By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 28, 2006

The Supreme Court stepped into the national debate on the risks of high-speed police car chases yesterday, announcing that it will decide whether the Constitution permits police to use deadly force against a fleeing motorist whose only suspected offense is speeding or reckless driving.

The court's decision was a victory for a Georgia police officer appealing a ruling earlier this year by the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. That court had concluded that the officer acted unreasonably by ramming a fleeing speeder, causing a crash that left the driver, Victor Harris, paralyzed.

The 11th Circuit, like a Georgia federal district judge before it, ruled that the officer, Timothy Scott, had violated a clearly established constitutional rule and could personally be sued.

But Scott's appeal said that the 11th Circuit's decision clashed with rulings by other appeals courts and "will have a chilling effect on seizures of all fleeing suspects across the nation" if the Supreme Court does not reverse it.

At least four members of the court -- the minimum needed to accept a case -- found this argument persuasive enough to grant Scott a hearing.

When the court hears arguments in Scott v. Harris , No. 05-1631, early in 2007, it will be the first time the justices have reexamined the constitutional prerequisites for employing deadly force against unarmed fleeing suspects since 1985.

In that case, which involved not a speeder but a suspected burglar, the court ruled that police may use deadly force only when they have good reason to believe someone will be killed or injured if they do not.

"It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape," the court ruled. "A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead."

The 11th Circuit cited that ruling to support its decision against Scott, noting that Harris was not suspected of any offense more serious than speeding, a misdemeanor, and posed little risk to the public because the streets were empty at the time.

Scott replied in his brief that the 11th Circuit's ruling puts police in "the untenable position of waiting until a fleeing suspect engaged in reckless and dangerous driving . . . actually maims or kills an innocent bystander before initiating a seizure."

Pursuits -- even of armed and dangerous suspects -- have become controversial in recent years, because of the risk they can pose to third parties and police officers themselves.

A 2004 University of Washington study found that, from 1994 to 2002, 260 to 325 people were killed annually as a result of high-speed chases.

The chase prompting the court's new case began on the night of March 29, 2001, when police tried to pull Harris over for going 73 in a 55-mph zone. Harris fled, accelerating to more than 90 mph and driving against traffic.

Harris later said he was frightened and wanted to avoid an impound fee for his car.

Scott joined the pursuit and radioed his supervisor for permission to attempt a "precision intervention technique," a maneuver in which a police car deliberately bumps a fleeing car at an angle, forcing it to spin out and stop.

Scott's supervisor authorized the maneuver. But Scott instead rammed Harris's car directly from behind, forcing it to career off the road and crash.

Now a quadriplegic, Harris sued Scott, alleging that the officer had violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable seizures.

A federal district judge in Georgia upheld the suit against Scott in 2003, prompting Scott's appeal to the 11th Circuit.

A decision in the case is expected by July.