The Supreme Court rules in SCOTT v. HARRIS
 In an 8 to 1 decision considering the use of deadly force to stop a high speed car chase, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Coweta County deputy sheriff Timothy Scott and against Victor Harris, the man left paralyzed by Scott’s application of deadly force.
On Monday, April 30 the Court held that Officer Scott did not violate Victor Harris’ civil rights when he forced Harris’ speeding car off the road where it overturned and left the teenager a quadriplegic. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, argued that Victor Harris’ driving “plac[ed] police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury” and therefore Scott’s attempt to stop the car was reasonable. Relying on a videotape of the chase, Scalia wrote that “no reasonable jury” could refuse to acknowledge the immediate risk to the public and therefore Scott was entitled to summary judgment.
Justice Stevens, the lone dissenter in this case, pointed to the fact that three justices on the Court of Appeals, after viewing the same videotape, came to a very different conclusion in regard to the reasonableness of the pursuit. “If two groups of judges can disagree so vehemently,” Steven said, it should be left to a jury to decide whether Harris’ actions warranted deadly force. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer agreed with Scalia’s conclusion that Scott acted reasonably but voiced concern with the broad rule established by Scalia.
To read the entire decision click here.
NPAP member Andy Clarke, co-counsel to Victor Harris:
“Now that the Supreme Court has held that Deputy Scott’s use of deadly force was reasonable as a matter of law, it is hard to imagine any pursuit that cannot be terminated through the use of deadly force even when the fleeing suspect is simply a scared kid which is the most likely scenario based on current state of research on pursuits. Further, there is a real danger that a finding that Deputy Scott’s conduct was reasonable as a law will give police officers the ability to use deadly force to stop all cars driving in a reckless manner. Such a ruling is contrary to almost all modern, professional police policies and practices.”
To read the transcript of the February 26 oral argument click here.
NPAP's Amicus Brief is available here.
The other Briefs filed in this case are available from NPAP upon request.
|
