Scott v. Harris is, in its simplest form, a fourth amendment case. During the course of a high speed pursuit, Deputy Timothy Scott forced Harris off the road by applying his bumper to the rear of Harris' vehicle, resulting in injuries which left Harris quadriplegic. Harris asserted that this was excessive use of force resulting in unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Scott claimed qualified immunity in the suit, on the grounds that there was no constitutional violation and that the law was unclear as to this matter. The Eleventh Circuit Court had concluded that Scott's actions could qualify as use of deadly force under Tennessee v. Garner, and thus violate Harris' Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment simply prohibits unreasonable seizures, so Scott v. Harris is, in all practicality, a question of whether Deputy Scott's actions were reasonable.
The U. S. Supreme court ruled in favor of Deputy Timothy Scott. They based their findings on a question not of whether the use of force was deadly, but whether it was reasonable, in light of the situation. A videotaped record of the high speed chase exists, in this case, providing substantial evidence contrary to Harris' testimony. The court concluded that Scott's actions were reasonable, given the potential risk of the high speed chase to innocent motorists. This court ruling confirms that a police officer may force a motorist off the road in the case of pursuit without violating Fourth Amendment rights. Only Stevens dissented in the judicial opinions.
Click here to learn more about Thomas E. Stagg of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg