Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
Scott v. Harris: The Fourth Amendment does not prevent a police officer from ramming a fleeing suspect's car to end a high-speed chase, notwithstanding the risk of serious harm to the suspect.
26 Φεβ 2007 · Harris sued Scott in federal District Court, alleging that Scott had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force. Scott claimed qualified immunity as a government official acting in his official capacity, but the District Court rejected the claim.
30 Απρ 2007 · Deputy Timothy Scott, petitioner here, terminated a high-speed pursuit of respondent's car by applying his push bumper to the rear of the vehicle, causing it to leave the road and crash. Respondent was rendered a quadriplegic.
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a lawsuit against a sheriff's deputy brought by a motorist who was paralyzed after the officer ran his eluding vehicle off the road during a high-speed car chase. [1]
Case name: Scott v. Harris. • “Respondent’s version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him.” • “ [W]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non- moving party, there is ‘no genuine issue for trial.’”
Cite as: 550 U. S. 372 (2007) 373 Syllabus (2) In determining a seizure’s reasonableness, the Court balances the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental inter ests allegedly justifying the intrusion. United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 703.
U.S. Reports: Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). Names Scalia, Antonin (Judge) Supreme Court of the United States (Author) Headings
