Supreme Court To Rule On High-Speed Police Chases

[RWC130 594]

High Court to Rule on Deadly Force in Police Chases

By Charles Lane

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, October 28, 2006; A05

The Supreme Court stepped into the national debate on the risks of

high-speed police car chases yesterday, announcing that it will decide

whether the Constitution permits police to use deadly force against a

fleeing motorist whose only suspected offense is speeding or reckless

driving.

The court's decision was a victory for a Georgia police officer appealing a

ruling earlier this year by the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the

11th Circuit. That court had concluded that the officer acted unreasonably

by ramming a fleeing speeder, causing a crash that left the driver, Victor

Harris, paralyzed.

The 11th Circuit, like a Georgia federal district judge before it, ruled

that the officer, Timothy Scott, had violated a clearly established

constitutional rule and could personally be sued.

But Scott's appeal said that the 11th Circuit's decision clashed with

rulings by other appeals courts and "will have a chilling effect on seizures

of all fleeing suspects across the nation" if the Supreme Court does not

reverse it.

At least four members of the court -- the minimum needed to accept a case --

found this argument persuasive enough to grant Scott a hearing.

When the court hears arguments in Scott v. Harris , No. 05-1631, early in

2007, it will be the first time the justices have reexamined the

constitutional prerequisites for employing deadly force against unarmed

fleeing suspects since 1985.

In that case, which involved not a speeder but a suspected burglar, the

court ruled that police may use deadly force only when they have good reason

to believe someone will be killed or injured if they do not.

"It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape," the

court ruled. "A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous

suspect by shooting him dead."

The 11th Circuit cited that ruling to support its decision against Scott,

noting that Harris was not suspected of any offense more serious than

speeding, a misdemeanor, and posed little risk to the public because the

streets were empty at the time.

Scott replied in his brief that the 11th Circuit's ruling puts police in

"the untenable position of waiting until a fleeing suspect engaged in

reckless and dangerous driving . . . actually maims or kills an innocent

bystander before initiating a seizure."

Pursuits -- even of armed and dangerous suspects -- have become

controversial in recent years, because of the risk they can pose to third

parties and police officers themselves.

A 2004 University of Washington study found that, from 1994 to 2002, 260 to

325 people were killed annually as a result of high-speed chases.

The chase prompting the court's new case began on the night of March 29,

2001, when police tried to pull Harris over for going 73 in a 55-mph zone.

Harris fled, accelerating to more than 90 mph and driving against traffic.

Harris later said he was frightened and wanted to avoid an impound fee for

his car.

Scott joined the pursuit and radioed his supervisor for permission to

attempt a "precision intervention technique," a maneuver in which a police

car deliberately bumps a fleeing car at an angle, forcing it to spin out and

stop.

Scott's supervisor authorized the maneuver. But Scott instead rammed

Harris's car directly from behind, forcing it to career off the road and

crash.

Now a quadriplegic, Harris sued Scott, alleging that the officer had

violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable seizures.

A federal district judge in Georgia upheld the suit against Scott in 2003,

prompting Scott's appeal to the 11th Circuit.

A decision in the case is expected by July.

[X615 0]

on a positive note, at least Harris won't be doing it again .............. at least not at speeds exceeding 20-30 mph.