The Scott v. Harris Case is based on the suing of Deputy Timothy Scott by Harris for ramming his car and rendering him quadriplegic, thus violating his Fourth Amendment. This happened when the officer tried to stop Harris who was fleeing from a different officer who tried to pull him over for over-speeding. Deputy Scott however argued that Harris presented a danger to other motorists and civilians and thus ramming him was the only way to stop him, seeing that the pursuit had posed imminent danger to the police officers in pursuit (“Scott v. Harris”, 2006). A video was presented in favor of Harris, where he claimed to be driving safely, and argued that he did not pose any danger to other road users. It should thus be identified whether the Deputy was in violation of the said right.
The case should be decided in favor of the Deputy Scott, who should be acquitted from the claim of having violated the Fourth Amendment. This is because by resisting to pull over and immediately fleeing, he acted in misdemeanor of the second degree and thus prompted the police to use substantial force in order to put an end to his resistance (Fienman Defense, N.d.). By fleeing, Harris had committed an offence and thus automatically became a criminal. At this point, he ceased to be protected by the Fourth Amendment and thus his claim of the law being violated does not hold. Arguing that he was driving safely is refutable by the fact that he was driving beyond the specified speed limit and was thus in violation of the traffic laws (travelling at 73 miles per hour on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour). Officer Scott was thus forced to make a split-second decision to prevent the offender from breaking any more laws. As a result, the seizure cannot be termed as being unlawful or unreasonable as stated in the Fourth Amendment and thus Scott qualifies for immunity based on the fact that he acted under reasonable belief in the constitution that permits him to use force in such a situation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Looking at how the case was decided, the Court decided that Officer Scott was acting within the Fourth Amendment since Harris was posing a danger to other road users, despite claiming to be driving responsibly. This is similar to my analysis of how the case should have been handled, albeit with a different reasoning. The Court argued that Scott also posed a danger to the police officers who were involved in the case, and this permitted the police officer to use force to stop him. At this point, the court argued that, for having started the chase, the police were at this point allowed to use deadly force to prevent him from harming other people. The law permits the police to use deadly force in the event that they feel that they and others are physically endangered, and thus the court regarded Scott as having acted under this law requirement to save other lives from the imminent danger that had been posed by Harris as he fled (“Scott v. Harris”, 2006). However, the jury initially denied the police officer any immunity for acting within the constitutional laws, but later acquitted the officer of all charges.
It is evident that the Deputy police officer only acted under the constitutional laws after the respondent failed to comply with the police officer when he was pulled over. These laws permit him to use force when an individual presents a danger to the police officer and to other civilians. By initiating the chase, he prompted action to be taken to counter his misdemeanor and thus he cannot claim to have been unreasonably seized when the police officer rammed his vehicle in a bid to stop him from speeding away. The police officer deserved to be acquitted.
References
Fienman Defense. (N.d.). “Resisting Arrest”. Retrieved from https://www.philadelphiaattorney.com/officer-public-crimes/resisting-arrests/
“ Scott v. Harris”. (2006). Oyez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1631
