Memphis Injury Lawyer Blog

Tennessee automobile law and that of other states has been severely impacted by the advent of video cameras. Imagine that the following scenario happened in Germantown, Tennessee.

A police officer attempted to pull over a car for speeding. Victor Harris fled in his vehicle, initiating a high-speed car chase. Attempting to end the chase, Deputy Timothy Scott rammed Harris's vehicle with his police cruiser. Harris crashed and was rendered a quadriplegic. Harris sued Scott in Federal District Court, alleging that Scott had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force. Scott claimed qualified immunity as a government official acting in his official capacity. Qualified immunity means that a person cannot be sued for injuries if that person has acted reasonably within his duty as a police officer.

In order to show that a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff is required to prove that the official violated a clearly established constitutional right. The lower Court ruled that Scott's actions constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because there was no imminent threat - Harris remained in control of his vehicle and the roads were relatively empty - Scott's use of deadly force was unconstitutional. The Appellate Court ruled that the limits on deadly force in a high speed chase were "clearly established." The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

1) Does a police officer who stops a high-speed chase by ramming a fleeing suspect's car violate the protection against unreasonable seizure?

2) Was it "clearly established" in federal law that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution by using deadly force during a high-speed chase?

Before you decide, please take a look at the actual video of the chase in question. Please note that this has been edited to the critical portions but no important elements have been removed:

The Courts are often chastised for protecting the rights of the wrongdoer and ignoring the realities of police work. We have all heard the news reports of a Defendant being exonerated due to a "technicality". The reality is that Judges are mindful of the rights and duties of all sides to an issue. In this case, the Court ruled 8-1 that Scott's actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia relied heavily on a videotape of the car chase, which it said contradicted the plaintiff's claim that he was driving responsibly even while being pursued by the police.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that "[...] it is clear from the videotape that [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 chase." The opinion weighed the need to prevent the harm Harris could have caused against the high probability that Harris himself would be harmed by Scott's use of force. It also took into account Harris's culpability for starting the chase in the first place. The Court concluded that it is reasonable for a police officer to use deadly force to prevent harm to innocent bystanders, even to the point of putting the fleeing motorist at serious risk of injury or death.

The full opinion of the United States Supreme Court can be found at Scott v. Harris opinion.