Larry Welch
Director
Kansas Bureau of Investigation
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA v. LEWIS
U. S. Supreme Court
May 26, 1998
(This is the one I alerted you about in this forum after the Court
granted certiorari June 2, 1997, to hear it. It was argued
December 9, 1997, and, as you can see, decided May 26, 1998.
We fared much better than many had predicted. At the risk of
oversimplification, the Court says, in high-speed chases,
officers' actions must shock the conscience before they can be
sued by anyone injured in a crash. For the officer to incur
liability, there must be intent on the officer's part to harm the
"chasee" or "a purpose to cause harm." Again, action which
shocks the conscience.)
During one quiet, beautiful California evening in May, Sacramento police
and sheriff's officers were dispatched to break up a fight among juveniles. (O.K.,
so it wasn't quiet everywhere.)
Anyway, after the participants were ordered to leave, and were indeed
leaving, and as the officers were returning to their separate patrol cars, one
deputy saw the dome lights of a police officer's car go on and saw that officer
yelling at two juvenile boys on a motorcycle. The deputy could not hear what the
police officer was yelling at the boys, who, by the way, had not been involved in
the altercation and had just happened by to see what was going on.
Both boys were minors. Lewis, the passenger, was 16. Neither wore a
helmet.
Larry Welch
Director
Kansas Bureau of Investigation
The police officer maneuvered his car closer to the motorcycle in an
apparent attempt to prevent it from leaving. However, the motorcyclist drove the
bike slowly around the car and left in a hurry.
The deputy, in the interest of law enforcement cooperation, and still not
knowing what had transpired between the boys and the police officer, gave
chase.
The chase lasted 1 minute and 15 seconds and reached speeds of 100
miles per hour. The pursuit went through 4 stop lights and involved 3 90 degree
left turns. Bear in mind that it was night and the deputy was relying on
headlights.
The chase came to an end, a tragic end, when the motorcycle went over a
crest in the road, and attempted, unsuccessfully, to negotiate a hard left turn, and
skidded to a stop. That's the good news. The bad news is that the deputy then
came sailing over the crest, caught the stopped motorcycle and two boys in his
headlights, and applied his brakes. He skidded 147 feet and struck Lewis,
apparently standing next to the bike, throwing him 70 feet down the road. The
patrol car came to an eventual rest in a residential front yard after knocking down
a mailbox.
Lewis suffered massive internal injuries and a fractured skull and was
pronounced dead at the scene. The motorcycle driver was, of course, not
injured.
-2-
Larry Welch
Director
Kansas Bureau of Investigation
Mr. and Mrs. Lewis sued the county, the sheriff's department and the
deputy for wrongful death and violation of their son's constitutional due process
rights.
At the risk of extreme oversimplification, we could say that the federal
district court found for the defendants and that, on appeal, the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals (9th Circuit) in California ruled differently, holding that the Lewis family
did have a cause of action, if a jury would conclude that the deputy acted with
"deliberate indifference" or "reckless disregard of Lewis' life and personal
security".
The sole issue in this case was whether a law enforcement officer violates
the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process by causing death through
deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high-speed automobile chase aimed
at apprehending a suspect.
Here, the U.S. Supreme Court, 9-0, says the answer to that question is
"no". The Court holds that only a purpose of intent to cause harm unrelated to
the legitimate objective of arrest will constitute conduct shocking to the
conscience, which is necessary for the due process violation.
Justice David Souter, a former New Hampshire prosecutor, writing the
opinion, said that police are entitled to broad legal protection for the "split-second
judgments" required in our profession. "... high-speed chases with no intent to
harm suspects physically or to worsen their legal plight do not give rise to
liability..." under the Constitution or federal civil rights law.
-3-
Larry Welch
Director
Kansas Bureau of Investigation
(Bottom line? This decision sets no national pursuit policy as some had
predicted it would. And it does nothing for the potential liability of the
county and/or the sheriff. But, certainly, it's a liability victory for the
individual pursuing officer. And that's good, since there were 392 policepursuit fatalities in 1994, 383 in 1995 and 377 in 1996, in our nation.
Hopefully, none of the police activity in those situations "shock the
conscience.")
-4-