Police Pursuits
Balancing the Needs versus the
Risks
2013
The Federal Story
Sacramento v. Lewis,523
U.S.833 (1998).
• Case is an example of a Due Process liability
claim
• Observed speeding motorcycle
• 75 second chase through residential area
• 1.3 miles reaching speeds of 100 MPH
• Police car 100 feet behind motorcycle
• Motorcycle tipped over leaving passenger, 16
year old Phillip Lewis in the path of the cruiser.
• Cruiser propelled Lewis 70 feet to his death
1
Holding of Case
“A violation of due process occurs only when the
police officer has a “purpose to cause harm
unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest.” It
must be this type of purposeful harm in order to
shock the conscience.”
No Federal Liability since 1998
• Suspect crashes on his/her own
• Suspect crashes into innocent third party
• Officer “accidentally” crashes into anyone
Jack Ryan for PATC©
What was left-intentionally stopping
2
The 4th Amendment Claim
Scott v. Harris
• Scott v. Harris-decided 4/30/07-The
government’s interest in protecting pedestrians,
motorists, and the involved officers outweighed
the risk of injury to Victor Harris.
Held…
“Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A
police officer’s attempt to terminate a
dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens
the lives of innocent bystanders does not
violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it
places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious
injury or death”
Walker v. Davis, 649 F.3d 502
(6th Cir. 2011) The possible…
•
•
•
•
•
•
Speeding violation 70 in a 55
Deputy tries to block road motorcycle avoids
Motorcycle chase five minutes
Never over 60 mph
Ramming occurs in muddy field
Not Hollywood style chase of Scott v. Harris
3
What about State Law
• South Carolina §56-5-760
“The provisions of this section do not relieve the
driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from
the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of
all persons.”
Jack Ryan for PATC©
• In Clark v. S.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety, the South
Carolina Court of Appeals pointed out that in 1990 the
South Carolina legislature changed the language in the
emergency vehicle operation statute from the common
“reckless disregard” language to a “due regard for
safety” of others standard. In doing so, the legislature
imposed a more significant duty of care on law
enforcement officers while operating in the emergency
vehicle mode. While not a straight negligence
standard, it is a gross negligence standard which is
much different than a reckless standard.
• Clark v. S.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 353 S.C. 291 (S.C.
Ct. of Appeals 2002).
3 Types of Policy
• Discretionary-officer and supervisors can
pursue anything while balancing risk versus
need
• Restrictive-limited to most serious events and
still must balance risk versus need
• Prohibitive-don’t chase anything
Jack Ryan for PATC©
4
Restrictive
• Violent felony only or pre-pursuit recklessness
that poses threat
• Balancing
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
Environment
Roadway
Vehicles-limits
Known suspect
Traffic-Pedestrian
Supervisory Oversight
Number of Vehicles
-Tactics
-Intersections
-line of sight
-Officers Involved
Jack Ryan
PO Box 622
Greenville, R.I. 02828
jackryan2@cox.net
401-692-1555
5