Police liability doctrines in high-speed vehicular pursuits and arrests

Doctrines of Duty Care Failure Protecting Laws on Vehicular Pursuits and Police Brutality

Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code, or the federal civil rights statute, officials of the state and local governments may be sued in they violate an individual's constitutional rights, such as the Fourth Amendment (Batterton, 2015; Dean, 1998; Rutledge, 2010). This amendment explicitly protects an individual from unreasonable arrest and seizure. It is often invoked when a police officer makes the unreasonable arrest or seizure. The complainant may take this course of action, imploring the Fifth and 14th amendments due process clause under one of two doctrines, namely the special relationship doctrine and the state-created doctrine (Batterton, Dean, Rutledge).

The Special Relationship Liability Doctrine

Under this doctrine, the state takes control of a person by way of an affirmative duty to protect him (Batterton, 2015; Dean, 1998; Rutledge, 2010). Examples of recipients of this protection are prisoners and involuntary controlled mental patients. Custody over such a person entails responsibility to take reasonable measures to extend appropriate care to him or her and protection from all probable risks. This doctrine is often invoked against correction officials and local police when making arrests or taking custody. If a police officer, for example, arrests a probable violator and takes him inside the patrol car but fails to provide him with a seat belt, the police officer and his agency can be sued if the arrested person incurs injuries in transport. The police officer is required to protect him and thus violates his affirmative duty. It is a violation of due process (Batterton, Dean, Rutledge).

In Vehicular Pursuits Liability

The first source is the federal constitutional law, such as the fourth and 14th amendments (Batterton, 2015). Examples are a police officer's intentional ramming or injuring the person or suspect under the Fourth Amendment and injury to a third party or on the suspect himself. Example is the suspect's crashing his vehicle or the officer doing so and injuring a third party. The second source is state law, statute or case law concerning negligence or the use of government vehicles (Batterton).

Liability under these Amendments has been substantially limited by the decision in the scott v. Harris and Sacramento v. Lewis (Batterton, 2015). Nonetheless, respective state statutes and case law are distinct areas of liability and police and state officers need to be familiar with them. Liability under state laws greatly varies from state to state. Policy makers are, thus, advised to first consult with their county or city lawyers for the implementing policy in the specific area of involvement and the use of emergency vehicle (Batterton).

Courts, however, recognize the necessity of granting immunity to these officers on discretionary matters to allow them to respond to emergencies promptly (Batterton 2015).