A high-speed chase that ended in two passengers dying has sparked a robust discussion in Marion County about pursuits. The July 3 crash on U.S. 98 claimed the lives of two young men after the driver fled a roadblock in Columbia, bumped a deputy’s cruiser on 98 that was trying to pass him, according to police accounts, and flew off the road into the woods. The driver now faces manslaughter and other charges.
On one hand, some say police were doing their jobs and protecting innocent lives by trying to stop a car that fled and that you wouldn’t turn around at a roadblock unless you were doing something illegal.
The other point of view holds that police should let fleeing cars go because it’s not worth the risk to life and limb to chase a car that is not in the commission of a blatant crime (for example, hasn’t just robbed a bank).
It’s enlightening to look at how courts have handled this issue. In a 2007 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of police being able to pursue cars at high speeds. Scott v. Harris involved a Georgia deputy who rammed his bumper against a car that had fled when the deputy tried to pull it over. The car crashed, and the 19-year-old driver suffered injuries that made him a quadriplegic.
The driver sued, saying it was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the 8-1 majority opinion, found the driver placed himself and the public in danger by “unlawfully engaging in reckless, high-speed flight.” He wrote it was reasonable for the deputy to do what he did to protect other drivers, who were entirely innocent, even if it posed a risk to the fleeing driver, who wasn’t so innocent.
He rejected the argument that police could have simply stopped chasing, saying:
1. The driver wouldn’t have necessarily known the chase was off but could have also thought police were coming another way; and
2. The court was loathe to lay down a rule requiring police to stop a chase if fleeing suspects drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger.
“Every fleeing motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times, and runs a few red lights,” Scalia wrote. “The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous highspeed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.”
Scalia makes a compelling argument: If police are hamstrung from chasing criminals, criminals will know that and routinely flee. That will both allow more crimes to be committed and cause more crashes.
Of course, the sad difference in the situation in Marion County and the Supreme Court case from Georgia is in who was hurt. In Georgia, it was the driver who suffered the consequences of his actions. In this case, it was two passengers who died.
Who knows what was said in that car between the time it saw the roadblock in Columbia and when it crashed some six miles later? Could they have been trying to persuade the driver to pull over? It will be interesting to see the testimony of the driver and surviving passenger when the case comes to court.
Charlie Smith is editor and publisher of The Columbian-Progress. He may be reached at csmith@columbianprogress.com or (601) 736-2611.
