SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect

[Mickey1992]

Summary:  Fleeing suspect (after failure to stop and striking police vehicle) gets bumped by pursuing police car and loses control, wrecking and ending up a quadreplegic.  He sues officer that bumped him.

The US Supreme Court says NO SOUP FOR YOU.  

"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.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269265,00.html
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf

[Airscrew]

thats such a no brainer makes me wonder how it even got to the SC.

[Yknurd]

HA HA

No arm, leg movements for you!!!1SQUAREROOTOFg

[rpm]

Pursuits are strange beasts. Sometimes you catch the guy, sometimes you put the public at more risk by persuing. If you have access to a helicopter, pursuits are nothing more than a testosterone parade for the cops.

Having said that, I don't see using the police car as a tool to stop a fleeing suspect as a bad idea. It's all a matter of when, where and why.

We just had a 100MPH+, 50 mile persuit here. They were after a car that drove off without paying for $20 worth of gas. 4 different agencies from 3 different counties took part. They finally used stopsticks and the suspects crashed into a ditch and walked away. They are still at large.

[Mr No Name]

If it had been an illegal alien the SC would have awarded him millions, gave him a green card and a SS card... then thrown the cop in jail for 10+ years

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Airscrew
thats such a no brainer makes me wonder how it even got to the SC.

Liberal judges in smaller courts.

[Shuffler]

I'm shocked .... when the law actually works we are surprised and it makes big headlines. This should be the norm, not the exception.

We have a person in San Antonio filing charges on Border Patrol agents doing their job. Yet noone has delved into his finances to see who is paying him off.

And to think... we used to shoot traitors.... now several are in office.

[Maverick]

Nice supposition there RPM, just don't figure that your opinion holds much water.

[Sting138]

Reminds me of when I lived in Corpus Christi and a 13 year old ran out of the mall after stealing some cd's. He ran across the freeway while being pursued by the rent a cops as well as CCPD who were already on site for another shoplifter. This happened at rush hour and he ended up getting mangled by a multitude of cars and his parents tried to sue the PD and Mall for damages. They didnt get squat except a large funeral bill!

DO THE CRIME DO THE TIME!!

[Ripsnort]

What do you call a quadraplegic who ran from the cops, that lies at your door.




































"Matt".

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Liberal judges in smaller courts.

11th circuit in Atlanta Ga. ... Buncha freakin hippies right?

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by midnight Target
11th circuit in Atlanta Ga. ... Buncha freakin hippies right?

You obviously know very little about Atlanta.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Maverick
Nice supposition there RPM, just don't figure that your opinion holds much water.

Actually Mav, it's not just my opinion. Many major cities have rethought their pursuit policies. Dallas is one that I know of. They did not stop pursuits, but they use judgement on whether to maintain pursuit or turn it over to aircraft depending on the violation, traffic conditions, ect.

It's a smart rule. Using the same situation I outlined in my previous post why couldn't a mailed ticket have served justice? They mail tickets for running traffic lights and speeding using nothing more than your tag number. Once the officers had the tag, why maintain a 100MPH+ pursuit that put the public at risk over $20 worth of gas?

Other than braggin' rights at the Dunkin' Donuts, what purpose does it serve chasing a car over 50 miles at 100MPH+ over $20?

[Toad]

I'm ready for Stevens to retire.

The court voted 8-1, Stevens dissenting.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

Scalia described a ``Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury.''

During oral argument, justices repeatedly invoked the video to support how recklessly they believed Harris was driving.

Stevens, however, said that a district court judge and three appellate judges who watched the same video concluded otherwise. Those judges determined the issue should be decided after a trial, not by a judge in a pretrial ruling.

In the courtroom, Stevens said that was preferable to the case "being decided by a group of elderly appellate judges,'' a reference to himself and his colleagues on the court. At 87, Stevens is the oldest justice.

In his written dissent, however, Stevens suggested his colleagues were too young to appreciate the situation.

"Had they learned to drive when most high-speed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhighways...they might well have reacted to the videotape more dispassionately,'' he said.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by midnight Target
11th circuit in Atlanta Ga. ... Buncha freakin hippies right?

Not the political liberal-type liberal you twit!  I meant "liberal" as in liberal with favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible. (Shakes head at Midnights knee-jerk and twitching reaction...)