Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court Backs Police in Chase Case

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 10:16 AM
Original message
Supreme Court Backs Police in Chase Case
Source: Associated Press

Supreme Court Backs Police in Chase Case

Monday April 30, 2007 4:01 PM

By MARK SHERMAN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday gave police
officers protection from lawsuits that result from high-speed
car chases, ruling against a Georgia teenager who was paralyzed
after his car was run off the road.

In a case that turned on a video of the chase in suburban Atlanta,
Justice Antonin Scalia said law enforcement officers do not have
to call off pursuit of a fleeing motorist when they reasonably
expect that other people could be hurt.

Rather, officers can take measures to stop the car without putting
themselves at risk of civil rights lawsuits.

“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,” Scalia said.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6597897,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. I could see this guy having a case if he was some innocent bystander, but
he was the one fleeing the police. They needed to end the chase so that other drivers weren't endangered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. That does seem a reasonable enough position.
Edited on Mon Apr-30-07 11:14 AM by Kagemusha
The police exist to protect the general safety of the public, not that of a perpetrator already putting others in danger by driving at reckless, unsafe speeds away from the police.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
951-Riverside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Does this ruling apply to innocent bystanders as well?
I'm completely confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Right. A case a few years ago in San Diego.
A completely innocent citizen pulled out of a mall parking lot, was broadsided by a cop car involved in the chase was killed. They hung a manslaughter charge on the guy they were chasing.

Given that no one is going to outrun a radio or a helicopter, I believe most vehicle chases are unnecessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bicoastal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Not me.
First of all, why do you think Los Angeles Freeways and streets are always practically empty when a high speed chase ensues? The sirens and the loudspeaker aren't just to let the bad guy know he's in trouble--they help to alert everyone to pull over to the side until the maniac is out of the area--otherwise, you'd have a honking car swerving through normal traffic, and innocent people are SURE to get killed.

Second, how do you think the helicopter knows where to go? The LAPD doesn't have their choppers up in the hour 24/7--and most of us would object if they did. The helicopter knows where to go because police cars have been following it, "staying with the suspect," for the last 15 minutes before arial reinforcements can arrive. And that's assuming there's a helicopter readily available in that area. When we turn on the TV, we're almost always seeing the final minutes of a chase that has been going on for quite a while.

It's a shame when the police accidentally hurt someone in pursuit of a suspect, but there's only so many precautionary measures you can take in these situation--and if there was no ground support, only helicopters, you can bet that the guy would be driving even more crazily, and civilian casualties would be more than just an occasional tragic incident--they'd be the inevitable outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. The FBI doesn't agree.
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2002/july2002/july02leb.htm#page_15

Police pursuit records provide some frightening statistics. First, the majority of police pursuits involve a stop for a traffic violation.8 Second, one person dies every day as a result of a police pursuit.9 On average, from 1994 through 1998, one law enforcement officer was killed every 11 weeks in a pursuit,10 and 1 percent of all U.S. law enforcement officers who died in the line-of-duty lost their lives in vehicle pursuits.11 Innocent third parties who just happened to be in the way constitute 42 percent of persons killed or injured in police pursuits.12 Further, 1 out of every 100 high-speed pursuits results in a fatality.13

Research indicates that pursuits become dangerous quite quickly. For example, 50 percent of all pursuit collisions occur in the first 2 minutes of the pursuit, and more than 70 percent of all collisions occur before the sixth minute of the pursuit.14 Although the public sympathizes with the law enforcement community’s position on pursuits, they do not want to be placed in harm’s way. Public support for pursuits decreases as the severity of the offense that led to the chase decreases.15 One study found that 58 percent of people interviewed reported that police act correctly when they pursue a motorist who does not stop.16 When asked if the police act correctly when the pursuit endangers public safety, support decreased by one-half to 29 percent. Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of respondents said that they felt police overreact sometimes or very often when pursuing motorists who do not stop.17 To decrease the dangers associated with pursuit, agencies must increase training and ensure that they have clear pursuit policies.


Training and Policy

A lack of training can increase risks of pursuit-related injuries. Only recently has classroom instruction included training on vehicle pursuit tactics, policy, and liability. Previously, agencies taught pursuit-driving techniques behind the wheel without accompanying classroom training. Officers learned how to pursue but not when to pursue. Inadequate or inapplicable training often resulted, and officers rarely followed training in actual practice. Law enforcement must approach pursuit training similar to firearms training. For example, for every hour agencies spend on training officers how to shoot, they also spend several hours teaching when to shoot.18

The training deficiency trend has changed in the past few years. Although many agencies have increased or added pursuit training, most have done so only for new officers at the police academy. Therefore, most veteran officers, with their academy days far behind them, lack contemporary pursuit training.

Training should teach officers the phenomena present while they pursue. Tunnel vision makes them oblivious to what is going on around them. Some 96 percent of officers involved in a pursuit focus on catching the violator “if it’s the last thing (they’ll) ever do.”19 Research shows that this holds true for many officers.20

While effective pursuit training can curtail certain dangerous situations, policy constitutes another important aspect in police pursuits.21 An overwhelming majority of police agencies implemented their pursuit policy in the 1970s.22 Although most of these same agencies modified their policies in the past 2 years by adding restrictions due to liability, problems remain. Insufficiencies still exist in data collection, reporting procedures, and accompanying accountability.23

One comprehensive study shows that officers can use termination as an effective option to reduce the risks of pursuits.24 This study involved interviews of 146 jailed suspects who had been involved as drivers in high-speed chases. More than 70 percent of the suspects said that they would have slowed down if police had terminated the pursuit or even backed off a short distance.25 Fifty-three percent of the suspects responded that they were willing to run at all costs from the police in a pursuit, and 64 percent believed they would not be caught.26 While 71 percent said that they were concerned for their own safety, only 62 percent said that they were concerned for the safety of others.27 Clearly, the police must be concerned with public safety during pursuits because the suspects are not.

An integral part of pursuit training involves giving officers a clear understanding about the decision to terminate a pursuit. The Arkansas State Police recently created new pursuit training for state and local officers that stresses keeping pursuits under control and advises that termination is an option.28

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bicoastal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Woah...
After looking over the stats, I think I'll side with you and the Feds. How did you find this?

Man, it's hard being a cop--and I for one would never refer to them all categorically as pigs. You're usually screwed if you don't do enough, or if you try to do too much--plus the pay sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I googled "argument against high-speed police pursuit"
and that was the first hit.

There have been a couple chases recently around here that ended without so much as a dented fender simply because the cops backed off to a reasonable distance and let the guy think he was getting away. The criminal drove until he decided to stop and was taken into custody. Sometimes it will be necessary to stop a vehicle more aggressively, but in many cases chase or no chase is as an important decision as shoot ot no shoot.

Agree...cops do have it tough. I'm no big fan of law enforcement, but I'm certainly grateful there are people willing to do the job. If you ever get a chance to do a ride-along, take it. It will be one of the most interesting, enlightening and in some ways frightening thing you will ever do. For many departments all you have to do is call and ask...you don't have to have a reason other than being an interested citizen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
legerdemain Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. This might be true in a case involving a suspect fleeing
for example a bank robber or car thief who is driving erratically just to elude the police, however in cases like this involving a joyrider or drunk/druggie driver, who is not necessarily going to stop just because the police stop chasing him,I think the police are justified in taking drastic measures to bring the chase to a halt and eliminate the risk to innocent bystanders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Is it really necessary to refer to the police as 'pigs?'
Sure there are some bad apples, but most police officers do a good job keeping enforcing the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Sad to say, Freddie...
Too many people have too many experiences with the po-po that weren't exactly positive.

If police want a better image with people, then they have to stop acting like they are a class apart, with special rights and privileges for themselves and their families and friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. If someone is robbed by a black man, does that justify them using the N-word to refer to all blacks?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Constantly puzzled by some people's inability to tell the difference
Edited on Mon Apr-30-07 02:32 PM by T Wolf
between an innate status (race, gender) and a chosen status (occupation).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerBeppo Donating Member (452 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. wow, the first person on my ignore list.
congrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
14. my sister and her 2 girls were almost killed during a high speed chase
a few years ago, the chase grazed her the side of her mini van and than the police car hit it and it was totalled, minor injuries for my 2 nieces, scrapes and stuff and my sister walked away with a bruise. High speed chases are some really scary shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. "In an unusual move, the court posted the dramatic video on its Web site."
Just when you thought the court couldn't demean its integrity any further....

What a sorry shadow of a once venerable institution it become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cigsandcoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
18. If they run, let them get away
Does this concept make sense to anyone?

I agree with the court. You've got to draw the line somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Typical American attitude
Edited on Mon Apr-30-07 06:15 PM by depakid
Endanger the lives of innocent people and use what amounts to deadly force in a high speed chase over a simple traffic ticket just so the cop can "get his man."

Here's basically what the deal was:

Facts of the Case

After a police officer attempted to pull him over for speeding, Victor Harris fled in his vehicle, initiating a high-speed car chase. Attempting to end the chase, Deputy Timothy Scott rammed Harris's vehicle with his police cruiser. Harris crashed and was rendered a quadriplegic. Harris sued Scott in federal District Court, alleging that Scott had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force. Scott claimed qualified immunity as a government official acting in his official capacity, but the District Court rejected the claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Legal Argument

In order to show that a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff is required to prove that the official violated a clearly established constitutional right. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that Scott's actions constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because there was no imminent threat - Harris remained in control of his vehicle and the roads were relatively empty - Scott's use of deadly force was unconstitutional. Although no Appellate Court had ruled on the specific question of the use of deadly force in a high-speed chase, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the limits on deadly force were "clearly established."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Nah, typical pro-authoritarian attitude.
I'm a U.S. citizen, and I agree with you, not the other poster.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Notice that Stevens is the only one who had enough integrity
Edited on Mon Apr-30-07 09:03 PM by depakid
to follow established legal procedure in this case....

"Relying on a de novo review of a videotape of a portion of a nighttime chase on a lightly traveled road in Georgia where no pedestrians or other “bystanders” were present, buttressed by uninformed speculation about the possible consequences of discontinuing the chase, eight of the jurors on this Court reach a verdict that differs from the views of the judges on both the District Court and the Court of Appeals who are surely more familiar with the hazards of driving on Georgia roads than we are.

The Court’s justification for this unprecedented departure from our well-settled standard of review of factual determinations made by a district court and affirmed by a court of appeals is based on its mistaken view that the Court of Appeals’ description of the facts was “blatantly contradicted by the record” and that respondent’s version of the events was “so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him.” Ante, at 7–8.

Rather than supporting the conclusion that what we see on the video “resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort,” ante, at 7,1 the tape actually confirms, rather than contradicts, the lower courts’ appraisal of the factual questions at issue. More important, it surely does not provide a principled basis for depriving the respondent of his right to have a jury evaluate the question whether the police officers’ decision to use deadly force to bring the chase to an end was reasonable....."

See Stevens' blistering dissent here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf

Makes one lose respect for the the Clinton appointees, that's for sure. In certain respects, they're no better than Republican appointees- just with a different agenda.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cigsandcoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. And from what wonderful country do you hail?
I'm sure it's marvelous, and that the residents there agree with you about letting criminals who run from the police just drive away. I'll bet the criminals agree too.

I'm sorry, but only a total moron would think letting people escape who run from the law is a good idea. Well, morons and people from your country, maybe.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Rationality and proportionality, they know no borders
Though it would seem that all too many in the US will have to suffer to learn that lesson once again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cigsandcoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Is it really your position that a person who runs from the law...
...should be allowed to just drive away? I mean, are you kidding?

Having that position does not make a person enlightened - it makes them sound like nutjobs. IMO, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
951-Riverside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-30-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
19. Link to the opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC