A Car Pursuit Suit
Here are the Facts:
1. A 19-year-old driver was driving over 70 mph in a 55 mph zone and refused to stop when a deputy sheriff flashed his lights for him to pull over.
2. The driver sped away at speeds averaging 90 miles per hour on two-lane roads with cars traveling in both directions.
3. When a car got in his way, the driver drove on the wrong side of the road.
4. The driver ran through two red lights.
5. When the deputy used his police cruiser to try to trap the driver in a parking lot, the driver almost collided with the cruiser as he escaped.
6. The deputy radioed his supervisor and requested a maneuver to cause the fleeing car to spin out of control.
7. The maneuver was authorized by the supervisor.
8. The deputy rammed the driver’s rear bumper, causing the car to spin out, flip, and roll down an embankment.
9.The driver was driving with a suspended license and didn’t want to go to jail.
10 . The violent crash that followed left the driver a quadriplegic.
The Aftermath:
1. The deputy is being sued by the driver.
2. The driver’s lawyers claim that the officer violated the teen’s constitutional rights by forcing him off the road, leaving him a quadriplegic. The Fourth Amendment, they say, “prohibits police from using unreasonable tactics during an arrest.” They say that ramming a fleeing car is the equivalent of shooting a fleeing suspect in the back.
3.The driver’s lawyers say that the reason their client sped away was that he panicked. They say that since their client did not offer violent resistance to being arrested, the deputy should not have used any tactics which might have caused the death or paralysis of the driver.
4. The driver’s lawyers say that during the chase their client changed his mind and decided he was willing to go to jail, but he wanted to be arrested at his home so they wouldn’t impound his car. That was the reason he continued the high-speed chase.
5. The deputy’s lawyers claim that the driver posed an escalating danger to the public by his excessive speed and reckless driving, and that the level of force used was proportionate to the threat posed to other drivers by the fleeing driver.
6. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the arguments on February 26, 2007.
7. If the court rules in favor of the police, it could lead to a greater use of high-speed chases with extremely dangerous tactics used to end the chases.
8. If the court rules in favor of the driver, the result might be more drivers endangering the public while trying to flee pursuing police cars on our nation’s streets and highways.
Fact: Between 1993 and 2003, 3877 Americans died as a result of high-speed chases; nearly one-third were innocent third parties.
How do you think the U.S Supreme Court should rule in this matter?
| | | |
|
|
I'm sure that there are times when the police have to get violent criminals off the street to save lives, but most of the time it seems like they are willing to risk their own lives and everyone elses for very little reason. These types of pursuits sould not be allowed except in extreme cases. With the technology we have we could follow automobiles with GPS's and cameras without chasing them at highspeeds.
Loveya, Celtic Mist
Of course this driver was dangerous. As someone who prefers not to be run into by out-of-control kids fleeing the police, I can appreciate what the deputy did. The driver is lucky to be alive. There are always consequences for our actions. Does it make more sense that they be paid by the instigator or the guy driving home from work in the next lane? I hate stupid lawsuits.
The police have no way of knowing if a driver's intention is to be arrested at home, or if the car is driven by a pedophile who just picked up a kid - in which case the police could save the kid from being raped yet endanger the kid's life in the chase. There are hundreds of scenarios that lawyers could present. And I'm sorry about the deaths and injuries that shouldn't have to happen. But bottom line is, 1) Don't drive with a suspended license; 2) If you do drive with a suspended license, don't break any traffic laws; 3) Law enforcement needs to be allowed to pursue and stop fugitives - and in this particular case it looks like a procedure was in place so that the officer didn't make a rash decision on his own.
Unfortunately I don't. I think there might be all too many overzealous police officers who wouldn't be thinking of the risk to the public and weighing that risk with the actions they might be taking.
We ask so much of these officials. If they want to save their own lives, they have to be in a kind of disbelieving, suspecting mode at all times when they are on duty. I think most of them try their best. But they are not all seasoned professionals, Burn-out comes quickly with that kind of job, and the new have to take the place of the weary.
For those reasons, I think the Supreme Court would do us a favor in outlawing these chases in 99% of situations. As for the lawsuit by the fleeing criminal, I can see how it might go either way.
I am divided on this subject Whit, but in the end I think it boils down to this:"Fact: Between 1993 and 2003, 3877 Americans died as a result of high-speed chases; nearly one-third were innocent third parties" Clearly something needs to be done.
I'm sorry the guy was paralized but when you choose to run from the police and endanger the public at large, you better be prepared to handle the consequences....
A bullshit lawsuit if I've ever seen one!
Once the person knows the police aren't chasing them anymore they will slow down and ultimately make a mistake and the police will find them. Chasing them all over town is stupid and makes the police look like fools.
That's my 2 cents anyway.
POH, just getting the plate number of the car is an excellent idea, except that the drivers always say it wasn't them, it was a friend or family member using the car, and if no one admits to driving the car, they're all home free. Plus, the police can never be sure exactly why someone is fleeing, the car may contain evidence of a more serious crime.
I still say, if a person doesn't want to have to stop for police, don't break any traffic laws. Seems like plain ol' common sense.
Sometimes the drivers are intoxicated or on drugs or medication.Sometimes the cars are running drugs. Sometimes the vans are filled with illegal immigrants. Sometimes the cars are stolen and are being driven to a chopshop or to Mexico where they disappear. And sometimes the drivers of the cars are fleeing a crime scene. The police never know which applies to that particular driver.
The number of MVA deaths among teen drivers 16 to 19 is 2,500 ANNUALLY. Causes of the deaths were failure to use seat belts, speeding and recklessness. The insurance institute suggests stiffer penalties for drivers in that age group.
According to your statistics approximately 1000 innocent bystanders have died in 7 years due to high speed chases. Teen drivers account for 2500 deaths a year before one even gets to the high speed chase. Half of those are innocent bystanders including passengers in their own cars.
I think the court should throw the case out. He was 19 years old and his license had all ready been suspended. The kid got a taste of his own medicine. A harsh taste but better that than he be allowed to continue and kill other drivers or pedestrians.
Sherry
I think the hard place is bigger than the rock.
Considering all the facts, it does seem like a stupid lawsuit, doesn't it?
In this case, the cure sounds worse than the disease, doesn't it?
He was all ready doing 70 when the cop tried to stop him, plus he was driving that speed on 2 lane roads. He has NO drivers license, basic commonsense would tell you that no cop would try to stop him if he'd been doing the speed limit. I just posted statistics concerning MVA deaths caused by 16-19 year olds over here at Whit's and the death toll is massively higher for those drivers than it is for high speed chase deaths.
Sherry
In this case, didn't the deputy follow the rules of procedure?
Any suggestions?
Thanks for expressing a very definite opinion about this case.
Connie,
Your car has just been stolen in San Diego. A local cop spots the car and the license number matches your car. He takes down the license plate number and stops pursuit. The driver takes your car to Mexico (only 15 miles away), or to a local chopshop where it is disassembled for parts. In either case, your car is gone. How do you feel about that?
Thanks for the additional comments.
I can see that you have a very clear opinion about this case.
Thanks for the comments and the statistics.
All this time you've known and you don't know how I would FEEL about that?
This post hit a nerve with me. Three years ago the nephew of a friend of mine was killed. He was riding in a co-workers car coming home from work. The road was a two lane country road which has a few hairpin turns. It is just a few feet from a major four lane highway that actually is much straighter and a lot easier to drive on.
They were on that road because the 19 year old driver had had his license suspended for speeding and reckless endangerment. The driver lost control on a curve, plowed into a field and flipped the car. The driver survived, Aaron died. He was 18, just graduated from high school and was due to leave for college in 2 days it was his last day at work. NO drugs or alcohol involved, just an immature 19 year old know it all who thinks he's so special that laws don't apply to him.
Sherry
I go with the Police. I think that law and order is so broken in this country that unless we enforce the laws and support the police, it will only get worse. The family will file a civil suit against all involved. They will win and the insurance company for the county will pay up. As far as the issue of pursuit- back up the police.
ron
Connie,
"God and my insurance company will take care of me." If I were you, I would place more faith in my God than in my insurance company.
It is most unfortunate that so many teenagers think they are invulnerable.
We can only hope that they would get the message.
You are right, of course. There are consequences, sometimes very unpleasant, to our actions. Unfortunately, some people don't discover that fact until much later in life.
In this case, I am not so sure they will win. We shall see.
You better believe I do
Of course, one never knows how the Supreme Court is going to rule and what they will base their decision on.
There can be no strict rule, yes or no, because you create a scenario where drivers who knew they could not be chased may be more inclined to speed away. I believe that the situations must be judged individually and it seems the department had some protocol in that the deputy had to get permission from a supervisor. I'm not sure I would have granted that permission. There are a lot of other things that can be brought to bear, roadblocks, tire bursting strips, helicopters, run his plates and meet him at home, etc.
Very interesting, Whit. Your post said the Supreme Court was to hear the case in February, how did it go?
I think that the courts should rule that no one not even cops should do a high speed chase. it is not worth 1 innocent persons life because someone is trying to out run the cops....the police should raidio for help and continue to look for the person. but never, cause themselves or the other driver to do a high speed chase.
I think you are right in stating that each car pursuit has to be considered individually, taking into account a number of factors.
In regard to the Court decision, it is anticipated the the decision will be handed down sometime this summer.
Thank you for your interest.
If the cops can't pursue a fleeing car, there are some other means of help available.
I believe this is the right course of action because the criminal (and that is what he was at the time) is reponsible for his actions, and moreover is ultimately responsible for the lives of everyone involved in the commision of his crime. If, for example, the police car experience a catostrophic tire failure while passing another vehicle during this pursuit and crashed into that car killing a child in the backseat, then the criminal would suddenly be liable for this death as murder in the second degree.
I liken this kind of suit as similar to a person breaking into my house and sueing me for injuries sustained in the process of robbing me. Consider for a moment that a person came into my house while I was there with my kids. Now lets say that I was able to get my gun and shoot this person but sever their spinal cord leaving them a quadrapelegic instead of killing them. Then this person sues me for deffending my wife and kids. Or what if a person breaks into my house while I am out of town with my family. He does it at night to avoid being seen, and tries to go upstairs and finds my computer. While trying to carry it down in the dark he falls on a loose step and break his neck then sues me. The only thing more insulting would be if the person injured his back trying to pickup something heavy improperly and sued me for that.
This society is so litigious that some lawyer would give it a shot just to see if it would work. Once teh court sets a precedent then those kinds of suits would be everywhere. Next thing you know, people will commit crimes and then sue the victim for tempting them into the crime.
Yes, if you hadn't tempted me by buying that $5000 plasma television set, I wouldn't have broken into your house and stolen it. It's all your fault for tempting me. I am the victim here.
Now you can sue me for therapy, lost wages for being in jail, and all the bad things that happened to you while in jail.
Fortunately for me, I don't have tow shiny pennies to rub together so I'll just declare bankruptcy to get out of it.
I'm a victim. I think I should sue. You think that'll hold in overseas court?
O.K. Here’s what you do to figure out this kind of a puzzle. First you alter the emotional factors then you start asking questions and altering the variables.
1.The driver was a 90 year-old terminal cancer patient with only six months to live at the time of the incident. He was driving with a valid license and was simply trying to get home in time to watch his favorite TV show and he new he would have to speed and that he would not have time to stop for a ticket.
2.During the chase every time the driver violated a traffic law he actually killed a person who was less than 19 years old and dozens of people were killed before it was all over.
Questions:
Under this scenario should the police be authorized to use deadly force to stop this driver?
Is your answer based upon the fact that the old man is going to die soon anyway or is it because of the deaths?
Is you answer based on the reason why the old man is speeding?
Are the age of the driver and the expected lifespan of the driver irrelevant?
Is the reason why the old man is speeding irrelevant?
If it were not dozens killed but only one 95 year old pedestrian who himself was a terminal cancer patient with only 4 months to live should deadly force be authorized to prevent additional deaths?
Could a speeding car kill a 6 year-old child?
If the driver had not yet killed anyone but was speeding and headed directly at a 6 year-old child should the police be authorized to use deadly force to try to stop the driver?
Do children cross roads at intersections with traffic lights?
Do traffic lights signal to children that it is safe to cross a road?
When a speeding car runs two red lights how many more red lights will it run through before it stops for one?
Is it possible for anyone to predict how many additional red lights a speeding car will run through if it is known to have already sped through two?
If you continue with this sort of line of reasoning it's likely provable beyond any reasonable doubt that the police should be authorized to use deadly force in the original scenario of the 19 year-old driver. The police were operating within their authority and they could have shot this kid in the back and still been within constitutional limits.
Old Yankee
Hey, you're declaring bankruptcy. That isn't fair!
Connie, Maybe over there, but not here.
At least we know where you stand on the issue.
We should have had you arguing the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
B
B
Busted !
On OVERHEARD IN THE STREAM SATURDAY!
Funny Myspace Comments
LUCY
I know that some cities and states are doing that now.
Suppose he had been doing 80 mph? Would that have made a difference?
How about 90 mph?