Editorial: Court lets police nab lawbreakers

Thursday, May 28, 1998 | 11:21 a.m.

THE Supreme Court's decision Tuesday, making it more difficult for the police to be sued by people hurt in high-speed chases, is well-reasoned. The ruling should send a clear signal to criminals that attempts to elude the police will not be tolerated.

In the case before the Supreme Court, the parents of a California teenager filed a lawsuit after their son was killed in 1990 by a Sacramento County deputy sheriff's car. Philip Lewis, who was 16, was a passenger on a motorcycle that did not stop when another deputy attempted to flag it down. When the police officer saw that the driver was not stopping, he pursued the motorcycle in his police car. The chase ended after the motorcycle, which reached speeds of 100 miles an hour, skidded to a halt; the officer tried to stop in time but he hit the young passenger, killing him.

In the opinion for the court dismissing the parents' lawsuit, Justice David Souter noted that police must have considerable legal protection for the split-second judgments their work requires. "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."

Many police departments, including Metro, already exercise caution on high-speed pursuits. Metro's policy allows police officers to initiate a pursuit only when the suspect is avoiding arrest and there is an immediate need for apprehension; the pursuit can be used only as a last resort.

While Metro has a common-sense policy, it's important that the Supreme Court reaffirmed that police can't have their hands tied when trying to apprehend someone attempting to flee. It is unfortunate when people fleeing the police die in high-speed chases, and it is especially tragic when that person is an innocent bystander. But to allow suspected criminals the ability to evade police is wrong.

What is often forgotten in this debate is that it isn't the police who are putting the public in jeopardy. If the suspected criminal would just stop, there would be no high-speed chase. These chases only occur because the suspects think they can outrun the police.

To permit a situation where the police could not chase speeding criminals would breed even more lawlessness than already exists. Letting criminals dictate the terms of police work is untenable. The Supreme Court's ruling should put criminals on notice that they will not gain the upper hand on police by refusing to obey the law.