Detailed Case Study of Scott v. Harris (2007) on Excessive Force

This case study analyzes the Supreme Court case Scott v. Harris (2007), which involved a lawsuit against a sheriff's deputy for using excessive force during a high-speed car chase. The analysis delves into the Fourth Amendment implications, focusing on whether the officer's actions constituted unreasonable seizure. It presents a differing opinion from the court's decision, arguing that alternative means could have been employed instead of deadly force, especially in a sparsely populated area. The study highlights the role of video evidence in the court's decision and Justice Stevens' dissenting view that a jury should determine the justifiability of the force used. Desklib provides a platform for students to access similar solved assignments and resources for further study.

Running head: EXCESSIVE FORCE
Excessive Force

EXCESSIVE FORCE 1
Analysis of the case “ Scott vs. Harris (2007) 550 U.S. 372”
Scott v. Harris (2007) 550 U.S. 372 was a decision made by the Supreme Court of United
States. It involved a suit brought against the sheriff's deputy by a motorist. He was paralyzed due
to the running of the officer's vehicle off the road during a chase of a high-speed car (Justia,
2019).
The motorist opposed the ruling by stating the fact that the action of the police officer
was an unreasonable seizure as per the Fourth Amendment. This case also raised the question
that if the qualified immunity of the police officer protected him from suit as per Section 1983.
On April 30th, 2007 Honorable Supreme Court of U.S. held that the attempt of the police
officer to avoid a high-speed car chase which can threaten the lives of the innocent pedestrians
does not infringe the provisions of the Fourth Amendment.
As per my opinion, in the given case, there was no reason to use deadly force against
Victor Harris. I agree with dissenting Justice Stevens that the logic of the actions of an officer
must be decided by the members of the jury. They should be reviewed in the light of the degree
of dangers along with the other options left with him.
They solely believed the video of a night chase on a road in Georgia where no pedestrians
were present. The video record affirms instead of contradicting the appraisal of the lower courts
regarding the factual questions of the issue (Scott v. Harris, n.d.).

EXCESSIVE FORCE 2
Most importantly, it surely doesn't provide the basis for divesting the right of the
respondent to have the jury analyze the question relating to the decision of the police officer to
apply deadly force for bringing an end to the chase.
Moreover, there was a fact which was omitted from the Court’s description. It was
contrary to the assumption of the Court that the vehicle of the respondent forced the cars
traveling on both the sides to avoid being hit.
A question arises here that why the cars pulled themselves over before the passing of the
respondent. The flashlights and sirens on the cars of the police which were following the
respondent gave similar responses that a speedy fire engine or ambulance would have provided.
In the given case, there were two important questions. Firstly, was there a violation of the
Fourth Amendment which safeguards the rights of the citizens against unreasonable seizure?
Secondly, does the federal law clearly establish the fact that the officer would violate the Fourth
Amendment by applying deadly force in a high-speed car chase?
Honorable Supreme Court of United States replied negatively to both the questions by
ruling 8-1 decision. Scott's actions were found reasonable as per the Fourth Amendment (Cornell
Law School, n.d.). Justice Antonin Scalia relied heavily upon the video record of the high-speed
chase of the car.
The video record contradicted the claim of the defendant that he was driving responsibly
even when chased by the police. A majority held that it becomes unambiguous from the video
that Harris actually posed danger to the lives of the pedestrians and motorists along with the
involved officer (Fan, 2017).

EXCESSIVE FORCE 3
My analysis of the case differs from the decisive on made by the court. I emphasize the
fact that the officer could have adopted any other means to bring an end to the chase. There was
no need of applying deadly force in the area of sparse population.
On the other hand, the court contradicts my analysis by stating that there was a need of
high-speed car chase to prevent Harris from causing harm against the probability that he himself
could have been harmed by the use of force by Scott (Wolff, 2014).
It also blames Harris for initiating the chase. The jury members have concluded their
decision by saying that police officer has rationally acted by using a deadly force in order to
avoid harm to the innocent pedestrians. They further held that it would be rational to the point of
putting the motorist at the serious hazard of damage or death.
However, Justice Stevens argued dissented the decision by arguing that video record is
not as conclusive as the majority of the jury made it. The jury members must determine the
justifiability of using the deadly force( Gross, 2015).
In the given case, the video record played an important role in the decision making of the
Court. It was perceived as crucial evidence being accepted by the court in the rare occurrence.
However, the decision still leaves an important question as argued by Justice John Paul Stevens.
As per his opinion, it should be determined by the jury members whether it was justifiable to use
deadly force in the case.

EXCESSIVE FORCE 4
References
Cornell Law School(n.d.). Fourth Amendment. Retrieved February 2nd, 2019 from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
Fan, M. D. (2017). Hacking Qualified Immunity: Camera Power and Civil Rights Settlements.
Ala. CR & CLL Rev., 8(2017), 51.
Gross, J. P. (2015). Judge, jury, and executioner: The excessive use of deadly force by police
officers. Tex. J. on CL & CR, 21(2015), 155.
Justia(2019). Scott v. Harris (2007) 550 U.S. 372. Retrieved February 2nd, 2019 from
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/372/#tab-opinion-1962396
Scott v. Harris. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 2nd, 2019 from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1631
Wolff, T. B. (2014). Scott v. Harris and the Future of Summary Judgment. Nev. LJ, 15(2015),
1351.