Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
The Court ruled that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by ramming a fleeing suspect's car to end a high-speed chase that threatened innocent lives. The Court balanced the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's rights against the importance of the governmental interests and found the officer's actions reasonable.
A Supreme Court case involving a lawsuit against a sheriff's deputy who ran a motorist off the road during a high-speed chase. The court ruled that the officer's action was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, based on video evidence of the pursuit.
26 Φεβ 2007 · The case involved a police officer who rammed a fleeing suspect's car, causing him to crash and become a quadriplegic. The Court ruled that the officer was not liable for excessive force, as the chase posed an imminent threat to public safety.
20 Μαΐ 2017 · Scott v. Harris is a 2007 case that involved a police officer ending a high-speed chase by crashing into the fleeing motorist's car. The Court held that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment and was entitled to qualified immunity.
26 Φεβ 2007 · Officer Scott rammed Harris's car to stop a high-speed chase, causing him serious injuries. The case examines whether Scott violated Harris's Fourth Amendment rights and whether he had qualified immunity.
The case involves a police officer who rammed a fleeing motorist's car to stop his flight, causing serious injury. The Court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity and that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit such action.
After six minutes and 10 miles of a high speed chase, Officer Scott has permission to employ precision intervention techniques to stop Harris and was told to stop him. Office Scott rear-ended the car, it spun and flipped over. Harris was badly injured and now a quadriplegic. Issue.
