The Supreme Court Gets it Right on Police Evaders

In an unusually one-sided and resounding 8-1 decision, we learn by way of this story that the U.S. Supreme Court has afforded liability to police officers who use reasonable force to end high speed chases. I'm certainly no fan of the police, but I've represented enough criminal defendants to know that running from them only makes whatever was going on that put you on their radar screen a hundred times worse, and in most states, if you flee in a motor vehicle, that's a felony. There's a reason fleeing in a car from the police is a felony...it's because a vehicle is a massive, deadly weapon that can endanger the lives of the public at excessive speeds when running from the police.

If the police officer was simply speeding with his siren blaring for fun or in a non-life threatening situation, then a different liability standard should be used and the officer should be held accountable based on the circumstances of his particular case. In this decision, however, the defendant was going to be pulled over by an officer for a speeding violation, but he fled, reaching speeds of up to 100 MPH and endangering the lives of many people along the way. The officer successfully used the bumper of his own vehicle to end the chase, but the fleeing suspect became a quadriplegic. While that is extremely unfortunate, the paralyzed man never should have succeeded in his initial lawsuit against an officer who was simply doing his job. This man put at risk his own life, and the officer did not force him to flee, so the officer was correctly found not to be liable in this lawyer's humble opinion. This was a rare common-sense, correct decision from the Supremes...maybe they should try it more often.