Justices Weigh Police Chase Video

Still, Jones argued, Supreme Court precedent holds that police may not use deadly force to stop fleeing suspects unless the suspects threaten the officer with a weapon or there is reason to believe they have committed a serious crime of physical harm or are a threat to do so.

And he said the police pursuit of his client is what created the dangerous conditions.

After Harris had eluded Scott and other officers, Scott told a fellow officer to "let me have him, my car's already tore up." He asked a supervisor for permission to ram Harris's vehicle from the side, which could cause him to spin around and stop. "Go ahead and take him out," the supervisor replied.

But Scott decided he could not make that work, because of the speed at which they were traveling and the road conditions, so he rammed Harris from behind, which sent him careening off the road.

Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre, who represents the Bush administration's support for Scott, said the deputy sheriff's split-second decision was valid. "When a suspect disobeys a lawful command to stop, races off in a reckless attempt to elude the police, and demonstrates a disregard for his own life and the lives of others in his path, the police may use force, including deadly force, to bring the suspect's vehicle flight to a halt and protect the public safety," he said.

But Jones pointed out that the 11th Circuit had found otherwise, and that the justices' rules for hearing questions of immunity require them to accept the lower court's finding of facts.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said seeing the videotape himself makes that complicated. He said he had been back and forth on the case until he saw the tape. "Am I supposed to pretend I haven't seen that?"

"Well, I think you apply the law, Your Honor," Jones replied.

Breyer said later that he would look at the tape again, but was afraid that "I end up with Chico Marx's old question with respect to the Court of Appeals: Who do you believe -- me or your own eyes?"