Deadly Force

Scott v. Harris

Issues

Whether Scott’s use of deadly force during a car chase to stop Harris, who was fleeing from the police’s attempt to enforce a traffic violation, violated the Harris’s Fourth Amendment rights and, in addition, whether Scott should have known that these actions would be considered a Fourth Amendment violation under the law.

 

In 2001, police witnessed Victor Harris driving 73 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone. When they tried to pull him over, Harris sped away. Officer Timothy Scott joined the chase and after approximately six minutes of pursuit at average speeds between 80 and 90 miles per hour and an unsuccessful attempt at stopping Harris, Scott received authorization from his supervisor to stop Harris by force. Using his push bumper, Scott made direct contact with Harris’s car, causing him to lose control and roll down an embankment. Harris suffered serious injuries. Harris argues that under Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), which set forth circumstances in which deadly force is reasonable to prevent escape, Scott’s use of force was unreasonable and unconstitutional. Scott argues, however, that the force used should not be characterized as “deadly force” and that a simple reasonableness, and not the more specific test of Garner, should apply. Nevertheless, Scott argues that he should be entitled to qualified immunity. The Supreme Court, reviewing the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in favor of Harris, will determine the standard to be applied to uses of force in vehicular pursuits which will in turn affect police officers’ discretion in such situations. The Court will also further define the reasonableness requirement inherent in the Fourth Amendment, contributing to an already expansive and complex body of law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Whether Respondent can show that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Petitioner used deadly force to terminate a police pursuit by ramming Respondent’s vehicle at a time when he posed no immediate threat to human life, and when Respondent was merely a fleeing traffic offender who was not violently resisting apprehension at any time during the course of the pursuit.

2. Whether clearly established law in 2001 gave fair warning to a reasonable police officer that it is a Fourth Amendment violation to use deadly force to terminate a pursuit by ramming the vehicle of a fleeing traffic offender at a time when the offender poses no immediate threat to human life, and when the offender is merely fleeing and has not violently resisted apprehension at any time during the course of the pursuit.

Note: Because this appeal is from a summary judgment motion before trial, there have been no findings of facts in this case. Rather, for the purposes of deciding Scott’s motion for summary judgment, the lower courts are required to consider as true the facts that are most favorable to the opposing party, Harris. For completeness, the following description contains the facts as presented by both sides, with Harris’s version used where there is a discrepancy.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Torres v. Madrid

Issues

Under the Fourth Amendment, is an officer’s intentional use of physical force to apprehend an individual a “seizure” even where the individual escapes?

This case asks whether an officer’s intentional use of physical force to apprehend an individual constitutes a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, even if the officer does not successfully detain the individual or limit her freedom of movement. Officers Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson temporarily paralyzed Roxanne Torres’s arm after striking it with two bullets as Torres drove at them. Torres argues that based on the common law meaning of the Fourth Amendment and on the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents, a person is seized where the officer intentionally applies physical force. Torres contends that although she drove over an hour away from the scene of where she was shot, the officers’ bullets striking her arm constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure. Officers Madrid and Williamson counter that a Fourth Amendment physical-force seizure requires more. The officers maintain that to successfully complete a Fourth Amendment seizure, they would have had to intentionally acquire physical control, which did not occur because Torres fled from the scene. The outcome of this case has important implications for the balancing of interests respecting police conduct and public safety. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or whether physical force must be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a “seizure,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold.

In July 2014, two police officers approached an apartment complex in Albuquerque, New Mexico to apprehend Kayenta Jackson, a suspected criminal. Torres v. Madrid at 1–2. The officers first noticed two individuals standing in front of Jackson’s apartment next to a car that was backed into a parking spot. Id. at 2. The officers approached the individuals in case one of them was Jackson. Id.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Deadly Force