Supreme Court Appears Ready to Rule for Police in Deadly Car Chase

[Anti Federalist]

Within the law, perfectly justified, no recourse.



Supreme Court Appears Ready to Rule for Police in Deadly Car Chase

Qualified immunity will likely be extended to officers who used deadly force.

Damon Root | March 5, 2014

http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/05/supreme-court-appears-ready-to-rule-for

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on Tuesday in a case testing the reach of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine designed to shield government officials from civil lawsuits “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." By the time the proceedings came to a close, it looked as if a majority of the justices were prepared to vote in favor of the West Memphis, Arkansas, police officers whose use of deadly force lay at the heart of the case.

At issue in Plumhoff v. Rickard was a 2004 high-speed car chase that started with a routine traffic stop and ended with the police firing 15 rounds into the fleeing vehicle, killing both the driver, Donald Rickard, and his passenger, Kelly Allen, both unarmed. In 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled against the police, declaring that because it “cannot conclude that the officers’ conduct was reasonable as a matter of law,” qualified immunity must be denied to the them. A majority of the Supreme Court now appears poised to call that verdict into question.

The fleeing driver “has already gone 100 miles an hour,” observed Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and then he tried to escape again. “Why would a reasonable officer not be suspicious that more reckless driving is going to occur?”

Justice Antonin Scalia expressed a similar view. Even assuming the most sympathetic set of facts in favor of Rickard, Scalia maintained, “we are still left with a very dangerous man careening down the road, who is surrounded by police cars and still tries to get away to continue his careening

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Per the Supreme Court DUI LAWS trumps the 4th Amendment for Public Safety...

But police speeding, chasing, and endangering mundanes obviously doesn't affect public safety!

 

[2young2vote]

Why is it so hard for them to understand that there wouldn't be "deadly high speed chases" if the cops weren't chasing them in the first place?

 

[Mini-Me]

Why is it so hard for them to understand that there wouldn't be "deadly high speed chases" if the cops weren't chasing them in the first place?

Failure to comply is not an option.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

“Why would a reasonable officer not be suspicious that more reckless driving is going to occur?”

What's a reasonable officer?

Cop breaking traffic laws kills 6, but mundane "breaking" traffic laws is at fault

Trooper, in vehicular homicide, walks when fellow cop fails to appear.

Autoblog details police abuse starting from traffic stops

Cop caught speeding 737 times with no citation

Texas DPS Kills 6 As Result of High-Speed Chase of Stolen Vehicle

 

[Henry Rogue]

Why is it so hard for them to understand that there wouldn't be "deadly high speed chases" if the cops weren't chasing them in the first place?

I was thinking the same thing, somehow I don't think the supreme court cares.

 

[Weston White]

How about the actions of the police, is it reasonable to chase a fleeting suspect at “100MPH” for a prior unknown or otherwise petty traffic violation—a vehicle that they likely had the license plate for on video; and in the process putting both the passenger and public at such a grave risk and endangerment for having done so that they then became obliged to empty a magazine as the vehicle occupant’s final coffin nails?

And what was the ultimate goal exactly? To prove that if you run from the police, for any reason, whatsoever, an entire magazine will readily be fired into your automobile and law enforcement personnel will be fully vindicated for having done so?

No the appellate already had it right in its decision that it cannot be concluded that: “the officers’ conduct was reasonable as a matter of law” and that is quite factually because it was not.

I am so fed up with the logic of “Justice” Sotomayor; “more reckless driving is going to occur”, and since when did that ever establish the PC to open fire or to even use force? Last I knew the only likely outcome for that were one or more civil infractions resulting in fines and increased insurance fees.

What is the message we want to send? Is it really one that sets the stage for American law enforcement “officials” to opt shooting fleeting subjects (including those in their vicinity) in the back rather than bothering to break a sweat or exercise the captain of their brain-ship?

But that line of argument was promptly challenged by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “What do you say clearly establishes that?” she responded. Is there any case that says the police should not use deadly force "when there is a passenger?" Smith admitted he could point to no such case in support of his position.

Err… How about a case COMMON SENSE?

ETA:

Also how about PC246.*, ‘negligently discharging a firearm’?

1. Willfulness,
2. Creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury,
3. Demonstrates a disregard for human life or an indifference to the consequences, and
4. Is such that a "reasonable" person would have recognized the nature of the risk.

That’s a “very good question, why didn’t they shoot the tires out?” observed Justice Stephen Breyer. But the answer, Breyer continued, is “I don’t know,” which means you cannot say “it was clearly established that they had to shoot the tires out.” In other words, because there was no case on the books requiring such tactics in lieu of deadly force, the officers were under no obligation to do so.

Great, so in following that odd logic then, because there also is not law or case on the books (presumably) requiring for law enforcement to open fire into a fleeting or wanted vehicle that is reckless, speeding, or careening we are returned full-circle to where we first started. Which again places the police entirely in the wrong. Nice.


Although on second thought, throughout America, 112,000 speeding tickets are issued each day, how about instead of bothering police with all of that confusing carbon copy paperwork they just pull up alongside all such criminal perpetrators and open fire? Really it is a win-win, because it would in all cases prevent a high-speed pursuit from ever taking place and endangering the safety of the public, but would also aid public service for curving over-population.

 

[KCIndy]

When it comes to SCOTUS, nothing surprises me anymore. They've made a lot of really crappy rulings lately, and the apparent reasoning behind their judgements has become so erratic it is impossible to follow.

We could save some money by replacing the nine justices with a good set of dice.