U. S Supreme Court backs police in high speed chase and other cases.
The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled 8 to 1, in Scott vs. Harris, 05-1631, that a police officer, who is involved in a high speed chase -- watch the video -- and who uses his cruiser to stop the speeding vehicle in a bid to prevent "serious risks to police and bystanders", is not liable on Fourth Amendment UNREASONABLENESS grounds for a violation of the civil rights (42 U. S C., section 1983) for the injuries sustained by the driver of the speeding vehicle -- in this case, the injuries left the driver a quadriplegic.
Justice Scalia, writing for the Court's majority, stated: [W]e loath to lay down a rule requiring 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 by-standers does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death."
The lone dissenter, Justice Stevens, accused his colleagues of "set[ting] forth a per se rule that presumes its own version of the facts[] ... given that it is not clear that this chase threatened the life of any 'innocent bystande[r]'[which issue] ... jurors in Georgia should be allowed to evaluate" [in a trial].
What does all this mean? It all means that police will NOT be held liable for injuries sustained by drivers involved in high speed chases, such as was captured in the video linked above.
So give us your thoughts.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, the Court today ruled 7 to 1 in favor of Microsoft Corp. and against AT&T, 05-1056, which made it easier to challenge patents by restricting the reach of patents overseas.
What do you think?
And speaking of both the Supreme Court and overseas, the Court has agreed to decide the case of a Mexican national on death row in Texas. In the case, Medellin v. Texas, 06-984, the Court will look at executive power and the role of international law on state court proceedings. Death row inmate, Jose Ernesto Medellin and 50 others, are challenging their convictions because they were not allowed to contact their Counsels as allowed by the 1963 Vienna Convention Treaty of which the United States is a signer.
The case will likely be decided by the Court this fall, but until then what do you think? Should a foreigner be told of his rights to contact his country's Consul before certain proceedings are undertaken against him, as allowed under a treaty which the U. S. is a signer?
Justice Scalia, writing for the Court's majority, stated: [W]e loath to lay down a rule requiring 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 by-standers does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death."
The lone dissenter, Justice Stevens, accused his colleagues of "set[ting] forth a per se rule that presumes its own version of the facts[] ... given that it is not clear that this chase threatened the life of any 'innocent bystande[r]'[which issue] ... jurors in Georgia should be allowed to evaluate" [in a trial].
What does all this mean? It all means that police will NOT be held liable for injuries sustained by drivers involved in high speed chases, such as was captured in the video linked above.
So give us your thoughts.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, the Court today ruled 7 to 1 in favor of Microsoft Corp. and against AT&T, 05-1056, which made it easier to challenge patents by restricting the reach of patents overseas.
What do you think?
And speaking of both the Supreme Court and overseas, the Court has agreed to decide the case of a Mexican national on death row in Texas. In the case, Medellin v. Texas, 06-984, the Court will look at executive power and the role of international law on state court proceedings. Death row inmate, Jose Ernesto Medellin and 50 others, are challenging their convictions because they were not allowed to contact their Counsels as allowed by the 1963 Vienna Convention Treaty of which the United States is a signer.
The case will likely be decided by the Court this fall, but until then what do you think? Should a foreigner be told of his rights to contact his country's Consul before certain proceedings are undertaken against him, as allowed under a treaty which the U. S. is a signer?
Labels: Civil rights, Constitutional Rights, Crime, Immunity, U. S. Supreme Court
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 11:12 AM
4 Comments:
While I sympathize with anyone who ends up quadrapeligic, this driver chose to do this to himself. In the tape the original officer states that he passed him at 73mphs. It is clear that he then accelerates to run from that speed. Although not mentioned in your blog or on the tape, the driver had a suspended license, likely the reason he chose to run. So he already he demonstrated his own negligence in driving illegally, both on a suspended license and speeding. He led the officer's around for over six minutes, at least two officers were following him for four minutes, and when he pulled through the parking lot it becomes clear that no less than four police vehicles are pursuing him. If at that point he continues to flee how can the police not conclude that he is hiding something? Their use of special driving techniques to stop him are fully justified. Justice Stevens' dissent is way off base. By his opinion, if a criminal flees a scene they should never be pursued, just in case the criminal gets hurt. Had his opinion ruled the court, I would never slow down for a police siren or lights again, why should I? If I am doing something wrong, and I try to flee, then the police are obliged to stop pursuit. If I did nothing wrong before hand (and the video shows that many cars pull over even though they are not being pursued themselves) then why should I allow an overzealous police officer to disrupt my busy schedule, even for a few seconds? The most significant outcome of this ruling: Justice Stevens, in his opinion, shows why there needs to be a Constitutional amendment to provide for the removal of Supreme Court Justices when they show total disregard for the health and welfare of the general public.
You make very valid points -- except for the removal of Justices, which I disagree with. As for Justice Stevens, I think he "missed the boat" on the resolution of this case. Having said that, I opine that the case does NOT suggestion a per se rule exonerating police for injuries to innocent bystanders. Don't you agree?
qui bono
Suggest NOT suggestion. LOL.
Post a Comment
<< Home