Scott v. Harris

The defendant’s actions “posed an actual and imminent threat to the lives of any pedestrians who might have been present, to other civilian motorists, and to the officers involved in the chase.” The officers were justified in taking some action. The Court asked “how does a court go about weighing the perhaps lesser probability of injuring or killing numerous bystanders against the perhaps larger probability of injuring or killing a single person?” An appropriate analysis includes taking “into account not only the number of lives at risk, but also their relative culpability.” In this instance, the defendant’s actions place a significant number of persons in danger, and the officers’ range of reasonable responses was limited. In this instance, ramming the vehicle was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.