Supreme Court to decide on Use of Deadly Force in Police Pursuits

[lawrocket 3]

What do you guy's think ahould be appropriate for use of deadly force?

The case is Scott v. Harris, Docket No. 05-1631. The issues presented are:

Quote

1. Is it “objectively reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to terminate a high-speed pursuit by bumping the fleeing suspect’s vehicle with his push bumper when the suspect has demonstrated that he will continue to drive in a reckless and dangerous manner that puts innocent lives at risk?; and

2. Whether, at the time of the incident, it was “clearly established” that an officer’s terminating a dangerous high-speed pursuit by bumping the fleeing suspect’s vehicle with his push bumper violated the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights?

To wit, the Plaintiff accuses the officer of violating his 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The defendant cop claimed he did not, and even if he did, he was entitled to "qualified immunity"

The facts are that a 19 year-old kid (Plaintiff) was clocked speeding. Police pursued, he ran. After a few minutes, a cop (defendant) bumped the kid's car, causing it to lose control. Kid, not wearing a seatbelt, was paralyzed.

The kid sued the government agencies and the cop as an individual for violation of civil rights. All the other defendants were dismissed by the court, leaving only the cop to face the lawsuit. The trial court refused to grant a judgment for the cop as a matter of law, finding that it is an issue of fact whether the cop violated the kid's rights, and whether the cop meets standards for immunity. In an appeal by the cop, the appeals court agreed with the trial court.

The kid is arguing that the initial crime - speeding - did not warrant the use of deadly force. The kid is arguing that even though he was fleeing, his conduct did not rise to the level where deadly force was appropriate.

First, my belief is that, while searches and seizures by governments should be limited, I believe that police should not be hamstrung when a person exhibits a threat of harm to the public. The kid's vehicle is just as deadly as the cop's vehicle. I view it as similar to a person waiving a gun and refusing to drop it who ultimately gets shot and then states, "I never took the safety off, therefore I was not ever an actual danger to the public."

But, my belief is that the SCOTUS will balk at this case. I believe that the SCOTUS opinion will be that the immediate interlocutory appeal was inappropriate. The usual rule is that denial of a summary judgment motion is not an appealable order. I think the SCOTUS will rule that because there was no final judgment, the matter could not be appealed.

By the way, here is a link to the Petitioner Cop's and Respondent Kid's Briefs. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb07.shtml#Scott

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

The trial court refused to grant a judgment for the cop as a matter of law, finding that it is an issue of fact whether the cop violated the kid's rights, and whether the cop meets standards for immunity. In an appeal by the cop, the appeals court agreed with the trial court.

What was the decision of the lower (first) court?

It sounds as though they decided not to decide?

I would think that this isn't any different in terms of the possible result (injury) than using a spike strip on a fast moving vehicle.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

The trial court refused to grant a judgment for the cop as a matter of law, finding that it is an issue of fact whether the cop violated the kid's rights, and whether the cop meets standards for immunity. In an appeal by the cop, the appeals court agreed with the trial court.

What was the decision of the lower (first) court?

It sounds as though they decided not to decide?

No, they just refused to grant a summary judgment, in effect saying it should go to trial, for a jury to decide.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Richards 0]

When your conduct threatens the safety of others then stopping your conduct before you can harm someone takes precedence over any of your rights. This is not to say that there shouldn't be restraints but this story would reall piss me off if some guy/girl with two kids to feed ended up paralyzed.

From a moral perspective this kid has no argument.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[lawrocket 3]

There has been no final decision in the lower court - the lower court just denied summary judgment. What that means is that one party goes to court and says, "Trial is to determine the facts of what happened. We have no dispute of material fact (material meaning those facts that are important to the case). Since the facts are no disputed, under X law, we win. Court, give us judgment as a matter of law."

Here, the Cop did that. The trial court found there was a dispute of material fact, which means that he was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judgment would have to come at trial where the jury would decide the facts.

It's why I find it bizarre that this was appealed. Appeals come after final orders or judgments. Not after orders denying a final judgment.

p.s. federal practice and civil rights cases ain't my racket...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

There has been no final decision in the lower court - the lower court just denied summary judgment. What that means is that one party goes to court and says, "Trial is to determine the facts of what happened. We have no dispute of material fact (material meaning those facts that are important to the case). Since the facts are no disputed, under X law, we win. Court, give us judgment as a matter of law."

Here, the Cop did that. The trial court found there was a dispute of material fact, which means that he was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judgment would have to come at trial where the jury would decide the facts.

It's why I find it bizarre that this was appealed. Appeals come after final orders or judgments. Not after orders denying a final judgment.

p.s. federal practice and civil rights cases ain't my racket...

Counselor, the 1L got to him first... heh...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Lawrocket:
The kid is arguing that the initial crime - speeding - did not warrant the use of deadly force. The kid is arguing that even though he was fleeing, his conduct did not rise to the level where deadly force was appropriate.

Yes, that's my take on it, too. Evading police is wrong, should not be condoned, and should be restrained whenever REASONABLY possible. The key word is "reasonably". Speeding is not a capital offense, or even a felony. The use of deadly force - which forcibly crashing a moving vehicle certainly is - was not warranted by the offense.

Quote

Richards:
When your conduct threatens the safety of others then stopping your conduct before you can harm someone takes precedence over any of your rights.

A very reasonable point -- at first blush. The problem is, sometimes the suspect's extreme speeding is caused by the police pursuit itself; and if the police break off the pursuit, there's a fair chance that the suspect will eventually slow down, presenting less of a menace to innocent motorists and bystanders.

I know the idea of letting a fleeing suspect get away is galling, but if it's obvious the suspect isn't going to slow down, is it worth it to, say, pursue him at high speed to the point where he runs a red light at an intersection and t-bones some innocent motorist's car and kills him? Especially if the driver isn't some felon but only committed a traffic offense?

So the question is: why did the officer force the offender's car to crash? If it was a reasoned decision that that was what was minimally necessary to prevent imminent harm to innocent people, then the officer's act may be reasonable. On the other hand, if the officer's main motivation was simply to apprehend the driver for the offense of speeding, then the use of deadly force was excessive.

[Richards 0]

I know the idea of letting a fleeing suspect get away is galling, but if it's obvious the suspect isn't going to slow down, is it worth it to, say, pursue him at high speed to the point where he runs a red light at an intersection and t-bones some innocent motorist's car and kills him? Especially if the driver isn't some felon but only committed a traffic offense?

Quote

What happens when the word gets out that if you are flagged by police all you have to do is flee and they are not allowed to pursue? I'm sorry but preventing pursuit is not the answer. What they should do is increase the penaly for leading a cop on a high speed chase so that the legal consequence of fleeing exceeds whatever consequences you were facing in the first place (within reason).

So the question is: why did the officer force the offender's car to crash? If it was a reasoned decision that that was what was minimally necessary to prevent imminent harm to innocent people, then the officer's act may be reasonable. On the other hand, if the officer's main motivation was simply to apprehend the driver for the offense of speeding, then the use of deadly force was excessive.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Especially if the driver isn't some felon but only committed a traffic offense?

I believe fleeing the police is a felony in some states.

IMO, the police don't know that the driver is only running from a traffic violation, he/she could have just killed someone, robbed a bank, etc..

[Andy9o8 3]

At the end of the day, it's a social utility analysis. Which is the lesser evil: allowing a fleeing traffic offender to escape to prevent an innocent getting killed, or risking an innocent getting killed to prevent an offender from escaping?

Muncipalities' police departments - and legal departments - have been actively struggling with this issue for about 20 years now. For better or worse, the trend is to have strict pursuit guidelines in which the perceived urgency of apprehending the suspect is weighed in the balance against the need to protect innocent bystanders from falling victim to high-speed pursuits. But the days of unfettered chases - that are only brought to a halt by the physical law that two solid objects cannot coexist in the same time and space - seem to be over.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Especially if the driver isn't some felon but only committed a traffic offense?

I believe fleeing the police is a felony in some states.

IMO, the police don't know that the driver is only running from a traffic violation, he/she could have just killed someone, robbed a bank, etc..

Which misses my point - that the original offense was not a felony. Anyhow, we're not talking about how the offender should be charged once he's arrested, we're talking about justifying the use of deadly force.

In any event, the emerging trend is that even if the suspect is wanted for a felony, the amount of deadly force used to apprehend him must be measured to minimize the risk to innocent bystanders. You can apprehend a fleeing bank robber with a machine gun, but the risk to innocent bystanders is too great, so that's not done. By the same token, placing innocent motorists at deadly risk to apprehend him on the road may also be unreasonable. I don't want bank robbers to get away, but I don't want my daughter to get killed by a car fleeing at 100 mph in order to apprehend them, either.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

There has been no final decision in the lower court - the lower court just denied summary judgment. What that means is that one party goes to court and says, "Trial is to determine the facts of what happened. We have no dispute of material fact (material meaning those facts that are important to the case). Since the facts are no disputed, under X law, we win. Court, give us judgment as a matter of law."

Here, the Cop did that. The trial court found there was a dispute of material fact, which means that he was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judgment would have to come at trial where the jury would decide the facts.

It's why I find it bizarre that this was appealed. Appeals come after final orders or judgments. Not after orders denying a final judgment.

p.s. federal practice and civil rights cases ain't my racket...

If there's been no decision in the lower court (summary judgement was denied), then how can one say that the SCOTUS will decide it. Even if the decision to not grant summary judgement will be appealed, how can it go directly to the SCOTUS?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[lawrocket 3]

I see your points, too, Andy and they are good ones. I would counter them as follows:

Quote

Speeding is not a capital offense, or even a felony. The use of deadly force - which forcibly crashing a moving vehicle certainly is - was not warranted by the offense.

My response is that it is not merely speeding anymore when the driver does not pull over. When the driver evades police and is driving recklessly, it is no longer just speeding. Furthermore, when the driver pushed the cop's car out of the way when the cop was blocking exit from a parking lot, that is another crime.

Thus, deadly force may be warranted by the offense.

Quote

sometimes the suspect's extreme speeding is caused by the police pursuit itself; and if the police break off the pursuit, there's a fair chance that the suspect will eventually slow down, presenting less of a menace to innocent motorists and bystanders.

That's a problem. There's a fair chance that the suspect will not eventually slow down, presenting more of a menace to innocent motorists and bystanders. There is no way of telling - you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Quote

is it worth it to, say, pursue him at high speed to the point where he runs a red light at an intersection and t-bones some innocent motorist's car and kills him

Let's say the guy is a drunk, and pursuit is stopped, whereupon a couple of minutes later the guys runs a red light at an intersection and t-bones some car, killing that occupant. The problem is that it happens hundreds of times per year in the absence of a police chase.

Quote

why did the officer force the offender's car to crash?

That, I guess, is for the jury.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sundevil777 102]

It was my understanding that some places in the US, or was it Europe, had already decided not to exceed certain speeds while in pursuit.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Anyhow, we're not talking about how the offender should be charged once he's arrested, we're talking about justifying the use of deadly force.

And I agree. But if the court is saying to the cop that his vehicle was deadly force when used against another vehicle, then it should also be viewed that the other vehicle constituted deadly force.

Quote

the amount of deadly force used to apprehend him must be measured to minimize the risk to innocent bystanders

I agree, but that isn't the issue raised. The issue raised is whether the use of deadly force was appropriate regardless of the presence of bystanders. The kid is actually arguing that his activities did not present a danger to anyone, and therefore deadly force was not authorized.

It's a really, really tough issue for me...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sundevil777 102]

I would think that the road and bystander conditions at the time of the 'bump' would be important. Doing it on a windy, mountain road with sheer dropoffs could predictably result in a bad crash. I wouldn't expect that to be the actual circumstances, of course.

Why should it be any different in the potential for causing injury than a spike strip?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[downwardspiral 0]

Not enough info it seems....

-Did the kid speed off like he was playing GTA or just simply not pullover?

Tha answer to this question is the deciding factor for me.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I see your points, too, Andy and they are good ones. I would counter them as follows:

Quote

Speeding is not a capital offense, or even a felony. The use of deadly force - which forcibly crashing a moving vehicle certainly is - was not warranted by the offense.

My response is that it is not merely speeding anymore when the driver does not pull over. When the driver evades police and is driving recklessly, it is no longer just speeding. Furthermore, when the driver pushed the cop's car out of the way when the cop was blocking exit from a parking lot, that is another crime.

Thus, deadly force may be warranted by the offense.

I don't consider this as a use of deadly force. What you have is a suspect choosing to flee a police car and should expect that this choice has considerable potential for bad outcomes for him. He could crash on his own, take others out, or get stopped by the police. Doing it without a seat belt was another bad choice that he alone made. (I hope they gave him a ticket for that too)

---
Andy brings up the other topic that I thought this subject might be about - what should police protocol be. It's a real tradeoff, but I lean a bit to the side that the cops should do high speed chases less often then they do, but it's not really a solution to say they should never do it.

However, I think that question is irrelevent to the case at hand. The kid fucked up in multiple ways and is paying a severe price for it. And deservedly so. It's a high price to pay for speeding, wreckless driving, evading police, and not wearing a seatbelt, but better he pay it than anyone else out there.

I expect this will eventually get decided at the local court level.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I don't consider this as a use of deadly force.

I was kind of thinking that myself. How is deadly force defined?

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

How is deadly force defined?

At the risk of getting into semantics, which I hate:
I'd define it as force of either a nature or severity that holds a real possibility of being lethal to the person against whom it's being applied.

I think forcing a moving car to crash qualifies as deadly force. But I DON'T think the issue should hinge on semantics.

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't consider this as a use of deadly force.

I was kind of thinking that myself. How is deadly force defined?

From the Brief for Respondent Victor Harris:

[The cop's] own department’s Use of Force Policy provided a clearly understandable definition of “deadly force,” stating as follows: “Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious injury is considered deadly force.”

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

What do you guy's think ahould be appropriate for use of deadly force?

That's the big question and it might depend on what you know the suspect did. Starting a potentially long and always dangerous chase and then knocking his car off the road seems like overkill when all the guy did was roll through a stop sign. So maybe here you just get the plate number and mail a ticket. But, what if the guy was known to be a rapist/murder? *Now* is it ok to give chase and use deadly force? If so, then where do you draw the line? How bad of a thing does someone have to do?

Do you chase a stop sign roller througher? -- not what happened here, but on the low end of bad

Do you chase speeders? -- the kid was at first just a speeder

Do you chase wreckless drivers? -- then he became a wreckless driver

Do you chase a drug dealer? -- the cop thought the chase was part of an undercover drug sting

Do you chase a rapist/murder? -- the high end of bad

Do you NOT chase a wreckless driver when they started driving wrecklessly just to get away from you, but you DO chase a wreckless driver in other instances? Does that policy make any sense?

OR, do you never chase anyone (no matter what you know they did) because the danger to the public is too great? Wouldn't that policy damn near mean that I could just take the plate off my car and drive as fast as I wanted?

In the Scott/Harris case, I side with the cop and say that this was an appropriate use of deadly force. The kid was driving wrecklessly and the cop should be given the authority to take him out.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

In the Scott/Harris case, I side with the cop and say that this was an appropriate use of deadly force. The kid was driving wrecklessly and the cop should be given the authority to take him out.

Deadly force is deadly force. By that logic, a cop would have been justified in driving up alonside him and shooting him in the head. For speeding and not stopping when ordered.

They're police officers in the United States of America. They're not the Gestapo or the Taliban. Think about the implications of what you're saying.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

In the Scott/Harris case, I side with the cop and say that this was an appropriate use of deadly force. The kid was driving wrecklessly and the cop should be given the authority to take him out.

--Head

One of the funnier malapropisms.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Deadly force is deadly force. By that logic, a cop would have been justified in driving up alonside him and shooting him in the head. For speeding and not stopping when ordered.

They're police officers in the United States of America. They're not the Gestapo or the Taliban. Think about the implications of what you're saying.

Best damned analogy I've heard on this - and something that is making me seriously reconsider my position...

My wife is hotter than your wife.