Political Science the Supreme Court

Political Science

The Supreme Court case that I have chosen is Scott v. Harris, 2007. In this case, which is on appeal, Scott is the Appellant and Harris is the Respondent, meaning that Scott lost the case at the U.S. District Court level and has thus brought this appeal. However, at the District Court level, Scott was the Plaintiff and Harris the Defendant.

The issue of this case was whether a law enforcement officer's conduct was considered "objectively reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when that officer makes a split-second decision to terminate a high-speed pursuit by bumping the fleeing suspect's vehicle with his push bumper when the suspect has demonstrated that he or she would continue to drive in a reckless and dangerous manner that put the lives of innocent persons at serious risk of death. In the case at hand, Harris was driving at a reckless speed of 90 miles per hour, running red lights and crossing traffic lines. Officer Scott started a high speed chase, Scott ran his front bumper into Harris's car n order to stop him. Harris was not wearing a seatbelt and after being stop, crashed his car and became paralyzed from the neck down.

The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Harris, finding that Scott had violated Harris' Fourth Amendment Rights. This decision was upheld on appeal. The appellate court applied the precedent of Saucier v. Katz (2001), which states the application of the qualified immunity test. According to Saucier, an officer can be stripped of qualified immunity protection only if their conduct violates a constitutional right and every reasonable law enforcement officer would have known that, at the time of the incident, their actions were in violation of the law. Because the road Harris was traveling down was empty, the court found the Scott's action unreasonable and thus outside his immunity.