Scott v. Harris - Case Study Example

Scott v. Harris The Supreme Court of the United s listened to the proceedings and arguments of the federal case involving a police pursuit on 26th February 2007. These proceedings were based on a vehicular pursuit that occurred in 2001. This vehicle pursuit was launched at Coweta County after a 19 year old named Victor Harris clocked 73 mp in a 55mph zone (Yates 1). Harris was able to file a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in regard to the use of excessive force on him, which was based on an awkward arrest in relation to the Fourth Amendment. When this pursuit entered the city of Peachtree, Timothy Scott joined the pursuit becoming the lead vehicle. However, Deputy Scott was not trained in P.I.T (Precision Intervention Technique) hence; he radioed one of the supervisors to perform a maneuver. It is evident that his request was granted according to a brief that was provided by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal in the United States claimed that after Scott’s request was granted he was not able to perform that PIT maneuver because he was moving at a high speed. On the contrary, he rammed his vehicle into Harris’ vehicle making Harris lose control and crash. The impact on Harris’ car made him run down an embankment hence, leaving the roadway leaving him a quadriplegic (Yates 1). After Harris filed a lawsuit, the Eleventh Circuit and the District Court affirmed that the actions performed by Deputy Scott were to be heard by a jury. Therefore, this case was appealed to the Supreme Court in the United States. In fact, the law enforcement body in the United States at that epoch was eagerly anticipating for the possible outcome of the case. In this case, the Supreme Court in the United States had the capability to impact the policy of pursuit in the country. Therefore, a decision was made on 30th April 2007 whereby the Supreme Court made a judgment in favor of Deputy Scott. According to the Supreme Court, this judgment was delivered by Justice Scalia while Justice Stevens filed the solitary dissenting view. The issue involving police pursuits and the forcible stopping tactics employed attracted a resounding 8-1 vote by the juror team. It is quite clear that the court used the reasonableness test based on the Fourth Amendment of the constitution of the United States. In close relation to the case, the Fourth Amendment stipulates that the action taken by Deputy Scott does not matter (Yates 1). In fact, what matters is whether the actions were reasonable. The judgment by the Supreme Court also states that Harris had deliberately placed the public in danger. This was mainly attributed by the fact that he participated in a high speed pursuit. From the perspective of the majority, Justice Scalia highlighted that when a police officer attempts to use the forcible stopping techniques in the police pursuits which involves high speeding, then, this case does not violate the terms and conditions of the Fourth Amendment (Yates 1). This also includes a state whereby the speeding threatens the lives of innocent citizens and the fleeing motorist. The judgment passed by the court was an apparent suggestion that the lower courts of the United States significantly relied on the information that was presented by the suspect. Therefore, the court overturned their ruling after they had the evidence which not each officer usually locates easily. This evidence was a video of the incident involving Deputy Scott and Mr. Harris that was taken from the dash cam on the patrol vehicle of the officer (Yates 1). This camera had clearly captured the irresponsible driving of the suspect. Therefore, using this small piece of evidence, the court was able to give a clear ruling. According to Justice Scalia, the evidence from the video was different in the sense that the suspect was driving recklessly (Yates 1). This might have been one of the key factors that attributed to the decision made by the lower courts. The Supreme Court raised numerous opinions and decisions of this case on the law enforcement sector. This is because the police officials, the media team and lawyers in other courts would obviously obtain something different from the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the case was not entirely based on the PIT maneuver by Deputy Scott. This is because prior to the scenario, Deputy Scott had asked for permission to utilize the PIT (Yates 1). However, after noticing that he was moving rather fast, he decided to ram the vehicle. Research asserts that a precision maneuver is not similar to ramming into a vehicle from a law enforcement perspective. Therefore, the judgment presented by the Supreme Court clearly blames the suspect hence, rejecting the idea that Deputy Scott cancelled his pursuit by ramming Harris’ vehicle. Further analysis in this case suggests that the outcome of this case would have been unknown if Deputy Scott did not have the video evidence. This is a clear indication that the law enforcement sector should embrace this technology. According to my personal view, it is quite evident that the suspect was dishonest. However, this dishonest act was overcome by the taping of the incident. The Supreme Court also informs the law enforcement department that when they are engaged in pursuits, which endanger the lives of other innocent individuals and the escaping motorist, the Fourth Amendment is not violated (Clancy 84). On the contrary, the life of the fleeing motorist is usually at risk of injury or death depending on the action of the officers involved in the pursuit. In addition, the law enforcement sector should not give other individuals the authority to engage in vehicle pursuits at high speeds and tactical maneuvers without training. They should observe the regulations entailed in apprehending criminals who flee in vehicles. The court also overlooked the issue of reasonableness in relation to police pursuits. As stipulated before, the officers involved in police pursuits are supposed to be frequently trained. This is reasonable and crucial at the same time since it reduces some of the risks which are related to the pursuits. The street officers who are involved in these pursuits should also be cautious because there is a possibility of harming the innocent in this process. In addition, the penalty involving the criminals who are engaged in pursuits should be increased. A clear example can be drawn from the Scott vs. Harris case whereby the suspect was driving recklessly. This endangered the livelihood of other innocent individuals including his own (Yates 1). It is also satisfying to discover that the justices in the courts especially in the United States recognize this criminal element which is overlooked in most jurisdictions. These cases require certain tools in a specified period in order to deal with the situation amicably. Some of the policies and essentials include reasonableness, LE balance policy, public safety, pursuit policy and common sense. The pursuit policy is different in most countries based on the different jurisdictions (Clancy 82). In some of these jurisdictions, the onus is placed on the street officers whereby engaging in pursuits endangers the lives of several other innocent individuals. These direct and indirect pursuits are usually terminated within a short period to avoid any harm to the innocent in the society. Furthermore, the public safety and perception is paramount. Thus, it is necessary to maintain law and order effectively by refraining individuals from driving recklessly and fleeing from the police. The street officers are also included in the Fourth Amendment because they serve the citizens just like other government officials (Clancy 196). However, their main duty involves maintaining law and order in the society. Some of the jurisdictions and government officials claim that some of these law enforcement agencies usually go against the human rights act. In fact, the fourth Amendment of the United States highlights that human rights are not supposed to be violated acts pertaining to unreasonable search and seizures (Clancy 34). The street officers are also included in the Fourth Amendment protection because they also act like government officials. These street officers also have a difficult task in coping with the increasing crime and violence rates especially on the roads. According to most cases, these street officers are also supposed to operate according to the constitutional requirements. For example, when making an arrest the criminals should be informed of their Miranda rights. In conclusion, the terms “probable cause” and “reasonable suspicion” are used by officials of the law-enforcement sector when they are investigating about crime. Probable cause can be described as the level of certainty that falls short of reasonable doubt and is often erroneous (Clancy 96). An example of probable cause falls right within the traffic sector. In case one is searched and found without anything considered unlawful does not mean that the police officer has gone against your Fourth Amendment rights. On the other hand, reasonable suspicion applies in the case whereby the police officer suspects that a crime was either about to be committed, in the process of being committed or was to be committed. Work Cited Clancy, Thomas. The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation. Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2008. Print. Yates, Travis. Scott v. Harris: The Supreme Court decision and its impact on law enforcement. Okla: PoliceOne Press, 2012. Web. < http://www.policeone.com/suspect-pursuit/articles/1242114-Scott-v-Harris-The-Supreme-Court-decision-and-its-impact-on-law-enforcement/> Read More