In Scott v. Harris, the Court held 8-1 that when a car chase poses a “substantial and immediate risk” of injury to others, a police officer was acting reasonably when he terminated the chase by bumping the driver off the road. Justice Stevens didn’t agree with the Court and included this juicy bit in his dissent:

I can only conclude that my colleagues were unduly frightened by two or three images on the tape that looked like bursts of lightning or explosions, but were in fact merely the headlights of vehicles zooming by in the opposite lane. Had they learned to drive when most high- speed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhigh- ways—when split-second judgments about the risk of passing a slow- poke in the face of oncoming traffic were routine—they might well have reacted to the videotape more dispassionately.

If you have time, the whole dissent is pretty interesting.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Likelihood of a Petition Being Granted: There are a lot of numbers thrown out about the likelihood of a cert. petition being granted. The number I've always heard is 1%, but I some...
  • A Classic Oral Argument Passage: Today's New York Times article about Paul Clement, "Lawyer Opposing Health Law is Familiar Face to the Justices", reminds me of an interesti...
  • Supreme Court Releases April Hearing List: The Supreme Court today released the Hearing List for April. Gregory Garre, former Solicitor General, will argue two times in the next ...
  • January Hearing List Released: The Supreme Court has released the Hearing List for the January sitting and you can find it here. Several high-profile advocates are back...
  • Justice Thomas' History at Oral Argument: The big news in the world of the Supreme Court today is that Justice Thomas finally spoke at oral argument. It is not clear exactly what he ...