High-Speed Chases: Justified or Just High-Risk?
Feb. 26, 2007 — -- High-speed chases — they often make for intense video showing speeding cars and spectacular crashes. But what if those crashes do more than just bang up a car or knock down some street signs? Government statistics show that on average, more than 350 people die annually because of these chases. Now, for the first time in 20 years, the Supreme Court is considering placing boundaries on police intervention during these chases.
Scott v. Harris, the case argued before the Supreme Court today, stems from a 2001 chase in Georgia. Fayette County Deputy Sheriff Timothy Scott joined other law enforcement officers chasing Victor Harris as he barreled down wet roads at high speed, bobbing and weaving in attempts to evade the police. Scott had already tried once to stop Harris' black Cadillac at a highway on-ramp, but Harris hit the deputy's vehicle and kept driving. Scott saw a second opportunity to intervene and volunteered to ram his already-damaged cruiser into Harris' by using a maneuver called a precision intervention technique, or PIT, which calls for an officer to bump a car at an angle to spin it to a halt. Scott radioed his supervisor, "Fifty-six, sixty-six, permission to PIT him?" The reply came just seconds later. "Go ahead and take him out. Take him out!" Scott's move forced the suspect off the road and down an embankment. The crash left Harris -- 19 years old at the time -- paralyzed from the neck down.
The chase, which lasted for about 9 miles, was caught on video from a camera mounted on Scott's dashboard. It was that video that seemed to stun some of the justices as they grappled with how far police can go to try to stop a fleeing suspect before violating the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizure.
Several justices, clearly moved by the video, seemed sympathetic to Scott's use of force.
"Anyone who has watched that tape has got to come to that conclusion looking at the road and the way that this car was swerving and the cars coming in the opposite direction," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. "This was a situation fraught with danger."
