Main

May 01, 2007

The Supremes get one right

Patterico has posted the video -- with commentary -- that convinced the U.S. Supreme Court that a suspect injured during a high-speed police chase has no right to sue the cops who forcibly ended the pursuit.

The decision is 8-1 for the good guys, with "Justice" Stevens authoring a truly idiotic dissent, one that can charitably be explained only by dementia-related diminished mental capacity. If ever there was an argument for the proposition that a lifetime breathing the rarified atmosphere present at the high court causes dain bramage, this it it.

Justice Scalia's opinion, wherein he takes the lower Court of Appeals to the woodshed for its ... fanciful interpretation of the video, is priceless.

The videotape quite clearly contradicts the version of the story told by respondent and adopted by the Court of Appeals. For example, the Court of Appeals adopted respondent’s assertions that, during the chase, “there was little, if any, actual threat to pedestrians or other motorists, as the roads were mostly empty and [respondent] remained in control of his vehicle.” 433 F. 3d, at 815.

Indeed, reading the lower court’s opinion, one gets the impression that respondent, rather than fleeing from police, was attempting to pass his driving test:

“[T]aking the facts from the non-movant’s viewpoint, [respondent] remained in control of his vehicle, slowed for turns and intersections, and typically used his indicators for turns. He did not run any motorists off the road. Nor was he a threat to pedestrians in the shopping center parking lot, which was free from pedestrian and vehicular traffic as the center was closed. Significantly, by the time the parties were back on the highway and Scott rammed [respondent], the motor-way had been cleared of motorists and pedestrians allegedly because of police blockades of the nearby intersections.” Id., at 815–816 (citations omitted).

The videotape tells quite a different story. There we see respondent’s vehicle racing down narrow, two-lane roads in the dead of night at speeds that are shockingly fast.

We see it swerve around more than a dozen other cars, cross the double-yellow line, and force cars traveling in both directions to their respective shoulders to avoid being hit. We see it run multiple red lights and travel for considerable periods of time in the occasional center left-turn-only lane, chased by numerous police cars forced to engage in the same hazardous maneuvers just to keep up.

Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury.

[...]

When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment. That was the case here with regard to the factual issue whether respondent was driving in such fashion as to endanger human life.

Respondent’s version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him. The Court of Appeals should not have relied on such visible fiction; it should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.

But you have to look in footnote 7 to find the most devastating indictment of the lower court's so-called analysis.

This is not to say that each and every factual statement made by the Court of Appeals is inaccurate. For example, the videotape validates the court’s statement that when Scott rammed respondent’s vehicle it was not threatening any other vehicles or pedestrians. (UndoubtedlyScott waited for the road to be clear before executing his maneuver.)

Scalia gives credit where it's due; at least the entire lower court opinion wasn't of the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" standard.

The final triumph of old fashioned common sense can be found in the final paragraphs of the opinion, where Scalia articulates an easy-to-understand, bright-line test for law enforcement -- and crooks -- to follow.

[W]e are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger. It is obvious the perverse incentives such a rule would create: Every fleeing motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times, and runs a few red lights.

The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent by-standers does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injuryor death.

The car chase that respondent initiated in this case posed a substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others; no reasonable jury could conclude other-wise. Scott’s attempt to terminate the chase by forcing respondent off the road was reasonable, and Scott is entitled to summary judgment. The Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary is reversed.

Bravo! A case well decided.

Posted by Mike Lief at May 1, 2007 07:10 AM | TrackBack

Comments

I agree with their decision- a rare case in which the villain does not over rule the hero. So many times I read about a burglar who falls through the skylight and then sues the home owner for hospital bills.

Not only is this a great day for cops who have to make those spit-second decisions, but it also sends a clear message to the asshats who 1) break the law, 2) run from the cops, and 3) try some Johnny Cochran method of having someone else pay for your stupidity.

Posted by: Trickish Knave at May 1, 2007 02:14 PM

The law was written by rich white men for rich white men. Racist cops can run you off the road or even kill you if they decide that you dont fit in the neighborhood. Racist white America will always oink for the pigs when the black man and poor people get abused by the white power structure.

Posted by: J.S. at May 1, 2007 09:13 PM

J.S. - sounds like you've been hanging out with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I'll never understand how race can be an excuse for people who break the law and then complain when someone busts them.

I cannot find an article that gives the race of the teen and the police, but I would assume from your grim "Boyz in the Hood" paint brush stroke of the police officer it was a white cop and black teen?

At best, I assume you would not have even paid the story any attention had it been a black cop that ran a white person off the road who was fleeing? At worst, your post is a troll.

Posted by: Trickish Knave at May 2, 2007 11:58 AM

Post a comment










Remember personal info?