Justices to rule on police ramming car to end chase

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether police officers can be sued for intentionally ramming a fleeing car during a high-speed chase, causing the death or injury of the driver.

Eight years ago, the justices shielded police officers from being sued in federal court for deaths and injuries resulting from high-speed chases. The only exception, the court said, is when police act out of “an improper or malicious motive,” such as “to terrorize, cause harm or kill” a suspect.

In the 1998 case, the parents of a teenager from Sacramento sued after their son was killed when he fell from a motorcycle being pursued by a police cruiser at 100 mph. Because the officer did not intend to harm the cyclist, he could not be held liable, the high court ruled.

In the new case, from Georgia, the justices will consider whether an officer who deliberately hits a fleeing car can be held liable for an accident that follows.

The case began on a March night in 2001 when an officer in Coweta County, Ga., saw a Cadillac going 20 miles above the speed limit. When he gave chase, it sped up, ran through a red light and reached 100 mph on a highway.

A second officer, Timothy Scott, rammed the rear of the speeding vehicle, sending it out of control and over an embankment. The driver, 19-year-old Victor Harris, survived but was rendered a quadriplegic.

He sued, and both a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta agreed that an officer who used “deadly force” by ramming his car into another vehicle could be held liable for the damage he caused.

Under most states’ laws, including California’s, police officers cannot be sued by someone injured while fleeing from law enforcement. However, police can be sued in federal court if they violate a person’s constitutional rights, even if the person is a fleeing felon.

In the Georgia case, lawyers for the injured driver argued that ramming his car amounted to an “unreasonable seizure,” a violation of the 4th Amendment. The courts agreed, clearing the way for the suit to go before a jury.

Lawyers for the police officer appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing that such a decision, if allowed to stand, endangered the public as well as police. Officers would be forced to allow speeding vehicles to escape if they could be sued for forcibly stopping them, they said.

When trying to stop a fleeing car, police officers try to drive alongside and then nudge the rear to the right so that the car spins out. This is known as PIT, for Pursuit Intervention Technique.

“When it’s done right, it’s a controlled maneuver, and it stops the car,” said Lt. Paul Vernon of the Los Angeles Police Department.

The high court announced late Friday that it would hear the case of Scott vs. Harris.

Also Friday, the court agreed to hear an appeal from the parents of an autistic boy seeking the right to sue for a better learning program for their son. A federal judge in Ohio threw their case out because they did not have a lawyer.

Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether parents, acting without a lawyer, may appeal in court on behalf of their children to seek their rights under the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. That law gives disabled children a right to a “free appropriate public education.”

The law also says the school must develop an “individualized education program” for each child with a disability, and the parents are entitled to be part of the team that develops this plan. If the parents are dissatisfied with the plan, they can file a complaint and have a hearing before a local and state administrator. If they are still dissatisfied, they can go to court.

At issue is whether they can do so on their own and without a lawyer.

Jeff and Sandee Winkelman believed their 8-year-old son, Jacob, would benefit from attending a private school that specialized in autism. However, school officials in Parma, Ohio, placed him in a public elementary school, and an administrative hearing officer upheld the school district’s decision.

The Winkelmans sent their son to the private school for one year, at a tuition cost of $56,000, and went to federal court to seek reimbursement from the school district.

A federal judge and the U.S. appeals court in Cincinnati ruled the parents could not sue in court without a lawyer.

Jean-Claude Andre, a Los Angeles lawyer, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case. He cited an Education Department study that said the nation had nearly 7 million children with a disability, and of these, about a third came from families with annual incomes of $25,000 or less.

“For the overwhelming majority of these families, like the Winkelmans, the cost of retaining a lawyer is prohibitive,” he said. U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement also urged the justices to take up the case of Winkelman vs. Parma City School District and to rule for the family.

Both cases will be argued before the high court early next year and decided by June.

david.savage@latimes.com