Police Pursuits and Civil Liability

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The, July, 2001 by Chris Pipes, Dominick Pape

Brower v. County of Inyo concerns an instance in which police activity brought about an intended result. The courts have rejected Fourth Amendment claims when action by the police during a pursuit brings about unintended results. Thus, third-party victims are not able to bring Fourth Amendment claims alleging unreasonable seizure arising from an action taken by police.

City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris

In its ruling in City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with another arena that directly affects law enforcement agencies and the duty to train employees. [17] Although this case did not involve a police pursuit, many subsequent cases involving pursuits mention it. The Court held that "the inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for 1983 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact." [18]

Galas v. McKee

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit examined the issue of whether police agencies can use police pursuits to apprehend traffic violators. In Galas v. McKee, the court reviewed a case based in Nashville, Tennessee involving the police pursuit of a 13-year-old traffic violator. [19] On March 16, 1983, Officer McKee of the Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County Police Department, observed a vehicle exceeding the speed limit. Officer McKee gave chase, which, at times, reached 100 miles per hour, on a police motorcycle. The pursuit culminated when the vehicle left the road and crashed. The driver sustained serious and life-long injuries. The district court ruled in favor of the police officer and the police department. The parents of the driver appealed the decision. The court of appeals held the following: "We conclude that the minimal intrusion on a traffic offender's Fourth Amendment right occasioned by the officers participation in a high-speed pursuit does not outweigh a longstanding police practi ce which we consider essential to a coherent scheme of police powers...the use of high speed pursuits to apprehend traffic violators is not unreasonable and, thus, not violate of the Fourth Amendment." [20] Clearly, officers may engage in high-speed pursuits as an acceptable method to apprehend traffic violators. The court further reviewed the department's policy concerning traffic violators and police pursuits and held that, "The policy provides, at most, that officers may pursue, that is, follow, suspects. The policy of following traffic offenders who refuse to obey an officer's directive to pull to the side of the road does not infringe on the right to life." [21] This court affirmed the use of police pursuits to capture traffic violators.

Fagan v. City of Vineland

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Fagan v. City of Vineland reviewed a police pursuit, which resulted in the injury of several persons and the death of three others. [22] The court argued this case once, and then chose to reargue the case again to review the standard applied to police pursuits. On March 6, 1988, an officer with the City of Vineland, New Jersey, Police Department was on patrol when a vehicle with a t-top roof drove by. The car, which held several passengers, was not speeding, but a passenger in the vehicle was standing up through the roof. The officer intended to stop the vehicle to issue a warning concerning the person standing up and hanging out of the roof. At this point, no violation or crime had occurred. When the officer activated his overhead lights to stop the vehicle, it began to pull away from the officer at speeds between 35 and 40 miles per hour. The vehicle failed to stop at several stop signs and began to increase in speed. A sergeant was notified and could have terminated the pursuit. In fact, the sergeant requested that the dispatch center contact the officer to find out why the officer was pursuing the vehicle. The officer never responded. The vehicle then increased its speed to between 70 and 80 miles per hour. Another officer attempted to block an intersection but the vehicle continued past the officer. The vehicle ran a red light and collided with a pickup truck resulting in a major crash. Two occupants in the pickup truck and one in the vehicle the officer had pursued were killed.