Scott v. Harris
Harris sued Scott, a police officer, for damages after Officer Scott bumped Harris' car during a high-speed vehicle chase. The ensuing crash left Harris paralyzed. Harris claims that Scott's use of deadly force (his car) violated Harris's Fourth Amendment rights. In district court, Scott claimed he had qualified immunity from this suit because his actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and because the law at the time was not sufficiently clear to put Scott on notice that his actions were unlawful.
The district court denied Scott's claim and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Scott did not have qualified immunity because (1) a jury could find that Scott used unreasonable force in "seizing" Harris's car, thereby violating Harris's Fourth Amendment rights, and (2) the law of the circuit was sufficiently clear at the time of the incident to give reasonable law enforcement officers “fair notice” that ramming a vehicle under these circumstances was unlawful.
Question Presented:
1. Whether a law enforcement officer's conduct is "objectively reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment when the officer make a split-second decision to terminate a high-speed pursuit by bumping the fleeing suspect's vehicle with his push bumper, because the suspect had demonstrated that he would continue to drive in a reckless and dangerous manner that put the lives of innocent persons at serious risk of death.
2. Whether, at the time of the incident, the law was "clearly established" when neither this Court nor any circuit court, including the Eleventh Circuit, had ruled the Fourth Amendment is violated when a law enforcement officer uses deadly force to protect the lives of innocent persons from the risk of dangerous and reckless vehicular flight.
