DISCLAIMER: The opinions and analysis expressed in this post should not be construed as legal advice, nor do they establish any attorney-client relationship. Consult with an attorney to ensure you understand the law and any consequence that might stem from your actions or inactions.

The end result is typical: a suspect flees from police in a high-speed car chase, only to have his plans foiled by an officer running him off the road. We see it time and again in the movies and on TV, and indeed we come to expect, at the very least, the police have the legal right to do this. But for the very reason that high-speed pursuits are so dangerous, so too is purposely running the fleeing vehicle off the road. As was bound to happen, the legal question of whether the police actually have the legal right to run a car off the road was raised in Scott v. Harris, decided by the United States Supreme Court last year. Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007).

The facts of the case are typical of most high-speed chases. 19-year-old Harris was clocked at 73 mph in a 55 mph, 2-lane road. When the officer tried to pull Harris over, Harris fled, reaching speeds of almost 90 mph, weaving in and out of traffic, and running red lights. At one point, he was cornered in a parking lot, but evaded police by making a sharp turn and strking a police cruiser. After fleeing for over 6 minutes and 10 miles, Officer Scott (the officer Harris had struck) requested permission to perform a “Precision Intervention Technique,” or “PIT” maneuver. That is just a fancy way of saying that he wanted to hit Harris’ car to cause it to spin out. He got the go ahead from his supervisor, but Scott felt the vehicles were traveling too fast to execute a PIT maneuver safely. So, ironically, he just hit Harris with his bumper, causing Harris to lose control of the car which left the road and ended up crashing badly in a ditch. Harris was rendered a quadripilegic from the accident.

Harris sued Officer Scott, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by Officer Scott’s aggressive maneuver. There were a number of legal issues at play, but the ones that relate to driving and terminating a chase are whether terminating the chase constitutes a “seizure” under the 4th Amendment, and then if Officer Harris’ act constituted “excessive force.” Neither party contested the definition of “seizure,” which means that when the Police halt your vehicle after a high-speed pursuit, they have technically just seized your car.

Regarding the “excessive force” issue, the court predictably sided against Harris, holding that Officer Scott’s actions were justified and not excessive given the cirumstances. The Court weighed the risk to and culpability of all the parties involved. It reasoned that the continued pursuit put innocent bystanders at risk, whereas attempting to stop Harris put Harris, primarily, at risk. Given that Harris had initiated the pursuit, the court felt that any risk should fall on him, and not on innocent bystanders.

Harris also had another interesting argument - he argued that had the police simply let him go and broken off the chase, the public would have been safe again as Harris would no longer need to speed recklessly. Not surprisingly, the court rejects this argument. For one thing, breaking off the chase would not guarantee that Harris would stop driving recklessly. He very well could continue to weave in and of out traffic either because he thought the chase was not over, or just for fun. Additionally, the court did not want to reward excessively reckless behavior, as that would set a dangerous precedent. By Harris’ logic, the more reckless a suspect acts, the less legal protection the Police would have to stop the reckless act. The implications of such a precedent would undermine virtually every major function that we have come to expect of the Police in modern society.

So there you have it: the Police have the legal authority to run you off the road if you flee, and then have immunity for any injuries you sustain from their actions. This isn’t too surprising, as it is a rare case where the efforts of Police to stop reckless and possibly lethal activity is held unconstitutional. Many local and state jurisdictions treat this issue different, so you may find yourself somewhere where officers are trained not to engage in high speed pursuits. But, if they do, know that you don’t have a Constitutional claim against them if they do run you off the road.