County of Sacramento v. Lewis case brief summary
523 U.S. 833 (1998)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner police officer was involved in a high-speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender. Respondent was the passenger on a motorcycle driven by the offender. The driver of the motorcycle tipped over and petitioner's vehicle struck respondent. Respondent filed suit under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 alleging a deprivation of his due process right to life under U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of petitioner. The intermediate appellate court reversed. Petitioner sought review.
DISCUSSION
The court found that petitioner, in deciding whether to give chase, was required to balance the need to stop the suspect with the high-speed threat to everyone within stopping range. The court held that high-speed chases with no intent to harm the suspect physically or to worsen their legal plight did not give rise to liability under U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV. The driver of the motorcycle's outrageous behavior prompted petitioner's response as a law enforcement officer. Petitioner was not liable because there was no improper or malicious motive in following the motorcycle in a high-speed chase.
CONCLUSION
The order of the intermediate appellate court that reversed entry of summary judgment in favor of petitioner police officer was reversed because the high-speed chase, with no intent to harm respondent passenger physically or to worsen his legal plight, did not give rise to liability under the constitution.
523 U.S. 833 (1998)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner police officer sought review
of an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit that reversed an order that granted summary judgment in favor
of petitioner county in a suit that alleged deprivation of respondent
individual's U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV due process right to
life.CASE FACTS
Petitioner police officer was involved in a high-speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender. Respondent was the passenger on a motorcycle driven by the offender. The driver of the motorcycle tipped over and petitioner's vehicle struck respondent. Respondent filed suit under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 alleging a deprivation of his due process right to life under U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of petitioner. The intermediate appellate court reversed. Petitioner sought review.
DISCUSSION
The court found that petitioner, in deciding whether to give chase, was required to balance the need to stop the suspect with the high-speed threat to everyone within stopping range. The court held that high-speed chases with no intent to harm the suspect physically or to worsen their legal plight did not give rise to liability under U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV. The driver of the motorcycle's outrageous behavior prompted petitioner's response as a law enforcement officer. Petitioner was not liable because there was no improper or malicious motive in following the motorcycle in a high-speed chase.
CONCLUSION
The order of the intermediate appellate court that reversed entry of summary judgment in favor of petitioner police officer was reversed because the high-speed chase, with no intent to harm respondent passenger physically or to worsen his legal plight, did not give rise to liability under the constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment