Scott v. Harris

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Scott v. Harris
ArgueDate=February 26
ArgueYear=2007
DecideDate=April 30
DecideYear=2007
FullName=Timothy Scott v. Victor Harris
USVol=
USPage=
Citation=
CitationNew=550 U.S. ___
Docket=05-1631
Prior=Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Subsequent=
Holding=Because the car chase respondent initiated posed a substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others, Scott's attempt to terminate the chase by forcing respondent off the road was reasonable, and Scott is entitled to summary judgment.
SCOTUS=2007
Majority=Scalia
JoinMajority=Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
Concurrence=Ginsburg
Concurrence2=Breyer
Dissent=Stevens
JoinDissent=
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=

"Scott v. Harris", (05-1631), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court on February 26, 2007. The case was petitioned by a sheriff's deputy who was sued by a motorist paralyzed after the officer ran his eluding vehicle off the road during a high-speed car chase.cite web| url =http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/30/supremecourt/main2743124.shtml| title = Court Sides With Cops On High-Speed Chase| publisher =CBS News| accessdate =2007-04-30] The driver contended that this action was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The case also involved the question of whether a police officer's qualified immunity shielded him from suit under Section 1983. On April 30 2007, in an 8-1 decision, the court sided with police and ruled that 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. "cite web| url =http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf| title = Supreme Court opinion| publisher =Supreme Court of the U.S.| accessdate =2007-04-30] In a rare occurrence, the court accepted the presentation of video evidence of the high speed pursuit. Such procedure is quite uncommon in the Supreme Court and was viewed as part of an interesting relationship between the Supreme Court and technology. The video had a strong effect on the Court's decision and is viewed as a major factor in how the court made its decision. cite web| url =http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/TravisYates/articles/1242114/| title = Scott v. Harris: Impact on Law Enforcment| publisher =PoliceOne.| accessdate =2007-05-05] The author of the opinion, Justice Scalia, in a first-time occurrence ever, posted the video of the car chase online (for access to the video, see external links below).

Justice John Paul Stevens, the lone dissenter, argued that the videotape evidence was not decisive, as the majority claimed it to be, and that a jury should determine if deadly force was justified. He stated a jury should be used, instead of the case "being decided by a group of elderly appellate judges," a reference to himself and his colleagues on the court. [Associated Press. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/30/supremecourt/main2743124.shtml "Court Sides With Cops On High-Speed Chase, Supreme Court Rejects Arguments Of Man Paralyzed in Crash Stemming From Police Pursuit"] , "CBS News", April 30, 2007.]

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 550

References

ee also

*"Tennessee v. Garner", ussc|471|1|1985

External links

* [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf Supreme Court Scott v. Harris written opinion]
* Supreme Court Scott v. Harris video
** [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb Court-posted format] (93MB RMVB file).
** [http://www.archive.org/details/opinion_video2 streaming version, and MPEG4 and MPEG2 downloads]
* [http://purplemotes.net/2008/02/10/editing/ Analysis and editing of the Scott v. Harris video]