This paper analyzes the 2007 Supreme Court case Scott v. Harris, in which the Court considered whether a law enforcement officer's decision to terminate a high-speed pursuit by ramming a fleeing suspect's vehicle constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The paper traces the case from the District Court level through the appellate court's application of the qualified immunity standard established in Saucier v. Katz (2001), and concludes with the Supreme Court's reversal. The author argues in support of the Court's final ruling, contending that a trained officer's split-second decision to protect the public from a reckless driver reflects reasonable professional judgment rather than malicious intent.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The Supreme Court case examined here is Scott v. Harris, decided in 2007. In this case, which came before the Court on appeal, Scott is the Appellant and Harris is the Respondent, meaning that Scott lost at the U.S. District Court level and brought the matter forward on appeal. At the District Court level, however, Scott was the Plaintiff and Harris the Defendant.
The central issue of this case was whether a law enforcement officer's conduct was "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 striking the fleeing suspect's vehicle with his push bumper — particularly when the suspect has demonstrated a willingness to continue driving in a reckless and dangerous manner that puts 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 initiated a high-speed chase and then drove his front bumper into Harris's car in order to stop him. Harris was not wearing a seatbelt and, after being stopped, crashed his vehicle and became paralyzed from the neck down.
The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Harris, finding that Scott had violated Harris's Fourth Amendment rights. This decision was upheld on appeal. The appellate court applied the precedent established in Saucier v. Katz (2001), which sets out the qualified immunity test for law enforcement officers. 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, at the time of the incident, that their actions were in violation of the law.
Because the road Harris was traveling on was largely empty at the time, the appellate court found that Scott's action was unreasonable and therefore outside the protection of qualified immunity.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that Scott had acted reasonably in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated: "A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death."
"Court reverses, upholds officer's Fourth Amendment conduct"
"Broader impact on police force and author's view"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.