If you decide to engage police officers in a high-speed car chase, be prepared to die.
That is rule of law which was espoused by the United States Supreme Court -- our nation's highest court -- in the case of Scott v. Harris .
It is well entrenched in the caselaw that our Constitution discourages the government's resort to the use of excessive or deadly force when in pursuit of a suspect, unless the following factors can be unequivocally established:
- there is "an immediate threat of serious physical harm" posed to officers or others;
- the resort to force is necessary to prevent escape; and
- some warning has been given.
Apparently, the suspect in Scott v. Harris , sought to avoid apprehension while driving in that state of Georgia and opted to flee down a two-lane highway at speeds exceeding 85 miles an hour. In the process, the suspect ran multiple red lights and swerved around a dozen cars in "Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocents bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury."
In an effort to subdue the suspect, one officer employed a "Precision Intervention Technique" or "PIT" which causes vehicles to "spin to a stop." In this particular case, the maneuver caused the targeted vehicle to overturn and crash, causing severe bodily injury to the suspect and rendering him a quadriplegic.
While the courts below had viewed the use of PIT as excessive and unlawful, the United States Supreme Court did not concur. Because the driver ignored flashing lights, sirens, and repeated warnings to stop, and placed the lives of pedestrians and other motorists in jeopardy, the Supremes concluded that the use of PIT was "reasonable" and appropriate under the given circumstances.
The nation's highest court did not wish to be perceived as embracing a rule which would encourage suspects to evade capture by driving recklessly. Here's how the court phrased it:
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 injury or death.
How does that line go?
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... Or the one."
Try spinning that!
For a copy of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in this case, please use this link: Scott v. Harris