aka brandishing) in public. People just forget sometimes that cars are very lethal when operated with bad intent or incorrectly.
And, think about this, why should you let a reckless driver escape anymore than a person who waved a gun around? Is it because you hate guns but love cars? Because you are more afraid of guns than cars? Because cars are not designed to kill? (Bzzt. That's irrelevant, the question is safety to the public, not the intent of the manufacturer of the potential tool for harm). The only real answer is your assumption about the safety of a PIT maneuver v. safety of shooting someone in public. Well guess what, somehow I think cops have a better sense of that then law students.
Post a Comment
<< Home