Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007) Timothy SCOTT, Petitioner, v. Victor HARRIS. No. 05-1631. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 26, 2007. Decided April 30, *1772 Philip W. Savrin, Atlanta, GA, for petitioner. Gregory G. Garre, the States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting Craig T. Jones, respondent. Orin Kerr, Washington, D.C., Counsel Record, Sun Choy, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Petitioner. Edmond Georgia, Andrew C. Clarke, Borod Kramer, Memphis, Tennessee, Respondent. Justice SCALIA delivered opinion Court. We consider whether a law enforcement official can, consistent with Fourth Amendment, attempt to stop fleeing motorist from continuing his public-endangering flight ramming motorist's car behind. Put another way: Can an officer take actions that place at risk serious injury or death in order endangering lives innocent bystanders? I In March 2001, Georgia county deputy clocked respondent's vehicle traveling 73 miles per hour on road 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. The activated blue flashing lights indicating respondent should pull over. Instead, sped away, initiating chase down what is most portions two-lane road, speeds exceeding 85 hour. radioed dispatch *1773 report he was pursuing vehicle, and broadcast its license plate number. Deputy Scott, heard radio communication joined pursuit along other officers. midst chase, pulled into parking lot shopping center nearly boxed various police vehicles. Respondent evaded trap making sharp turn, colliding Scott's car, exiting lot, speeding off once again highway. Following maneuvering, which resulted slight damage Scott took over lead vehicle. Six minutes 10 after had begun, decided terminate episode employing "Precision Intervention Technique (`PIT') maneuver, causes spin stop." Brief Petitioner 4. Having supervisor permission, told "`[g]o ahead him out.'" Harris Coweta County, 433 F.3d 807, 811 (C.A.11 2005). applied push bumper rear vehicle.[1] As result, lost control left roadway, ran embankment, overturned, crashed. badly injured rendered quadriplegic. filed suit against others under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, inter alia, violation federal constitutional rights, viz. use excessive force resulting unreasonable seizure Amendment. response, motion summary judgment based assertion qualified immunity. District denied motion, finding "there are material issues fact issue immunity turns present sufficient disagreement require submission jury." 3:01-CV-148-WBH, 2003 WL 25419527 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 23, 2003), App. Pet. Cert. 41a-42a. On interlocutory appeal,[2] Appeals Eleventh Circuit affirmed Court's decision allow Amendment claim proceed trial.[3] Taking view facts given, concluded could constitute "deadly force" Tennessee Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 1694, L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), such this context "would violate [respondent's] right be free during seizure. *1774 Accordingly, reasonable jury find violated rights." F.3d, 816. further "the it existed [at time incident], sufficiently clear give officers `fair notice' these circumstances unlawful." Id., 817. thus not entitled granted certiorari, 549 ___, 468, 166 333 (2006), now reverse. II resolving questions immunity, courts required resolve "threshold question: Taken light favorable party asserting injury, do alleged show officer's conduct right? This must initial inquiry." Saucier Katz, 533 194, 201, 121 2151, 150 272 (2001). If, only if, court finds right, next, sequential step ask clearly established . specific case." Ibid. Although ordering contradicts "[o]ur policy avoiding unnecessary adjudication issues," Treasury Employees, 513 454, 478, 115 1003, 130 964 (1995) (citing Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 346-347, 56 466, 80 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring)), we have said departure practice "necessary set forth principles will become basis [future] holding established." Saucier, supra, 2151.[4] therefore turn threshold inquiry: III A first assessing constitutionality determine relevant facts. case judgment, there yet been factual findings judge jury, version events (unsurprisingly) differs substantially version. When things posture, draw inferences "in opposing [summary judgment] motion." Diebold, Inc., *1775 369 654, 655, 82 993, 8 176 (1962) (per curiam); 2151. cases, usually means adopting (as did here) plaintiff's There is, however, added wrinkle case: existence record videotape capturing question. no allegations indications doctored altered any way, nor contention depicts actually happened. quite story adopted Appeals.[5] For example, assertions that, little, if any, actual threat pedestrians motorists, roads were mostly empty [respondent] remained vehicle." 815. Indeed, reading lower court's opinion, one gets impression respondent, rather than police, attempting pass driving test: "[T]aking non-movant's viewpoint, slowed intersections, typically used indicators turns. He run motorists road. Nor pedestrian vehicular traffic closed. Significantly, parties back highway rammed [respondent], motorway cleared allegedly because blockades nearby intersections." 815-816 (citations omitted). tells different story. see racing narrow, dead night shockingly fast. swerve around more dozen cars, cross double-yellow line, cars both directions their respective shoulders avoid being hit.[6] multiple red travel considerable periods occasional left-turn-only lane, chased numerous forced engage same hazardous maneuvers just keep up. Far cautious controlled driver depicts, video closely resembles Hollywood-style frightening *1776 sort, placing bystanders alike great injury.[7] At stage, viewed nonmoving "genuine" dispute those Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c). emphasized, "[w]hen moving has carried burden 56(c), opponent simply some metaphysical doubt Where taken whole rational trier party, `genuine trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 574, 586-587, 106 1348, 89 538 (1986) (footnote "[T]he mere between defeat otherwise properly supported judgment; requirement genuine fact." Anderson Liberty Lobby, 477 242, 247-248, 2505, 91 202 (1986). tell two stories, blatantly contradicted record, so believe it, adopt purposes ruling judgment. That here regard fashion endanger human life. Respondent's utterly discredited believed him. relied visible fiction; depicted videotape. B Judging matter basis, think does contest constituted "seizure." "[A] [occurs] when governmental termination freedom movement through intentionally applied." Brower County Inyo, 489 593, 596-597, 109 1378, 103 628 (1989) (emphasis deleted). See also id., 597, 1378 ("If cruiser alongside sideswiped producing crash, then suspect's would seizure"). It conceded, sides, "excessive course [a] .'seizure' [the] person [is] analyzed Amendment's `objective reasonableness' standard." Graham Connor, 490 386, 388, 1865, 104 443 (1989). question need answer objectively reasonable.[8] *1777 urges us analyze 1. 16-29. decide, says, force." (He defines "any creates substantial likelihood causing bodily injury," 19, 1694.) If so, claims Garner prescribes certain preconditions met before can survive scrutiny: (1) suspect posed immediate physical harm others; (2) deadly necessary prevent escape;[9] (3) where feasible, given warning. 17-18 9-12, 1694). Since using case, se unreasonable. argument falters step; establish magical on/off switch triggers rigid whenever application "reasonableness" test, Graham, particular type situation. held kill "young, slight, unarmed" burglary suspect, U.S., 21, shooting head" while running away foot, 4, "could reasonably [the suspect] ... threat," "never attempted justify escape," 1694. Whatever about factors might justified "preconditions" scant applicability vastly "Garner nothing striking even chases general .... car's bumping fact, much like policeman's gun hit person." Adams St. Lucie Sheriff's Dept., 962 F.2d 1563, 1577 1992) (Edmondson, dissenting), 998 923 1993) (en banc) curiam). foot unarmed remotely comparable extreme danger life case. *1778 craft easy-to-apply legal test admirable, end still slosh our way factbound morass "reasonableness." Whether force," all matters reasonable. 2 determining reasonableness manner effected, "[w]e balance nature quality intrusion individual's interests importance intrusion." Place, 462 696, 703, 2637, 77 110 (1983). defends pointing paramount interest ensuring public safety, nowhere suggests purpose motivating behavior. Thus, judging reasonable, trying eliminate. obvious quantify risks either side, imminent who present, civilian involved chase. Part III-A, supra. equally high respondentthough near certainty by, say, felon head, pulling motorist, cf. Vaughan Cox, 343 1323, 1326-1327 2003). So how go weighing perhaps lesser probability injuring killing larger single person? appropriate process account number risk, but relative culpability. all, placed himself unlawfully engaging reckless, high-speed ultimately produced choice evils confronted. Multiple sirens blaring, chasing miles, ignored warning stop. By contrast, harmed action entirely innocent. little difficulty concluding did.[10] But wait, says respondent: Couldn't protected, tragic accident avoided, ceased pursuit? chance hoped best. Whereas actionramming roadwas *1779 eliminate public, ceasing not. First convey convincingly off, go. Had looked rear-view mirror seen deactivate around, idea they truly letting get devising new strategy capture. Perhaps knew shortcut didn't know, reappear intercept him; setting up roadblock path. Cf. Brower, 594, 1378. Given uncertainty, likely respond drive recklessly slowing wiping brow.[11] Second, loath lay rule requiring suspects put people's danger. perverse incentives create: Every know escape within grasp, accelerates 90 hour, crosses line few times, runs lights. Constitution assuredly impose invitation impunity-earned-by-recklessness. sensible rule: dangerous threatens places death. * initiated conclude otherwise. forcing Appeals' contrary reversed. ordered. GINSBURG, concurring. join underscore points. First, read today's articulating mechanical, rule. post, 1781 (BREYER, concurring). inquiry described ante, 1777-1779, situation specific. Among considerations: Were well-being (motorists, pedestrians, officers) risk? Was safer time, place, circumstances, vehicle? "[A]dmirable" "[an] [may be]," explains, `reasonableness.'" Ante, 1778. suitable resolution grounds, without reaching question, BREYER's discussion engaging. 1780-1781 (urging overrule (2001)). joining *1780 BREYER apparently shares appeal us, warrants answer. footage agrees, demonstrates transgress limitations. 1780. Confronting therefore, reserved day 1774, n. BREYER, suggestion qualifications. Because watching made difference my own suggest interested reader advantage link 1775, 5, watch it. done could, instance, Officer (who late reason why pursued) acted Constitution. makes highly fact-dependent determination. And fact-dependency supports requirement, announced (2001), decide "constitutional question" "qualified question." 200, 2151 ("[T]he alleged"). whatever sense object deciding lift reconsider Saucier's well. Sometimes (e.g., defendant immunity) fixed order-of-battle wastes judicial resources may difficult unnecessarily. loses wins immunize incorrect review. Sometimes, here, spawn rulings areas dependent result confusion clarity. frequently violates older, wiser counsel "not constitutionality. unless unavoidable." Spector Motor Service, Inc. McLaughlin, 323 101, 105, 65 152, 101 (1944); 347, concurring) ("The upon although presented ground disposed of"). counsel, requires embrace them. surprising commentators, judges, and, 28 brief, invited requirement. Leval, Under Constitution: Dicta About Dicta, 81 N.Y.U. 1249, 1275 (2006) (calling "a puzzling misadventure dictum"); Dirrane Brookline Police 315 65, 69-70 (C.A.1 2002) (referring "an uncomfortable exercise" depend kaleidoscope *1781 fully developed"); Lyons Xenia, 417 565, 580-584 (C.A.6 2005) (Sutton, concurring); State Illinois et al. Amici Curiae. accept invitation. While generally reluctant overturn precedents, stare decisis concerns weakest here. See, e.g., Payne 501 808, 828, 111 2597, 720 (1991) ("Considerations favor decisis" cases "involving procedural evidentiary rules"). relatively novel, primarily affects reliance Third, disagree insofar articulates majority states: "A death." 1779. statement too absolute. GINSBURG points out, 1779-1780, well majority's reflects. With qualifications, opinion. STEVENS, dissenting. Today, asks "take bystanders." 1772. Depending "yes," "no," doubtful review degree alternatives available officer. desert Nevada travels heart Las Vegas. Relying de novo portion nighttime lightly traveled "bystanders" buttressed uninformed speculation possible consequences discontinuing eight jurors reach verdict views judges surely familiar hazards are. justification unprecedented well-settled standard determinations district appeals mistaken description "blatantly record" "so him." 1776. Rather conclusion "resembles sort," 1775-1776,[1] tape confirms, contradicts, courts' appraisal issue. More important, *1782 provide principled depriving evaluate officers' bring Omitted four-lane Highway 34 chase.[2] significantand assumption "force[d] hit" 1775a unmentioned text explains prior passed following gave ambulance fire engine provided.[3] 13 side entering center, leaving already shoulder saw cruisers approached.[4] certainly exposed greater persons response ambulance, reactions evidence though speeding, retained full minimized arisen "multiple lights," ibid. pursuers went intersections vehicles sight stationary, presumably warned approaching speeders. Incidentally, videos them but, cameras farther discern color signal point, event, stationary sirens, disobeyed signals pursued. My colleagues "swerve cars," "force shoulders," discounted possibility out pursuit's path hearing sirens. Even *1783 passing slower always involves swerving especially coming opposite direction. point lane front latter five times occasions, signal. none occasions found behind direction, waited direction overtaking so. hardly stuff Hollywood. To contrary, reveal incidents characterized "close calls." sum, statements quoted 1774-1775, accurate. describe "cautious" imply, 1776, correctly ever pointed incident create occurred 11 p.m. weekday apparent (including videotape) local blocked residential neighborhoods possibly motorists. add parked sidewalks, residences "innocent bystanders" "at drivers recognize, course, original ordinary, refusal subsequent offense merited severe punishment. not, capital offense, abandonment concern "imminent present," 1778, valid involving area present. What happened abandon chase? apprehended later true, escaped punishment weapon (1985). uncertainty abandoning prevented basing conclusions assumptions.[5] attempts *1784 speculating let go, "just likely" continue slow wipe brow. unconvincing common improper law. Our duty foreclose observation excuse replacing ad hoc dangers caused ends. rules countless departments throughout country Court's. Association Chiefs Police, Amicus Curiae A-52 ("During pursuit, apprehend outweigh level created pursuit. potential remain large, discontinued terminated.... [P]ursuits violator's identity apprehension accomplished public"). suggests, "establish preconditions" force, 1777, considered constitutionally unreasonable: "Where probable cause poses harm, others, force. committed crime infliction threatened escape, given." 11-12, person's risen warranting best jury.[6] Here, usurped jury's factfinding function doing implicitly labeled four chastises failing "vie[w] videotape" implies *1785 come unjustified. 1776-1777. However, three panel videotapes entered evidence[7] very events: "At ramming, apart lights, non-aggressive (i.e., ram officers). Moreover, open largely clear. introduced (or pedestrian) traffic, blockade intersections. Finally, issued absolutely loudspeaker otherwise) 819, 14 groups vehemently surrounding seems eminently juror characterization events. unreasonably seize instant circumstances." 821. today sets presumes facts: 1779 added). Not fly face flexible case-by-case approach (1989), arguably inapplicable hand, bystande[r]."[8] view, inherent justifying unwarranted unfounded assumptions unacceptable, particularly less drastic measures sticks[9] simple loudspeakercould avoided result. allowed quadriplegic age 19. respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] employ PIT maneuver "concerned quickly safely execute maneuver." agrees employed. 9. irrelevant analysis permission precise took. [2] Qualified defense liability; absolute effectively erroneously permitted trial." Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 526, 2806, 86 411 denying immediately appealable interlocutory; otherwise, "effectively unreviewable." 527, 2806. Further, "we repeatedly stressed earliest stage litigation." Hunter Bryant, 502 224, 227, 112 534, 116 589 [3] None brought [4] Prior announcement "rigid `order battle,'" Brosseau Haugen, 543 201-202, 125 596, 160 583 (2004) concurring), "better approach," Sacramento Lewis, 523 833, 841, 118 1708, 140 1043 (1998), cases. 858-859, 1708 859, (STEVENS, concurring judgment). expressed regarding wisdom make mandatory, straightforward. Brosseau, 596 JJ., Bunting Mellen, 541 1019, 124 1750, 158 636 respecting denial certiorari); 1025, 1750 (SCALIA, Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting). address discussed III-B, infra, easily decided. Deciding regardless required. [5] STEVENS reaction somehow idiosyncratic, misrepresenting contents. 1783 (dissenting opinion) ("In accurate"). happy speak itself. Record 36, Exh. A, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb Clerk file. [6] hypothesizes "had "[a] ambulance." Post, 1782. experience ambulances engines careen 85-plus unmarked scout pose posed. Society accepts save property; (and not) similar reckless police. [7] say each every inaccurate. validates threatening pedestrians. (Undoubtedly executing maneuver.) [8] incorrectly declares jury," complains "usurp[ing] function." ___7. determined drawn extent supportable actionsor, STEVENS' parlance, "[w]hether 1784is pure [9] Respondent, Appeals, second precondition "`necessary escape,'" 17; 813 2005), quoting 11, quote context. necessity was, "serious others." example only, hypothesized "if escape" known "committed harm," ibid., large society. society, since (prior chase) minor far aware, criminal record. unlike itself (by automobile) harm... [10] cites 595, "countenance flee, absolves liability ensuing chase," culpability irrelevant; occurs "responsib[le] [a person's] movement," 816, termination. Culpability relevant, seizureto preventing justifies exposing [11] Contrary assertions, "assum[e] ends," 1784, "factual assumptions," 1783, respect gone home. uncertainties happened, ended. unduly frightened images bursts lightning explosions, merely headlights zooming lane. learned superhighwayswhen split-second judgments slow-poke oncoming routinethey reacted dispassionately. According recorded sitting patrol Lora Smith Road Sullivan Georgia. intersects 154where caught beginsHighway consisting lanes wide grass divider separating flow traffic. 34, turned siren dash-mounted camera began understandable, volume sound recording low (possibly due proofing vehicle), appears minimize significance audible noting "was public" "ceasing not," prioritizes total elimination seriously killed. 1778-1779 original). able assuming, interpretation videotape, involved, rose These types disputed, resolved jury; fit "to record," 1776-1777, original), precluded traveled, 1773-1774, 1774-1775. noted: "We reject defendants' Harris' must, law, disputed 815 total, tapes captured unclear whether, referring bystanders," unfazed petitioner's "Stop sticks" device across roadway flatten vehicle's tires slowly

Classification Label: 0