JURIST reached more than 400,000 readers last year in 192 countries and all 50 US states. Clustered around global cities like New York, DC, London, Nairobi, Beijing, and Brussels, JURIST is read by leading academics, policymakers, and legal practitioners around the globe.
Donate now to help us continue to bring objective news and expert opinion to the world!
On April 30, 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled in Scott v. Harris that a police officer who ended a high speed car chase by colliding their cars together acted "reasonably" under the Fourth Amendment. Harris, who was driving the fleeing car, sued Scott after the resulting crash paralyzed him. The court reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruling, holding that "[t]he car chase that respondent initiated in this case posed a substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others; no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise. Scott's attempt to terminate the chase by forcing respondent off the road was reasonable, and Scott is entitled to summary judgment."
Record 36, Exhibit Avideo of the car chase that court held "quite clearly contradicts
the version of the story told by respondent and adopted by the Court of Appeals."
Subscribe to This Day at Law alerts via R|mail. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.
MyBlogAlerts also e-mails alerts of new This Day at Law entries. It's free and fast, but ad-based.