In a case decided April 30, 2007, entitled Scott v. Harris, the United States Supreme Court held that a suspect fleeing from the police during a high speed police chase case has no Fourth Amendment right to be protected from the use of excessive force by the police against them. As we interpret this case, essentially, what this means is that a suspect assumes the risk of injury by the police during a police chase case.
\nIn the Harris case, a 19 year old was fleeing from the police and the police employed a \u201cpit maneuver\u201d in order to knock the suspect\u2019s car off the road. The pit maneuver is one in which the police hit the corner of the fleeing car with their car in order to force it off the road. In this case, when the suspect\u2019s car left the road, it crashed rendering him a quadriplegic.
\nHarris filed suit against the police officer alleging that the officer had violated his Fourth Amendment rights against the use of excessive force. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the police office did not violate the suspect\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights by utilizing the contested pit maneuver.
\nIn ruling against the claimant, the Supreme Court noted that he intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in a reckless high speed flight. The Court obviously concluded that it was not reasonable for Harris to take the action that he took and that the deputy (Timothy Scott) was authorized to terminate the chase with force because of the suspect\u2019s danger to the public. The Court specifically ruled that a police officer\u2019s attempt to terminate a dangerous high speed chase that threatened the lives of the public did not violate the suspect\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights even if the maneuver utilized by the police placed the fleeing suspect at risk of serious injury or death.<\/p>\n