This case is a very big deal:
The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear a landmark case that could allow bystanders injured in high-speed police pursuits to sue for damages.
The justices will decide whether Marion Superior Court Judge David J. Dreyer was correct in August to reject Indianapolis' claim that officers involved in a 50-second chase in 1999 had "law-enforcement immunity" and thus were not liable for a bystander's injuries.
In my years of covering the police, and commenting on their activities, I've seen a lot of police departments adopt some commonsense guidelines on pursuit, and I wish more would. Sometimes, the benefits of catching the person fleeing just don't balance against the threat to innocent bystanders a high-speed chase creates. The danger of this case, however, is that if it goes against police, they (or their superiors) might be reluctant to engage in any pursuit. And that wouldn't be very good for the public welfare, either.
Here's an interesting alternative to the high-speed chase:
A company in Virginia is proposing one: a sticky dart with a homing device that police can fire at a fleeing car and track electronically at a distance.Instead of pursuing the getaway car at high speed, police can lay back and set a trap for the fleeing car up the road.
Comments
Seems like they've been back and forth on this high speed chase thing for awhile. Seems to me that active pursuit of a criminal constitutes an attempt to enforce the law which would entitle the police officer and the governmental unit to law enforcement immunity under IC 34-13-3-3(8).
Now, if they were on their way to a crime scene and happened to get into a wreck on the way, seems like that would not entitle them to such immunity.