By: LINDSEY O’NEILL, ESQ.
With a high speed chase, you might only hear those police sirens for a few seconds before the cars come whizzing by you on the street. Sometimes, maybe not even long even to property move over to the curb – or at least get partially out of the way! Too often, however, those high speed police chases cause accidents and injure the innocent drivers on the road. The courts were then faced with having to decide whether, or to what extent, a police officer could be liable to an injured driver for causing an accident as a result of a high speed chase. I mean, if regular drivers who speed through the streets and intersections cause and accident, they’re liable to those they’ve injured. Why shouldn’t the police be liable for causing the same accident?
Well, it’s not that simple I guess. They’re in the “line of duty,” driving “authorized emergency vehicles,” and pursuing criminals. State laws even provide for a limitation of liability. For example, California Vehicle Code Section 17004 states the following:
“A public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm or other emergency call.”
By enacting these kinds of liability-limiting laws for police and other emergency vehicles, “we the people” have decided that the interests of justice are served by granting the police “immunity” from prosecution for injuries that may occur during pursuing fleeing suspects. Many of those suspects who flee have just committed serious crimes – car jacking, murder, robbery… but sometimes police conduct high speed pursuits over less serious offenses. If the police were prohibited from speeding to chase after them…. the suspects would simply just get away.
But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Some might argue that all high speed chases endanger the innocent other drivers on the road – that the police act in “reckless disregard” for the safety of the public on the roadway when they conduct a high speed chase. Even further, sometimes the way in which a high speed police car pursuit is conducted actually “shocks the conscience” of the community. For instance, would a high speed chase in excess of 100 mph along neighborhood streets in front of an elementary school be okay in pursuit of a minor traffic offender? If a 6-year old girl was killed by the police car while she crossed the street to go home… well, we might then look at that high speed chase and determine that it not only was in “reckless disregard for public safety,” but that it does in fact “shock the conscience.”
The courts have struggled over the years with what should be the standard for determining if a high speed chase was dangerous enough to hold law enforcement liable for violating our constitutional due process rights in connection with injuries sustained from such high speed chase. Should it be a police pursuit that is simply “reckless”… or should it be only if a high speed chase is so reckless that there is a “conscious, knowing disregard for human life and safety”… or should it be the even higher standard of only when a high speed pursuit under the circumstances actually downright “shocks our conscience.” Conduct that “shocks the conscience” is conduct that is “deliberately intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest.” The “shock the conscience” standard is currently in use by the courts.
The issue is incredibly important from a policy perspective because if the standard for constitutional liability is very high, then law enforcement will rarely be found liable. If the standard is lower, more liability will be found, which will result in fewer apprehensions of criminals.
If you’re interested, you can read some of the court cases on this topic below:
If Law Enforcement has a possible Tool that they could use to reduce the risk to the Public during a Pursuit, aren’t they legally obligated to use it?
I have had contact with many Politicians and Police Officials and have received almost no interest in my System for Safely Ending these Dangerous, often Deadly Pursuits. I have even written Gov. Schwarzenegger and ALL of the Los Angeles County Supervisors, still no interest???
Take a look at the information on the Website and see for yourself. I can PROVE ALL of the claims that I make about my System!
Reply
I just want to say that this law which gives immunity to police is ridiculous and dangerous ,essentially I think only in the state of California ,I know for a fact that my accident could be avoided if the police would not turn crazy about a citizen who was simply driving with an expire tag and a suspended license .
I did speak to a witness who was driving one of the ambulance ,he said that he could lose is job for making a U turn on that day when he saws all those police cars driving at highspeed ,he did it anyway or nmy wife ex-wife could be dead.
Of course the man who was driving the car should be punished for what he did ,he only got 1 year in jail ….
if the police would simply follow him carefully and discretly until he make a stop,I would not have go through that horrible tragedy.
Reply
Brokenmom Reply:
February 28th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
I am sorry to hear about the “almost” tragedy you and your wife experienced, even though I am sure it was very stressful to say the least. If I had a choice, I would have rathered been stressed instead of the agony and constant pain that I’m in. I would like to inform the public that not all people being pursued by the police may have not just committed a horrendous crime, such as murder or or a bank robbery, or perhaps, maybe they have not committed any crime at all. My 21yr old son was recklessly pursued by an unmarked SUV with no flashing lights or sirens being activated. He was riding his friend’s motorcycle down a residential street, the facts are known due to several eyewitnesses accounts, one being the girl whose car my son actually struck. She said there was nothing to alert her that there was an active pursuit in progress, she said that the SUV was literally on his back tire and that the officer did not activate his lights or siren until after the impact, that is how she and other witnesses learned he was an officer of the “law”. Thank god neither she or her passenger were seriously hurt even though her car car was totaled, 2 other parked, unattended cars were also struck by her car before it came to a stop. There could have been so many people hurt or killedthat night. My son sustained a massive brain injury and passed away a week later. He was a good kid, he went to work everyday, he has never been in trouble with the police, he had not just committed a crime. When someone has committed a crime, is this the proper procedure for arrest? The bottom line is that public safety must always be a priority, this officer jeopardized his own life, my son’s life and many innocent bystanders, for what?!! What warrants this reckless behavior? I have a private investigator that believes this officer and his dept. will be held accountable for the murder of my son. Minor traffic violations do NOT warrant this dangerous action. Who would pull over from an unmarked car on their bumper? I certainly would not. It is illegal to pursue without lights and sirens activated, bystanders have to be aware of an active pursuit, especially on a residential street. They are trying to cover up what happened but its not going to work, he silenced my son’s voice but NOT mine’s! I am so grateful that there are several witnesses that have given statements on my son’s behalf. I found out during the investigation that there were several complaints made from young guys that were harrassed by the police in that particular area while riding motorcycles. These police do NOT follow their own police policies for pursuit. Who polices the police? Internal affairs, I dont think so, they are looking to save their buddies behind.
Reply