Scott v. Harris

What Happened

In March 2001, a Georgia deputy clocked Victor Harris doing 73 in a 55 zone and hit his lights. Harris didn’t pull over — he sped away. What followed was a six-minute, ten-mile chase down mostly two-lane roads at speeds exceeding 85 miles per hour.

During the pursuit, Harris pulled into a shopping center parking lot, where police nearly boxed him in. He made a sharp turn, clipped Deputy Timothy Scott’s cruiser, and tore back onto the highway. Scott took over as the lead pursuit vehicle and radioed his supervisor for permission to end the chase. The supervisor said: “Go ahead and take him out.”

Scott applied his push bumper to the rear of Harris’s car. Harris lost control, his car left the road, ran down an embankment, overturned, and crashed. Harris was rendered a quadriplegic.

Harris sued Scott under § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Scott claimed qualified immunity. The District Court denied summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that Scott’s actions could constitute “deadly force” under Tennessee v. Garner and that a reasonable jury could find them unconstitutional.

Critically, the entire chase was captured on the dashcam of Scott’s police cruiser. The Supreme Court made the unusual move of posting the video online so anyone could watch it.

What the Court Decided

Justice Scalia, writing for an 8-1 majority, reversed. The Court’s analysis hinged on the video evidence.

At summary judgment, courts normally view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party — here, Harris. But the Court held that when video evidence “blatantly contradicts” the plaintiff’s version of events “so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts.” 550 U.S. at 380.

Watching the video, the Court saw Harris “swerving around more than a dozen other cars, cross[ing] the double-yellow line, and forc[ing] cars traveling in both directions to their respective shoulders to avoid being hit.” 550 U.S. at 379–380. Harris’s version — that he was driving carefully and that the police cars behind him were the real danger — was, the Court said, simply unbelievable in light of the tape.

On the Fourth Amendment question, the Court rejected the idea that Garner created a rigid “deadly force” on/off switch. Garner simply applied the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness test to one set of facts. The proper analysis under Graham v. Connor is always a balancing of interests: the nature and quality of the intrusion against the governmental interests at stake.

Balancing those interests, the Court found Scott’s actions reasonable. Harris “intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in reckless, high-speed flight.” 550 U.S. at 384. The innocent bystanders endangered by the chase were “entirely innocent.” The Court rejected Harris’s argument that the police should simply have called off the chase — it was not constitutionally required.

Justice Stevens, the lone dissenter, argued that the video wasn’t as clear-cut as the majority suggested and that a jury should have decided whether the force was reasonable.

What It Means in Practice

Scott v. Harris created two important rules that shape § 1983 litigation.

First, it established the “video evidence exception” to the normal summary judgment standard. Ordinarily, disputed facts go to the jury. But when video “blatantly contradicts” the plaintiff’s version, the court can reject that version and grant summary judgment. This has become enormously important in the age of body cameras and dashcams. Every excessive force case now involves a battle over what the video shows — and courts regularly use Scott to resolve factual disputes that would otherwise go to trial.

Second, Scott expanded the framework for evaluating police use of force during high-speed pursuits. Officers who end dangerous chases — even using methods that risk killing the suspect — can be shielded from liability if the chase posed serious risks to the public. This is a significant extension beyond Garner’s “fleeing suspect” framework.

The combination of these two holdings gives defendants a powerful one-two punch: argue that the video supports the officer’s version, then argue that the officer’s actions were reasonable even under the plaintiff’s version.

How You Can Use It

Scott is primarily a defense case, but understanding it helps you litigate around it:

• The video doesn’t always tell the whole story. Challenge the assumption that video evidence is unambiguous. Camera angles are limited, body cameras turn on late, and dashcams don’t capture what happened before the recording began. Argue that the video is incomplete or susceptible to multiple interpretations.
• “Blatantly contradicts” is a high bar. Scott applies only when the video “blatantly contradicts” the plaintiff’s version “so that no reasonable jury could believe it.” 550 U.S. at 380. If the video is ambiguous — if reasonable people could disagree about what it shows — the case should go to the jury.
• Distinguish your chase from Scott’s. Not every pursuit is a ten-mile, 85-mph rampage through traffic. If the chase was short, at moderate speeds, or on empty roads, the risk to the public was lower and the force less justified.
• Template: “Unlike the ‘blatant[]’ contradiction at issue in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007), the video evidence here is ambiguous and susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations. A reasonable jury viewing this footage could conclude that [describe plaintiff-favorable interpretation]. Summary judgment is therefore inappropriate.”

How It Can Be Used Against You

Scott is one of the defense’s favorite cases:

• “Watch the tape.” If body camera or dashcam footage exists, the defense will use Scott to argue that the video tells the whole story — and that your version of events is not credible. Courts regularly grant summary judgment on this basis.
• Deference to high-speed pursuit decisions. The defense will cite Scott for the broad principle that officers who end dangerous chases don’t violate the Fourth Amendment. The more dangerous the chase appears, the more latitude the officer gets.
• Rejecting the “call off the chase” argument. Under Scott, the court will not require officers to abandon a pursuit and hope the suspect stops on their own. The risk of continuing flight — to the suspect and to the public — justifies intervention.

How to counter: Get the video into evidence early and make the court watch it carefully — frame by frame if necessary. Supplement the video with other evidence: witness testimony, expert analysis, the officer’s own statements, and the physical evidence. If the video is grainy, shot from a distance, or missing key moments, emphasize its limitations. And remember that Scott applies to summary judgment, not trial. If the video is genuinely ambiguous, push for a jury determination under Tolan v. Cotton.