By John Schwartz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 1998; Page A02

Police can't be held responsible for injuries caused by high-speed chases unless their actions are so egregious that they "shock the conscience," the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

The unanimous decision makes clear that the standard is high for either the suspect being pursued or innocent bystanders who want to take legal action against police. Lower courts were divided over the issue, with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals saying that victims need only show that the police showed "deliberate or reckless indifference to life" – an easier standard to meet.

Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter noted in the decision that police chases present "obligations that tend to tug against each other": enforcing the law and protecting public safety, all in a split second.

Thus, Souter wrote, "A police officer deciding whether to give chase must balance on one hand the need to stop a suspect and show that flight from the law is no way to freedom, and, on the other, the high-speed threat to everyone within stopping range, be they suspects, their passengers, other drivers or bystanders."

But to ensure that police can pursue fleeing suspects without worrying excessively about the consequences, the court found that the standard for holding them liable for injuries must be exceptionally high: A person trying to sue would have to show that the police intended to cause harm.

The case, County of Sacramento v. Lewis, involved a fatal 1990 high-speed chase that began when a Sacramento County deputy sheriff, James Everett Smith, took off after a motorcycle driven by Brian Willard when he failed to stop for a city police officer. The chase reached speeds of 100 miles per hour, through residential streets with hard turns and stop signs – but it was over in just 75 seconds. After about a mile, Willard came to a hill, missed a turn and then went into a skid. The sheriff's deputy crested the hill and was unable to stop in time, slamming into Willard's 16-year-old passenger, Philip Lewis, killing him.

Lewis's parents sued the deputy, the county sheriff's department and Sacramento County for damages, claiming that Smith deprived Lewis of his Fourteenth Amendment right to "substantive due process." They sued under a Reconstruction-era law broadly used to sue local governments or officials accused of violating civil rights.

The county and other defendants moved the case to federal court, where they succeeded in getting the dispute thrown out. The district court ruled that the deputy had the kind of qualified immunity that is generally extended to police officers who have not broken the law. The victim's family appealed, and won. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Lewises could recover damages if they could show that Smith had acted with "deliberate indifference or reckless disregard" for the safety of the driver, passenger or bystanders.

Until that decision, four other federal appeals courts held such cases to a higher standard: Those suing had to prove that the officer's actions "shock the conscience." Yesterday's decision to retain the high standard is in line with two trends in recent years for the justices: their reluctance to extend substantive due process into new areas or to restrict the ability of police to do their work. The driver of the motorcycle, not the sheriff's deputy, ultimately caused the Sacramento tragedy, the justices ruled.

Sacramento County Sheriff Glen Craig said any other result would cripple law enforcement. "If we ever reach the point that the merely turning on the lights puts the officer at fault, nobody will ever get chased – then you'll have a society in which the only people against whom the law will be enforced are those who voluntarily comply."

Although the decision was hailed by law enforcement groups, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said that the decision itself "shocks the conscience" because it encourages police to throw caution to the wind.

The Lewis family issued a brief statement, saying "It's a very sad day for all the innocent victims of these pursuits. The Supreme Court in this decision have made a choice to protect the rights and privileges of law enforcement, while abandoning the innocent." A lawyer for the Lewis family, Paul Hedlund, expressed hope that state legislatures would pass laws setting limits on police chases.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Lewis family should lose simply because they had not proved that they had a due process right that had been violated. He ridiculed the use of the subjective "shocks the conscience" standard, first used by the court in 1952. Scalia paraphrased Cole Porter's 1934 gem "You're the Top," calling the legal standard the "ne plus ultra, the Napoleon Brandy, the Mahatma Gandhi, the Celophane of subjectivity."