After all, the decision to flee the police at high speed is one fraught with danger, and exclusively within the purview of the individual seeking to escape from the authorities. For the police to attempt to prevent their dangerous activity is not unreasonable.

The police did not violate a speeding driverÂ’s rights by ramming his car and causing an accident that left him permanently paralyzed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday by a vote of 8 to 1.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that despite the fact that the 19-year-old driver was suspected of nothing more than speeding, the decision to force him off the road was reasonable in light of the need to protect pedestrians and other drivers from “a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort.”

The justices took the unusual step — a first for the court — of posting on the court’s Web site the 15-minute video of the chase, recorded by a camera mounted on the squad car’s dashboard. A link to the video in the case, Scott v. Harris, No. 05-1631, is at supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06slipopinion.html.

Are we perhaps beginning to see some common sense applied in cases of fleeing suspects, given that the jurisprudence of the last two decades has tended to approach making such behavior a constitutionally protected activity rather than a crime -- and reasonably tailored actions to stop such conduct a violation of the Constitution

Oh, and a side note about Stevens' comment about the other eight justices acting as the jury -- I'm much more concerned about Stevens' tendency to round up a slim majority to assume the role of unelected legislature.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.