Police Pursuits - US Supreme Court Decision

[helicopper 1,050]

Interesting decision by US Supreme Court - not that pursuit policies here in NY are ever going to change...

(from another forum)

If you don’t believe in the value of a videotape as evidence in court (particularly of a vehicle pursuit) you need to read this brand new ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of law enforcement regarding a police pursuit in Georgia. The Court specifically acknowledged the value of the videotape evidence:

“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.

“Viewing the facts in the light depicted by the videotape, it is clear that Deputy Scott did not violate the Fourth Amendment.”

“There is, however, an added wrinkle in this case: existence in the record of a videotape capturing the events in question. There are no allegations or indications that this videotape was doctored or altered in any way, nor any contention that what it depicts differs from what actually happened. The videotape quite clearly contradicts the version of the story told by respondent and adopted by the Court of Appeals.”

“The videotape tells quite a different story. There we see respondent’s vehicle racing down narrow, two-lane roads in the dead of night at speeds that are shockingly fast. We see it swerve around more than a dozen other cars, cross the double-yellow line, and force cars traveling in both directions to their respective shoulders to avoid being hit. We see it run multiple red lights and travel for considerable periods of time in the occasional center left-turn-only lane, chased by numerous police cars forced to engage in the same hazardous maneuvers just to keep up. 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 sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury.”

The opinion goes on and on about the value the Court placed on the tape. You can read the entire Court ruling at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf

You can actually watch the video at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/vid...t_v_harris.rmvb It’s 15 minutes long, 91 mb, and requires Real Media Player.

And this is a great statement by the eight justices who wrote this decision (the ninth justice recommended Trident):

"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 injuryor death."

[SgtGumby311 0]

Does the video have to come from one of the pursuing RMP's or can it come from the air, PD or news copters?

[Guest]

Video evidence has been found by the courts to be like any other physical evidence which must be subject to verification that it has not been edited or altered, no matter the source (surely we all remember the Rodney King videotape...). (I don't recall the case(s) which led to video being admissible.) In this case the video was accepted as a direct challenge to statements made by the defendant.

One interesting footnote in the case is the following (emphasis added):

"JUSTICE STEVENS [the lone dissenting Justice] hypothesizes that these cars “had already pulled to the side of the road or were driving along the shoulder because they heard the police sirens or saw the flashing lights,†so that “[a] jury could certainly conclude that those motorists were exposed to no greater risk than persons who take the same action in response to a speeding ambulance.†Post, at 3. It is not our experience that ambulances and fire engines careen down two-lane roads at 85-plus miles per hour, with an unmarked scout car out in front of them. The risk they pose to the public is vastly less than what respondent created here.But even if that were not so, it would in no way lead to the conclusion that it was unreasonable to eliminate the threat to life that respondent posed. Society accepts the risk of speeding ambulances and fire engines in order to save life and property; it need not (and assuredly does not) accept a similar risk posed by a reckless motorist fleeing the police."

[helicopper 1,050]

Yes, STEVENS dissent is an interesting read. Obviously he has some issues with emergency vehicle operations.

As for the evidentiary value of videotape (or audio tape as the case may be), I know that many law enforcement agencies routinely make their videos available to the court as evidence. San Diego PD is probably one of the leaders as far as aviation video goes. They say that they've successfully used their videotapes from the helicopter to exonerate officers accused of excessive force or other wrongdoing in addition to supporting the charges against the defendant.

As for civilian video or media footage, I don't know what the rules would be. Our videos are maintained as evidence and timestamped, etc. I don't know if other video would be admitted as easily.

Interesting issues for the future as more and more cameras pop up!

Chris