Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

High court puts high-speed chases on its docket

By Washington Post
Published October 28, 2006

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court stepped into the national debate on the risks of high-speed police car chases Friday, announcing that it will decide whether the Constitution permits police to use deadly force against a fleeing motorist whose only suspected offense is speeding or reckless driving.

The court's decision was a victory for a Georgia police officer appealing a ruling earlier this year by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court had concluded that the officer acted unreasonably by ramming a fleeing speeder, causing a crash that left the driver, Victor Harris, paralyzed.

The 11th Circuit, like a Georgia federal district judge before it, ruled that the officer, Timothy Scott, had violated a clearly established constitutional rule and could personally be sued.

But Scott's appeal said that the 11th Circuit's decision clashed with rulings by other appeals courts and "will have a chilling effect on seizures of all fleeing suspects across the nation" if the Supreme Court does not reverse it.

At least four members of the court found this argument persuasive enough to grant Scott a hearing.

When the court hears arguments in Scott vs. Harris early in 2007, it will be the first time it has re-examined the constitutional prerequisites for employing deadly force against unarmed fleeing suspects since 1985. In that case, which involved not a speeder but a suspected burglar, the court ruled that police may use deadly force only when they have good reason to believe someone will be killed or injured if they do not.

The court also agreed to hear an appeal from the parents of an autistic boy who say they want the right to go to court to seek a better learning program for their son. A federal judge in Ohio threw them out of court because they did not have a lawyer.

[Last modified October 28, 2006, 01:42:50]