In hot pursuit

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by red states rule, May 2, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    All but one lib on the Supreme Court finally stood with the Police in this ruling. Now trhe Police have some cover when the are in high speed chase with criminals


    The Supreme Court came to a rare degree of consensus on Monday. Police do not violate the Fourth Amendment by ramming criminals' cars in high-speed chases, the justices found in an 8-1 decision. It's common sense that law enforcers should use force against those who put others in danger.
    In the case, Victor Harris initiated a nighttime chase in Georgia that exceeded 85 mph. He crossed double-yellow center lines, ran two red lights and forced other cars to take evasive action. In a shopping-center parking lot, police vehicles nearly surrounded Mr. Harris, but he escaped, colliding with one in the process.
    About 10 miles into the ordeal, Coweta County Deputy Timothy Scott got permission to spin Mr. Harris' car off the road. The accident left Mr. Harris a quadriplegic, and he sued. The ram, he argued, constituted excessive force and thus unreasonable search and seizure. Two videos, now available on the Supreme Court's Web site, captured the chase.
    As Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion stated, "it is clear from the videotape that [Mr. Harris] posed an actual and imminent threat to the lives of any pedestrians who might have been present, to other civilian motorists, and to the officers involved in the case." As such, the court had "little difficulty in concluding it was reasonable for [Deputy] Scott to take the action that he did." The court deserves credit for ruling correctly by such a wide margin, yet the case shows how frivolous claims often make it too far through our justice system. Such a lawsuit should not have reached the nation's highest judiciary.
    In district court, Deputy Scott requested a summary judgment -- that is, he argued no relevant facts were genuinely disputed, so no jury trial was necessary. As an officer who acted within his duties, he was immune from lawsuits. The judge disagreed, and the officer appealed.
    The 11th Circuit's ruling also favored a jury trial, on the grounds that a "high-speed chase... does not amount to the 'substantial threat' of imminent physical harm" required to justify deadly force.
    Even at the Supreme Court, stocked with nine of America's top legal minds, Mr. Harris found an ally in Justice John Paul Stevens. In his dissent, the justice argued that other motorists were not in danger because they heard the police sirens and pulled over, and because of Mr. Harris' reluctance to collide head-on with other vehicles.
    Perhaps the most disastrous of Justice Stevens' suggestions was that the officers should have abandoned the chase. As the majority pointed out, a practice of abandoning pursuits that become dangerous only encourages criminals to reach that threshold.
    The Supreme Court corrected the wrongs of two lower courts. Unfortunately, those lower courts -- and Justice Stevens' dissent -- show how American jurisprudence often abandons common sense.

    http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070501-092007-4927r.htm
     
  2. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    I find this ruling as if it had to be passed, yet look at the danger it presents if you were hurt from the hispeed chase. If you didn't pass it then criminals would use it as the barrier of escape, yet on the other side criminals need to be stopped. hope I'm never in the middle of a highspeed chase and I get hurt because it would suck to be me.....:sad:
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    So the cops have to let the criminal get away and commit another crime - possibly a murder?
     
  4. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    Well here comes the reasonable man method! If you suspect danger you have the right to pull off and find other means of catching a criminal(s). This is when things are all the sudden fubar like rush hour, or a traffic accident and things get hinkey.
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    It was something to read how Justice Stevens was thoe only one to side with the criminal

    He felt the court had no right to interfere with local judges who knew more about the roads in their state

    Police have every right to do what in neede to catch criminals
     
  6. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    yes I agree but when say you or a loved one got killed as a innocent victim on a chase leaves little faith or restitution after the fact. But on the same token we need to know we feel safe on our roads and that criminals can't hide behind laws and using us as Human Shields.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    True - but if the criminal is caught someone else would not lose a loved one

    If criminals know they can get away using these tactics - that is helping the criminals and hurting law enforcement
     
  8. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    but in this little loop for the law now will protect the lawmen when they wreck in pursuit. so this works both ways as I see it.
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Telling the criminals what the Police can and cannot do is not a smart move
     
  10. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    no it isn't, but again the responsibility weighs on the officers in pursuit and the condition at the time of the pursuit.
     

Share This Page