Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007)
Primary Holding
A law enforcement officer may use reasonable force, including ramming a fleeing vehicle, to stop a motorist whose flight poses a significant threat to public safety, as long as the officer's actions are deemed necessary and proportional to the threat posed.
In the case of Scott v. Harris, a police officer used his car to ram into a fleeing driver who was speeding and endangering others on the road. The Supreme Court ruled that officers can use reasonable force, like ramming a car, to stop someone if they pose a serious threat to public safety. This case is important because it clarifies that police can take strong actions to protect the community, which helps keep consumers safe on the roads. If someone is in a situation where they are being chased by police and they are driving dangerously, this case shows that the police might take aggressive steps to stop them for everyone's safety.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
Harris fled in his car after a police officer tried to pull him over, and a high-speed chase ensued. The police officer, Scott, tried to end the chase by ramming the other car with his cruiser, and Harris crashed. He suffered injuries that led to his becoming a quadriplegic. Harris brought a Fourth Amendment claim against Scott in federal court on the grounds that Scott had used excessive force that had resulted in an unreasonable seizure. The trial court was unpersuaded by Scott's argument that he had qualified immunity because he was a government official acting in his official capacity. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the lower court's decision in favor of Harris, since it ruled that Scott had engaged in an unreasonable seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. It pointed out that there was no imminent threat of harm because the roads were relatively quiet, Harris was in control of his vehicle, and there was no reason to use deadly force.
Whether a law enforcement official can, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, use deadly force to stop a fleeing motorist who poses a threat to public safety.
The judgment is reversed.
It may seem strange that the court found that there were no issues of material fact when there was a videotape that provided a contradictory version of events to what the plaintiff submitted. However, the qualified immunity doctrine may make courts more reluctant to find that summary judgment is unwarranted when there is only a very small likelihood that the plaintiff's story is credible.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- February 26, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Scalia
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)
Consumer WonA passenger in a vehicle is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when a police officer makes a traffic stop, and therefore has the standing to challenge the constitutionality of the stop.
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)
Consumer LostThe use of a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment, provided that the stop is not unreasonably prolonged beyond the time necessary to complete the mission of issuing a warning ticket.
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008)
Consumer LostA police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest based on probable cause, even if the arrest is prohibited by state law.
Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609 (2007)
Consumer LostThe deputies' actions in ordering innocent residents out of bed during the execution of a valid search warrant, without knowledge of their presence or the fact that the suspects had moved out, constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.