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

  • A Big Little Case: Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an interesting case about water law in Montana, PPL Montana v. Montana. The case wi...
  • An Unusually Short Long Conference: The Supreme Court released an order list from yesterday's Long Conference and, in a surprising move, it granted only seven cases. That numbe...
  • Agreement Between Justices Scalia and Thomas During October Term 2012: Over at Twitter, Mike Sacks posted an interesting question about the agreement rate between Justices Scalia and Thomas during October Term 2...
  • Who is Roy W. McLeese?: This morning, as I was perusing next month's hearing list, I noticed a name I wasn't familiar with: Roy W. McLeese. It isn't unusual to see ...
  • Updated Term Statistics: I've updated the term statistics and you can find the new versions of each chart below: Complete (includes all three charts) --- Term I...