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

  • Advocate Watch: With the Term quickly approaching it's midway point, we can take a look at which advocates have made the biggest mark on the Term. Hearing L...
  • PDF Packs for the Past Decade: I've been pillaging the Supreme Court's website in search of PDFs that I can archive for future reference. Using the Court's website and the...
  • Updated Term Statistics: I've updated the Term Statistics to reflect this week's opinions. Complete --- Term Index Opinion Breakdown Vote Breakdown
  • Nearly Final Term Statistics and Advocate Scorecard: My goal was to publish the final term statistics today, but because the Court will hear rearguments in Citzens United and likely issue an op...
  • Change is Fun But...: I'm sad to see Justice Stevens leave the Court for a variety of reasons that have been well documented by people smarter than me. I'm also e...