(Supreme Court) Justices rule fleeing police is a violent felony

[alp227]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- They have become staples of many cable and broadcast television stations: high-speed, often dangerous police pursuits of fleeing motorists, videotaped and packaged into such shows as "World's Wildest Police Chases."

In an appeal that came to the Supreme Court, the issue was: When do such incidents cross over into the realm of "violent felonies" that could lead to increased jail time?

The justices, by a 6-3 vote Thursday, dismissed an appeal from an Indiana man who received an enhanced federal sentence because of prior serious offenses, one of which was for trying to escape in a vehicle.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said that while the federal law in question does not specifically mention dangerous car chases, they clearly are the kind of crime that deserves to be treated more seriously.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/09/us.scotus.car.chases/index.html

---

The case was Sykes v. United States (09-11311). Dissenting were: Scalia, Kagan, and Ginsburg.

[Renew Deal]

1. I wonder what the dissenters had to say.

Weird that Scalia is one of them. Probably on the principle that there shouldn't be preferential treatment. I can't believe Scalia and Thomas are on different sides of a mixed decision.

[qazplm]

5. in certain rather narrow

criminal areas, Thomas and Scalia are almost always on the opposite side.

Scalia does on occasion produce decisions that help accused, Crawford for one was a huge case for the idea of the right to confrontation.

Hate the guy, but he's slightly better than a blind squirrel on criminal law stuff, Cataract Squirrel maybe.

[BlueIris]

6. Scalia: Cataract Ridden Squirrel on criminal law.

I love it.

[djg21]

31. source for SCOTUS Info

If you want to read the decisions and related commentary, look here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sykes-v-united-states-2?wpmp_switcher=desktop

[Renew Deal]

35. Thanks. Scalia thinks it's a poorly written clause that should be thrown out.

He says that the same thing has come up 4 times since 2007 because of how poorly it's written. Interesting.

It seems that Kagan and Ginsberg think that the driver didn't violate the law. It's an interesting case considering the lack of partisanship and the 4 opinions (Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, Kagan).

[joeybee12]

2. Well, if federal law doesn't mention them, this is judicial activism at its

finest...and if they deserve to be treated more seriously, the legislative branch should address this.

[DallasNE]

24. Precisely

That is the very same thought that occurred to me as I read this. Here they make no bones about legislating from the Bench.

[Rex]

3. Really? Did they have an opinion about the shows being garbage.

I fucking hate those shows...would rather watch Jerry Springer (I can't stand Springer). Those shows should be illegal. They distract from the cops job.

[sweetapogee]

4. vote

with your clicker

[Zorra]

7. Welkom to the Korporate States of Amerika. Now, if you run

from a cop, it's a violent felony, even if the cop was doing a Rodney King on you.
:puke:

[sulphurdunn]

8. Does this mean a cop

can shoot some kid in the back for running from a busted house party?

[boppers]

10. If they're running from a cop by driving through private yards and crashing into somebody's house...

Then they qualify for an increased sentence.

That's what this was about.

[blackdem76]

13. Not part of this decision.

Just a "dangerous" car chase. All car chases are dangerous.

[boppers]

17. FTA:

"Officers had noticed Sykes driving without headlights, and when police flashed their emergency sirens, the suspect took off and a chase ensued. Prosecutors said Sykes drove on the wrong side of the road and through yards with residents nearby, then rammed a fence and finally crashed into a house. He fled on foot and was eventually captured, thanks to a police dog in pursuit."

As a contrary example, OJ Simpson's car chase was not at illegal speeds, did not leave the roads, did not break traffic laws, and did not endanger others.... not all car chases are inherently dangerous.

[blackdem76]

20. BS

OJ's "car chase" was not a car chase. Even a kitten knows that a chase requires speed.

[boppers]

21. 15 mph is a speed.

:evilgrin:

[sofa king]

26. Indeed it is.

I recall reading in News of the Weird of an hours-long low-speed chase in which the perpetrator never exceeded about 35 mph, simply coasted around road blocks, and continued until he ran out of gas. He was apparently trying to burn off all the alcohol in his system as well.

Here's a guy who tried the same thing and failed:

http://suburban.gmnews.com/news/2005-03-31/Front_page/026.html

[PavePusher]

28. Anything over a dead stop in a car is a lethal speed, if you run over someone.

Cars have several orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than a bullet, and are easier to aim.

[nebenaube]

39. Probably... n/t

[niceguy]

9. They should be punished

we just had a family taken out by a feeing felon. They should be punished for the danger that the public is exposed to

[blackdem76]

11. They already beat the sh*t out of you for fleeing.

Making it a felony is double-dipping.

[totodeinhere]

12. Interesting. Ginsburg, Kagan, and Scalia were the dissenters. n/t

[blackdem76]

15. Why is that interesting?

Liberal fools and conservative fools have something in common.

[totodeinhere]

27. Well anytime Scalia is on the same side with liberals that is interesting to me. n/t

[Ter]

33. He thinks flag burning is a protected speech as well

Once in a while he shows a libertarian streak.

[Historic NY]

14. One could argue a car is a weapon..& usually its the ambulance chasers...

who gather in the aftermath of chases. The showing constantly of these chases on the TEE-VEE only promotes the idea. The police seem to be held in a higher standard even when they break off the chase, but the felon fleeing continues. A felon fleeing with prior criminal history knows exactly what he is doing when he evades his capture & arrest by the police. He ups the ante & should pay with the consequences. Why should law enforcement be liable & not the offender??

[blackdem76]

18. "One could argue...."?

So are you endorsing this argument or not? One could argue that the earth is flat.

[blackdem76]

19. Why do we need an additional crime besides resisting arrest?

We've also got "public endangerment."

[boppers]

22. This wasn't about an "additional crime".

This was about sentencing guidelines that take into account the *nature* of prior crimes, specifically, whether or not his prior car chase could be characterized as a "violent felony".

[Historic NY]

25. exactly....I was characterizing the civil cases........

[PavePusher]

29. Are you saying that a car is not a potential weapon?

Cars have several orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than a bullet, and are easier to aim.

[Historic NY]

34. No.

[PavePusher]

36. Huh? Mabe a little less concise, please? n/t

[melm00se]

38. if a car is used to charge

at a police officer and officer shoots and kills the driver that is justifiable shooting.

a car fleeing from the police is a deadly weapon to not only the officer but also the general public so charging them with a violent felony is, in my mind, justifiable.

[hughee99]

16. Hold on, Scalia, Kagan and Ginsburg were in agreement?

:wtf:

[boppers]

23. No, they voted against it for very different reasons.

Scalia thought the law was too vague.
Kagan and Ginsburg thought that the law in the state indicated the specific crime wasn't a violent felony.

[primavera]

30. Okay, now that makes more sense

I was having a very hard time imagining how Mad Dog Scalia could disagree with anything that offered enforcement agencies an opportunity to impose stiffer penalties.

[happyslug]

32. Here is the Opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-11311.pdf

[Vidar]

37. Fat Tony's head belongs on pike staff over Traitor's Gate; unfortunately we don't have one of those.