 |
Phone (419) 448-3200 Fax (419) 447-3274 E-Mail: adtrib@bright.net | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public's safety is primary condition U.S. Supreme Court justices Tuesday loos- ened liability restraints on police officers involved in high-speed chases. The Associated Press reported that Jus- tice David H. Souter, a former New Hamp- shire prosecutor, wrote for the court that police are entitled to considerable legal protection for the ''split-second judg- ments'' their work demands. ''Like prison officials facing a riot, the police on an occasion calling for fast action have obligations that tend to tug against each other,'' he said. ''A police officer de- ciding 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.'' At the heart of the issue is public safety. When a high-speed chase is the right choice, it is in the interest of public safety. That means there would be more potential for danger if the suspect was not chased than if he or she were pursued. There are situations -- based on loca- tion, traffic, nature of the suspect's offense -- in which a high-speed chase would create more public danger. Decision-making procedures should be in place so that police who are faced with those ''split-second judgments'' have a frame of reference against which to make them. The decision has to remain with the offi- cer or his or her superiors. The Supreme Court left no doubt about that. But the public -- in the person of others who might be on or along the roads that might be used -- would like its overall safety to be the prime factor, even if that means a delayed arrest.
WEATHER I OPINIONS I CALENDAR All information and coding is protected by copyright. |
