Opinion ID: 2104012
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Stewart

Text: Officer Stewart's affidavit also established good faith as a matter of law. On the need element, Stewart stated: While I was ordered by ... Sergeant Williams to stop the suspect vehicle, I was ... aware that the driver of the speeding vehicle was believed to have engaged in a fight on the University campus and evaded detention by University police officers. He further stated: After hearing Sergeant Williams' radio transmission, I looked over my shoulder and saw a green Suzuki jeep rocket passed [sic] my patrol vehicle. I activated my emergency overhead lights and siren and attempted to follow the speeding vehicle. The suspect vehicle merged onto M.L.K. Boulevard and continued at a high rate of speed which I estimated to rise to 80 to 90 m.p.h. The posted speed limit was 35 m.p.h. He thought that the suspect vehicle's speed was a clear indication that the driver of the suspect vehicle had no regard for the safety of the public and needed to be stopped. On alternatives to pursuit, Stewart stated that he followed the suspect at a distance and was not able to get close enough to the suspect vehicle to obtain its license plate number. I had expected the suspect vehicle to stop when the driver observed my overhead lights and siren behind him, but he did not. On risk to the public, Stewart stated that he was familiar with the streets upon which he was traveling, that the area was primarily commercial, and that there was very light traffic at that time, about 2:00 a.m. He stated that he observed no car other than the suspect's and Williams' when he started the pursuit. He stated that he did not proceed through red lights or stop signs until it was safe to do so and that he did not go as fast as he could have to keep up with the suspect vehicle because he recognized the risk to the public. Further, when the suspect approached the intersection where the collision actually occurred, Stewart decided to end the pursuit and began slowing his vehicle. Stewart also stated: When I decided to pursue the suspect vehicle, I believed that at that time of night with minimal traffic on the street and the nature of the area in which I traveled, diminished the risk from the pursuit itself, while the suspect vehicle was operated by a person that engaged in an assault and fled the police and that posed a significant risk to the public. I believed, and in my opinion any reasonably prudent police officer in my position would also have believed, that during the pursuit the need to stop the suspect vehicle was essential to insure the safety of the public by way of attempting to follow the suspect vehicle. Stewart's affidavit shows that he considered all Wadewitz's need and risk factors and supports his claim that a reasonably prudent officer could have assessed risk and need as he did. Therefore, Stewart met his summary judgment burden on good faith.