October Term 2006 · Docket 05-1631

Can police use deadly force to stop a high-speed chase?

Deputy Scott shot a fleeing driver. The driver claims this violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

Official caption
Scott v. Harris
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    the side that brought the case's counsel stated the facts were undisputed. He argued the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment. He emphasized the nine-mile pursuit at high speeds.

    the opposing side's counsel responded to questions about the proposed rule. He focused on the balance of risks. He argued the officer must consider harm to others and the suspect.

    Justices probed the relevance of speed to potential death. They examined the scope of the case. They questioned the proposed balancing test for police force.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the limits of police force during a chase. It asks if an officer can end a dangerous pursuit by shooting the driver.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2007.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants a finding that the officer acted lawfully. He seeks dismissal of the liability claim.

the opposing side wants a finding that the officer violated the Fourth Amendment. He seeks personal liability for the officer.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the officer did not violate the Constitution. He claims the high-speed chase created a danger that justified the force.

the opposing side argues the officer used excessive force. He claims the officer failed to balance risks to the public and the suspect.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if the fleeing driver caused the danger.

Justice Breyer questioned why the side that brought the case conceded certain points about the case scope. He noted the case involved many factors. He asked why the shopping center distraction mattered less than the speed. He asked if speed determined the likelihood of death. He asked if the rule requires balancing harm to others versus the fleeing person.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines when police may use deadly force to end a chase. It sets the standard for officer liability in high-speed pursuits. It balances public safety against individual rights during emergencies.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON