Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

We read yesterday in the paper about a tragic case in Charlotte, N.C. involving a police chase which resulted in the death of an innocent 84-year old woman who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught up in the chase, resulting in her death. According to the news reports of the incident, the police were chasing a suspected shoplifter who had committed a petty offense at a local shopping mall. Although the news reports are sketchy, it appears that the merchant called the police and shortly thereafter the police spotted the vehicle being operated by the suspected thief. A three mile chase ensued at high speeds and during the chase, the suspect lost control of his vehicle and struck the vehicle being operated by the innocent victim. Her death resulted. The petty thief has now been charged with murder.

We have blogged before in the past about the reasons why there should be policies prohibiting these kinds of chases. The death penalty to the innocent is the end result and in our judgment the death of this innocent lady cannot be justified by the need to apprehend a suspected petty thief. The news reports are sketchy as to what was stolen, but it appears that it was merchandise probably worth less than $100.00. In order to apprehend a petty thief, the police made a decision to expose innocent members of the motoring public to the possibility of serious injury or death. When balancing the risk to the public caused by a dangerous high speed chase against the need to apprehend the offender, it is our judgment, and that of many experts in the field, that public policy demands that in such circumstances, when the police are chasing a non-violent offender, they should terminate such a chase because it is foreseeable that an innocent third party might be seriously injured or killed if they do not. Because this chase happened over a three mile span, the police should have known that the suspect was not going to pull over and that the risk to the public caused by the chase itself was a greater danger to the public than was the suspect himself.

The police are defending the chase, as they always do. They are stating that the suspect was found to be on probation and had a criminal record for other theft offenses. These facts, probably discovered after the fact, were probably not known to the pursuing officer. Facts discovered after an incident can hardly justify an officer’s actions at the time of the incident. In this case, according to the news accounts, the officer only knew that the suspect he was pursuing at high speeds was a petty thief. Why would the police condone a chase where a death occurs when the need to apprehend was so slight and the danger to the public presented by a petty thief was far less than the danger to the public presented by the chase itself?

Of course, we do not know all the facts surrounding this case and can only base our views on what little information has been publicly released. Nonetheless, it is our strong belief and that of many experts throughout the country, including many involved in law enforcement, that law enforcement must do a better job of policing itself and must not condone dangerous high speed police chases in the context of a non-violent offense where the suspect/offender poses little or no danger to the public and the chase itself poses considerable dangers, oftentimes resulting in serious injury or death. This tragic case in Charlotte is no different from many others throughout the country. Indeed, our firm is handling a similar case in Augusta where the police were chasing two shoplifters which resulted in the death of three individuals. We pose the question: Was the death penalty to the innocent justified by the need to apprehend the suspect and the danger to the public presented by the petty thief? We think not.

Continue reading "Police Chase For Non-Violent Crime Turns Deadly" »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

The simple answer to the question posed is - No. Some police chases are necessary in order to protect the interests of the public. If someone through a violent act commits the crime of car jacking, is a cop killer or otherwise is attempting to escape law enforcement for the commission of a violent felony where the suspect clearly poses an imminent and present danger to the public, then under such circumstances, the dangers presented by police chases are warranted from a societal standpoint. It is a different case altogether, however, when the police are chasing a minor traffic offender at high speeds and at the same time are creating great danger to the public where the need to immediately apprehend the suspect is outweighed by the danger presented to the public by the chase itself. Most experts in this area do not advocate banning police pursuits altogether. In cases involving violent felonies, even if the chase itself poses dangers to innocent members of the motoring public, nonetheless, the suspect being pursued is dangerous and needs to be apprehended if possible in order to protect the public. Again, however, the situation is different when the suspect really does not need to be apprehended immediately, poses little danger to the public and yet the chase itself kills or seriously injuries innocent members of the motoring public under such circumstances.

Most enlightened police departments throughout the United States have restrictive pursuit policies which limit the ability of their officers to chase non-violent offenders. If someone has a missing taillight it would hardly be justifiable to chase them at high speeds approaching 100 miles per hour while approaching a congested area or a school zone. People are likely to be killed because it is foreseeable that serious injury or death will occur during a high speed police chase. The law enforcement community has long known that approximately 400 to 500 people per year are killed in police chases and many thousands injured across this country. Because it is foreseeable that serious injury or death can result from a high speed police pursuit, such foreseeable risks should be minimized if at all possible particularly when the fleeing suspect does not present an inherent danger to the public.

There are many police policies that do not restrict the activities of their officers but nonetheless allow them to exercise their “discretion” as to whether they should continue a pursuit once initiated. Most such policies have language to the effect that if the danger to the public caused by the chase itself is greater than the danger presented by the suspect that the pursuit should be terminated. This is excellent policy language but the problem is it is difficult to implement and consequently the public is still being exposed under such policies to unnecessary risks of serious injury or death when non-violent traffic offenders are involved. It would seem that the better policy would be to have a restrictive policy that clearly spells out for officers what they can and cannot do in situation involving non-violent felonies. Nonetheless, until there is a uniform policy adopted by the law enforcement community restricting the rights of officers to expose the public to serious injury or death in situations involving non-violent felonies, at the very least, policies that provide discretion to its officers should be enforced and officers should not be permitted to expose the public to unnecessary risks of injury or death unless the need to immediately apprehend the suspect substantially outweighs the danger to the public presented by the chase itself.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

Georgia injury attorneys are aware that in all cases where you are seeking money damages against a municipality on account of injuries to a person you must send them an ante litem notice within six months of the event. Many of theses cases or claims arise from automobile accidents, trucking accidents, police chases and other tort cases. Georgia law actually prohibits bring any action against a municipality without first giving them such notice as provided by the statute, O.C.G.A.§36-33-5.

Georgia Representative Edward Lindsay has introduced a new Bill (House Bill 125) which, if passed will amend the current statute with respect to claims involving damage to real property. Specifically, the amended bill extends the time period for sending the ante litem notice to municipalities from 6 months to 12 months for claims for damage to real property. It also provides: “In the case of a claim involving damage to real property, where the adjustment by the governing authority fails to result in a settlement and the claimant recovers a judgment in excess of any amount offered in settlement, a penalty in the amount of 25 percent of the recovery shall be added to the judgment”.

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of the negligence of someone employed by a municipal corporation, you should contact one of the injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP who will insure that your rights are preserved.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

We read last week about another tragic ending to a police chase case in Atlanta on January 15, 2009. Unlike many other such matters where the death is not worth it from a societal standpoint, this case appears to be an example where the dangers to the public caused by the police chase were warranted under the unique circumstances involved.

Apparently, the police were chasing two men in connection with armed robberies which had occurred near Roswell, Georgia. In one of these robberies, the perpetrators had pistol whipped one of the victims. The other armed robbery also involved aggravated assault. Thus, on this particular occasion, the police were chasing dangerous felons in possession of firearms. Unfortunately, during the chase, the suspects’ car overturned and a juvenile in the backseat was killed. It is not known whether the juvenile was involved in the robberies or was simply in the vehicle by happenstance or through relation to one of the suspects.

In many cases, the dangers to the public presented by a police chase case outweigh the need to apprehend the suspect. It makes little or no sense to pursue a suspect at high speeds in urban areas for a missing taillight or minor traffic offense. When the police are chasing a minor offender when they could inflict serious injury or death on an innocent member of the motoring public, it is hard to justify a dangerous chase. In this case, however, the police were trying to apprehend dangerous felons in possession of firearms who had terrorized other members of the public. In this situation, the police were fully authorized under proper police procedure to attempt to apprehend these suspects notwithstanding the dangers to the public caused by the chase. This, of course, is far different from the cases we have been involved in where we are representing innocent victims killed during a chase where the police are chasing the perpetrators for non-violent minor offenses. In the latter case where the chase itself is much more dangerous to the public than in the suspect being chased, the chase can hardly be justified. In this tragic occurrence which occurred here in Atlanta on January 15, 2009, it appears from the public accounts of this incident that the police were observing proper police procedure and that they were fully justified in attempting to apprehend these dangerous felons. We have no problem whatsoever with such activity because it is in compliance with proper police procedure. Indeed, one of the reasons that we continue to monitor these police chase cases is to stand up for the right of the law enforcement community to engage in police chases where the need to apprehend is great and the need to expose the public to the dangers of the chase is fully justified by the aggravated circumstances involved.

Continue reading "Atlanta Police Chase Results In Death" »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

According to news reports, Atlanta Police Officer Sgt. Darrell Johnson was killed on Friday morning, October 24 when his vehicle was struck head-on by a fleeing suspect during a high speed police chase. Not only was the police officer killed, the fleeing suspect was killed as well.

The newspaper reports are sketchy, however, it appears that the high speed chase began when authorities received a 911 call from a member of the public who had spotted the suspect’s car while weaving. The officers apparently attempted to make a traffic stop of the suspect. When the suspect refused to stop for the suspected traffic violation, he took off, thus initiating a “high speed” chase. During the chase, the suspect lost control, crossed the center line and hit Sgt. Johnson’s vehicle head-on.

According to the news accounts of this tragic incident, it appears that the fleeing suspect was a veteran of the Iraq war. He may have had personal issues based on his experience there. The police allege that he was driving while drunk, but there is no indication whether this is based on a blood alcohol test or just based on his driving at the time. Either way, it seems evident that a drunk driver who is not being pursued by the police is not nearly as dangerous as is the drunk driver who is attempting to elude officers while traveling at high speeds while impaired. At least one expert, Professor Geoffrey Alpert of the University of South Carolina, has been known to say that the one thing that is much worse than a drunk driver is a drunk driver being chased at high speeds by the police.

While it is difficult to evaluate this particular case based on the sketchy news reports, what is troubling about the account is that it appears that this high speed police chase was initiated for a traffic violation only. Clearly, the danger to the public presented by a high speed police chase can be greater than is the danger presented by a mere traffic violator. The police should not be chasing someone for a mere traffic offense when other innocent members of the motoring public are placed at risk of either serious injury or death. To impose the death penalty upon an innocent member of the motoring public in order to apprehend a traffic violator makes little or no sense. The police simply need to recognize that sometimes the suspect has to be allowed to escape so that the chase itself will not endanger the innocent motoring public.

Having seen many other innocent persons killed or injured during high speed police chases, we continue to advocate that the police should chase at high speeds only when the public itself is endangered by the suspect. Yes the police should chase murderers, rapists, carjackers and other armed violent felons, but to chase someone at high speeds for a traffic violation is to unnecessarily place the entire public at risk. When the death penalty is imposed upon the innocent for a minor traffic offense, we would submit that the public is neither served nor protected which, of course, is the paramount duty of all law enforcement officials.

Continue reading "High Speed Chase Ends In Two Deaths: Was It Worth It?" »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

It was reported by the news media on Friday, August 15, 2008 that an innocent motorist was killed on 8/14 when inadvertently caught up in a high speed police chase in Clayton County, Georgia. While the media reports are sketchy, it appears that the fleeing suspect was speeding and driving in an erratic manner. The police began to chase the driver and during the chase, the suspect struck an innocent motorist who was on a motorcycle. As a result, the motorcyclist was killed.

We do not know enough about the facts of this case to assess whether the police chase violated Clayton County’s policies and procedures for high speed pursuits. Nonetheless, Clayton County has a well known track record of having been involved in numerous police chases where serious injuries and deaths have occurred. Our law firm currently has 3 wrongful death suits pending against Clayton County and one serious brain injury case all arising out of high speed police chases. In each of these 4 cases, we have alleged that the pursuing officers recklessly disregarded proper police procedure in their decision to initiate the chase and/or their failure to terminate it after it became clear that the risk of injury or death to innocent third parties caused by the chase outweighed the need to apprehend the suspect.

In this case, it appears that the fleeing suspect was wanted for traffic violations. We have indicated before that the dangers associated with high speed pursuits are so great that unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the public to immediately apprehend the suspect, in many cases, termination of the pursuit is the best way to protect innocent third parties from the dangers presented by a chase. In this case, it is clear that the Clayton County officers involved did not terminate their pursuit with the result that yet another innocent third party motorist was killed. As in our other cases, this third party was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and was doing nothing wrong and yet paid the price for this apprehension with his life. The question again arises. Is the death penalty to the innocent worth the price of catching a suspect who is wanted for mere traffic violations? We have said it before, we say it again: We think not.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

Since the seminal case of Scott v. Harris as decided by the U. S. Supreme Court there seems to be a prevailing mood that “the gloves are off” and the police can chase a suspect who defies their orders to pull over for as long as possible notwithstanding the dangers to the public. Fortunately, even though this has been the reading by some of the Supreme Court Opinion, the legal landscape is hardly as bleak as some would think. Indeed, state laws like that enacted by the Georgia Legislature (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-6) still provide protections for innocent members of the motoring public when the chasing police officer fails to exercise “due regard” for the safety of the motoring public. An interesting question arises, however, when the police claim that they have a need to chase a fleeing suspect notwithstanding the dangers to the motoring public. While this may be true in some cases with respect to the suspect himself the question arises as to what should be done in the context of a fleeing suspect when he or she has in their vehicle passengers who may be completely unconnected with the reasons for the chase.

A typical example of what we are concerned about is the situation in which a teenage driver with teenage friends in his car is asked to pull over by a police officer. For whatever reason, the teenage driver decides to take off. The teenage driver may be driving without a license, he may be joy riding, he may be on juvenile probation, he may be in violation of his parents orders to return home at a certain time, etc. In short, teenage drivers are known to panic for a variety of reason unconnected with their danger to the public. And yet, if the police decide to chase such a suspect, not only are they endangering the fleeing suspect’s life and other members of the motoring public, they are clearly endangering the rights of the passengers trapped inside the vehicle.

We have been involved in several cases dealing with trapped passengers. Passengers in vehicles do not know what the driver may or may not have done in all cases. In some cases, the passengers may be in on the criminal acts being investigated by the police. In many other cases, however, there may be no evidence whatsoever that the passengers in the vehicle have done anything wrong and yet because they are trapped inside the vehicle, they are exposed to the risk of death by the police as chases continue in some cases for miles. We continue to believe that passengers like other third parties involved in these chases have rights which must be recognized by police. If the police have a reason to chase a suspect, so be it, however, when the danger to the public caused by the chase itself exceeds the danger to the public caused by the suspect’s alleged transgressions, then in that event, the police must exercise due regard for the rights of passengers just as they must exercise due regard for the safety of innocent third party motorists.

The cases that seem to attract the most attention in this area are those involving deaths to pedestrians and other third parties who have no involvement whatsoever in the chase and are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Such cases are obviously very tragic. However, innocent passengers trapped in a vehicle are just as likely to be innocent victims of police chases as are innocent third party motorists unconnected to the chase. Innocent passengers have rights that must be recognized by the police. Until and unless the police factor those rights into the calculus of making the determination whether the dangers presented by the chase are justified, tragedies will continue to occur, passenger’s rights will continue to be ignored, and deaths involving innocent passengers will continue unabated. The fact that our firm is currently handling 2 separate cases involving passengers killed in chases for non-violent offenses allegedly committed by the driver is evidence of this.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

Having handled police chase cases for over a decade, I have yet to see a case in which the police admitted wrongdoing when a high speed pursuit turned out badly. Obviously, when a high speed pursuit ends in tragedy and someone is killed or seriously injured, the police know that immediately. In cases where the pursuit should not have been initiated and/or continued, the wagons are then circled and numerous explanations and rationalizations are provided as to why the police were merely “doing their duty” and were doing absolutely nothing wrong. Many times this is exactly the case. The police were doing their duty and they were doing nothing wrong and had every right to be chasing a dangerous offender who may have committed a forcible felony as an example. However, in many other cases, the police have done something wrong. That is, they were exposing the public to great risk of serious injury or death with virtually no need to chase the offender (such as situations involving missing tail lights or minor petty or misdemeanor offenses) and the pursuit then “turned out badly.” In situations where the police are chasing minor offenders at high rates of speed on congested roadways the danger to the public always will always outweigh the need to apprehend the suspect. And yet, in such circumstances, when the pursuit ends in tragedy, the police will “have done nothing wrong” and were merely “doing their duty.” The wrong was committed by the fleeing suspect, not the police so they will say. But the suspect (a minor transgressor) was no serious danger to anyone until they were chased.

The rationalizations we often see in these cases are that “the pursuit had not begun, we were merely trying to catch up to the suspect.” By offering this rationalization the police hope to convince the public that they did not violate their pursuit policies because they were not actually in a pursuit. Another common defense is that “we were not in pursuit, we are acting in emergency mode attempting to warn the public up ahead of the dangers presented by the motorist.” Another rationalization is “we had no intent to immediately apprehend the suspect,” meaning that if we did not have an intent to apprehend, we could not have been in pursuit but were merely following the vehicle. Indeed, “following the vehicle” or “tailing” the vehicle is another rationalization offered rather than “pursuing the vehicle.” Another defense: “it was the officer’s discretion” under the policy to chase or not to chase. (Therefore, he can never be wrong). Another defense: we had terminated the pursuit and had resumed normal speed. (Videotapes are often missing when this one is used). The rationalizations and explanations are endless but having practiced in this area for many years, the point to be made is that according to themselves the police very rarely do anything wrong, even in those situations where they do.

Regrettably, the natural human instinct to deny wrongdoing when a mistake has been made is what is preventing change in this area. Nothing will change unless the parties who have made the mistakes acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them. As long as rationalizations and explanations are offered necessary change will not occur and the innocent will continue to die. Regrettably, in this particular field, police chases continue unabated with hundreds of innocent people dying annually and thousands of others being seriously injured. Until and unless the law enforcement community is willing to admit that they sometimes have made mistakes, they will never learn from them and the innocent public will continue to pay the price for them.

To err is human. Police sometimes err just as well as we all do. The law enforcement community needs to admit its errors in these cases if lives are to be saved. Otherwise, we can count on more deaths and injuries in needlessly reckless and dangerous police pursuits where the danger presented to the public by the suspect is outweighed by the dangers of the chase itself.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

On our blog, we have written numerous articles about the dangers associated with high speed police chases. Our firm has handled numerous wrongful death and serious injury cases arising out of these very dangerous pursuits.

By and large the public does not appreciate just how dangerous police chases are. Indeed, more people are killed each year from police chases than are killed as a result of police firearm incidents. Over the last ten (10) years more people have died in police chases than were killed in 9/11. Over the last ten (10) years, the number of those killed an injured as a result of police chases approximate the number of those killed and injured in the Iraqi war.

And yet, one of the reasons that this problem is unappreciated by the public-at-large is the random nature of these events. One police chase occurs in one rural area in one state and someone is killed or injured and there may be some local publicity attendent to that event but it is not connected to another incident of an almost identical nature that occurs across the country in another state and another locale. And yet, national statistics bear out that approximately 500 people each year are killed and thousands and thousands of others are injured as a result of these very dangerous police practices.

One person who is making a difference in educating the public about the need for enlightened policies and procedures by the law enforcement community in general relative to these police chases is Ms. Candy Priano, the Director of Voices Insisting on Pursuit Safety. Voices Insisting on Pursuit Safety is a non-profit organization formed by Ms. Priano in response to the death of her own daughter, who was killed as a innocent third party in a high speed police chase case. Ms. Priano lost her daughter because the police were chasing another teenager for driving her mother's car without permission. That teenager’s vehicle crashed into the Priano family vehicle, resulting in the death. After that tragedy, Ms. Priano learned that she was not alone in suffering the loss of a loved one as a result of an unwise police chase. She later learned that the national statistics relative to this problem are staggering. Ms. Priano also learned that many of the victims of police chase cases are completely and totally innocent as was her daughter and simply are people at the wrong place at the wrong time who get caught up in a chase where the police are pursuing a suspect (many times for a minor traffic offense). In far too many cases, she has learned that while these chases are occurring, innocent third parties are killed or injured, typically when their vehicle is crashed into by the fleeing suspect or they are run over while riding their bike or walking along the side of the road. Indeed, if one goes to the website Voices Insisting on Pursuit Safety, one can read many stories about the many tragedies that have been experienced across this country as a result of unregulated and unwarranted high speed police chases.

The solution to the problems caused by high speed police chases is education of the law enforcement community and the public in general. The public understandably wants the police to chase violent offenders who are a danger to the public because the dangers associated with chases are worth it in such matters because otherwise a violent felon may go free and harm someone through their criminal acts. However, it makes little or no sense to expose the public to grave dangers when someone has committed a traffic or other minor offense. The best policies are those which restrict police chases to those involving violent felonies. If no violent felony has occurred, the police should not chase the offender, particularly in congested traffic areas where members of the public could be exposed to the dangers attendant to such chases.

Once the public fully appreciate the significant nature of the danger associated with these chases, typically they are more receptive to restrictive police policies which forbid chases in contexts where the danger to innocent members of the motoring public is greater than the need to apprehend the suspect. In cases where the danger to the motoring public is greater than the need to apprehend the suspect, simply stated, there should be no chase. Voices Insisting on Pursuit Safety is an organization that is trying to get this message across and Candy Priano is working hard to educate the public in this regard.

One person can make a difference as is demonstrated by the tireless efforts of Ms. Priano. The best evidence that can be offered in support of this assertion is an examination of her website and the work that is being done by her organization. Through her public outreach Ms. Priano is literally saving lives by helping to restrict these dangerous chases to situations where they are necessary to protect the public. We commend her for her efforts.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

It seems that everyday our personal injury lawyers open the paper, we read about another wrongful death in the context of a high speed police chase. One such case occurred this past weekend in Augusta, Georgia when a Sheriff’s Deputy was chasing a 19-year old suspect. Initially the officer involved pulled the suspect over and was provided his ID and driver’s license. Thus, the officer knew who the suspect was and where he lived. While the officer went back to his car to check on his tags, the suspect took off. A chase commenced but during the chase the officer was advised by his supervisor to terminate the chase because of the danger to the public. The supervisor advised this officer not once, but twice to terminate the chase but he did not do so. The predictable result ensued, that being that while the suspect was fleeing at 80 to 85 miles per hour he ran through an intersection and broadsided another car with the result that an innocent third party was killed. Once again, a high speed police chase occurred involving a non-violent felony and an innocent person paid the price for this reckless disregard of proper police procedure with their life.

Finch McCranie, LLP recently filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Augusta within the last few weeks alleging another wrongful death in another high speed pursuit. In that case, the police were chasing a suspected shoplifter. Again, the danger presented by the offense that was the basis of the pursuit was far outweighed by the danger presented to the public by the chase itself. In that case, 3 people were killed including an unborn child. In the most recent case which occurred this past Saturday, what is most disturbing is that the officer continued to chase the known suspect after being advised that he should terminate his pursuit. Allegedly, the officer claims that the did not hear the directive given to him over his radio. While this seems questionable, it is clear that if the officer’s supervisor thought the pursuit should have been terminated the officer himself should have realized this well before the fatal collision.

What is most disturbing about these cases in Augusta is that they are representative of cases occurring throughout Georgia and elsewhere. Indeed, we had just posted an article to this Blog about the death of a 21 year old Sgt. at Fort Benning, Georgia where the police were chasing a juvenile for joyriding in a stolen pickup truck when this most recent death in Augusta occurred. Indeed, as of the writing of this entry to our blog, our lawyers have filed 6 different lawsuits involving 8 deaths all arising in the context of high speed pursuits.

What the public does not realize is that the number of victims nationwide in high speed pursuits is greater than the number of victims killed in the 911 destruction of the World Trade Towers. Indeed, the number of those killed and maimed in high speed pursuits are similar to the number of those killed and maimed in the Iraq war. This is a nationwide problem which is particularly acute here in Georgia. And yet, the chases (for non-violent offenders) continue and the innocent die. When will the madness stop?

Our attorneys at Finch McCranie, LLP will continue to represent the interests of innocent victims. Hopefully, litigation will curb these unwarranted and dangerous police chases. The goal is to get the police community to recognize that they should only chase for violent offenders and should not chase when the danger to the public caused by the chase outweighs the danger presented by the suspect. If enough Georgia juries intervene and condemn these chases with their verdicts, hopefully, lives in Georgia will be saved.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

In February of this year, an active member of the military at Fort Benning, Sgt. Joanna Joy Ringer, age 21, was reportedly killed as yet another innocent victim in a police chase case. This time, the, innocent victim, Ms. Ringer, was killed because the police were chasing a 17 year old teenager for joyriding in a stolen pickup truck. Ms. Ringer, like all such victims, was simply at the wrong place, at the wrong time when the fleeing suspect ran head on into her car.

How many innocent people have to die before the police will understand that the dangers caused by a police chase are far greater than the dangers caused by a joyriding teenager? Why is it so important to law enforcement to recover a stolen pickup truck when the death penalty to the innocent is the likely result of using a high speed pursuits to do so? These questions remain after the death of Sgt. Ringer, and many more, about whether such pursuits should ever be authorized when a non-violent felony is involved.

The police take the position, of course, that their job is to enforce the law and that it is important that they catch those who break the law. We agree. On the other hand, a 17 year old teenager who is joyriding is not necessarily a grave risk of causing deadly harm to the public. And yet we know from statistics that one person in this country dies everyday during police chases. Police chases are very dangerous to the innocent members of the public. We submit that it is not justifiable for the police to use to what amounts to deadly force in pursuing suspects for non-violent offenses when it is clear that the dangers to the public caused by the chase itself outweighs the dangers presented by the suspect being pursued.

We recommend that our readers go to a website entitled PursuitSafety.org. There you will see some of the faces of 2,700 innocent victims of police chase cases. These haunting photographs hopefully will encourage law enforcement to review and change their policies. If not, litigation may be the best key to changing these policies. As in other areas of society, a lawsuit can cause change and lawsuits are clearly necessary to effectuate the charges that are needed in this area.

Finch McCranie, LLP will continue to proudly represent the innocent victims of these chases and will continue to file lawsuits on their behalf where it is clear that there has been a reckless disregard of proper police procedure. Again, the hope is that large verdicts against police departments may encourage them to reconsider their present posture in the matters. Chase? Yes - but only for those dangerous enough to expose the public to the dangers of the chase. Non-violent offenders do not meet this test.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

Atlanta TV stations are reporting that this afternoon, a car veered into a bus stop during a police chase and struck four pedestrians. The incident was near Metropolitan Parkway and University Drive.

According to reports, the Atlanta Police were chasing three juveniles in a stolen vehicle when the car ran into the bus stop. One juvenile was apprehended at the scene while two others escaped.

Four of the people involved were injured, one critically. This is another instance of innocent civilians harmed and/or killed by police chases for non-violent offenses. The victims could have easily been your family members.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

Our police chase injury lawyers have handled many cases involving the deaths of innocent civilians due to police chasing suspects for minor crimes. We have previously written about police departments that have adopted restrictive policies limiting chases and decreasing the chances that innocent civilians and police officers can be seriously injured or killed.

On May 30, 2007, in Forestville, Maryland, a police officer was chasing a motorcyclist for speeding. During the chase, the police officer tried to position his car to stop the speeding motorcyclist, but instead hit a civilian car that rolled down an embankment into oncoming traffic. This caused a seven car pile up injuring 15 and killing two innocent civilians. Among the injured were two police officers. The police car camera revealed that the officer was driving at times more than 120 m.p.h. as he drove onto the shoulder and back onto the highway.

Today, the police officer, Scott Campbell, was indicted by a Grand Jury on two counts of vehicular manslaughter for the May 30th crash. The indictment charges that Campbell, started the chase in violation of department policy. The police department policy permits officers to engage in high speed pursuits only if there is probable cause that the suspect used or threatened physical force or is involved in a hit and run accident resulting in serious injury or death.

The department policy states that an officer’s primary concern should be preservation of life, not capturing a suspect.

The indictment of an officer in connection with a police chase is extremely rare.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

We have written previously about the dangers of police chase cases. This week we read in the paper about a chase that occurred on January 24 involving a man fleeing the police in a stolen vehicle. As he was fleeing, allegedly with a police officer in pursuit, the suspect in the stolen vehicle engaged in increasingly dangerous behavior. Ultimately, he collided head-on with another innocent motorist, killing that motorist and decapitating a female passenger in his car. According to the news accounts, the deceased were ages 21 and 26 respectively. Yet another victim was hospitalized along with the stolen car’s driver.

This case is a classic example of why police chase cases should be limited to those involving forcible felonies. Why was it necessary to chase a suspect in a stolen car and endanger the lives of the public? In this case, two people were killed and two others seriously injured all because of the police’s intent to apprehend a suspect for a stolen vehicle. While little information is provided in the news account concerning the type of vehicle involved, our firm is currently investigating another case where three people died while the police were trying to capture a suspect driving a vehicle with a value of less than $5,000.00. Thus, we have a situation where the police are trying to arrest a suspect for stealing a $5,000.00 automobile and in the process kill three people. In the case reported in the newspaper, two people were killed because the police again were trying to apprehend a suspect in a stolen vehicle.

The continued carnage and unnecessary loss of life caused by these police chases needs to stop. Police departments should change their policies to allow chases only for violent felonies. There is no reason to endanger the public when trying to apprehend a suspect for a non-violent felony. If the suspect does not pull over and takes off, the police should let him go rather than killing the innocent members of the motoring public as happened here not to mention the passenger. The passenger may have been screaming at the top of her lungs for the suspect driver to pull over but she was killed too even though she may have done nothing wrong whatsoever. Was her life worth it?

In these cases, the death penalty is imposed on innocent members of the motoring public by dangerous pursuit policies which allow police officers to chase for non-violent offenses such as auto theft. It simply is not important enough to catch an auto thief to impose the death penalty on the very public the police are trying to protect. These chases should stop and they should stop now. Our firm will continue to resist these policies and practices by representing those who are the innocent victims of these dangerous high speed police chase cases.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our firm is working on a police chase metro Atlanta case involving an officer who has been in two separate high speed pursuit cases resulting in two deaths. We have learned in this case that another officer in the same department has also been involved in two other accidents that have resulted in four deaths. Thus, between these two officers within the same police department there have been 4 high speed pursuit cases we know of involving six deaths. Is the public being protected when police officers engage in these high speed police chases? We think not.

An officer cannot fire his service revolver into a crowded mall in order to stop a shoplifter. Most people understand that it would be too dangerous for an officer to fire his weapon in a crowded mall to apprehend a suspect for such a minor offense. In short, the danger to the public would far outweigh the need to apprehend the suspect. And yet, in a police pursuit context, the police are firing their proverbial guns (engaging in chases) on crowded streets, sometimes in residential areas, sometimes at night and sometimes under circumstances where there are many innocent motorists on the road, and yet, even in those cases where the need to apprehend the suspect is far outweighed by the danger to the public, the chase proceeds. The question is why these practices continue to occur year after year in this country with no meaningful decrease in the carnage on the roads.

Regrettably, it appears that the deaths and injuries which do occur in these cases simply have not affected the right people. When the injured are the family of politicians, perhaps there will be a change in the law. If the next police chase victimizes a prominent politician’s family perhaps there will be an understanding of the dangers of these high speed pursuits. Until such time, the public will continue to be “entertained” by television shows depicting the excitement and adrenalin that one feels when viewing a high speed pursuit. We can assure the public that such adrenalin and excitement would not be felt if their loved one was killed as a result of a pursuit involving a minor offense such as shoplifting. Indeed, as of the writing of this blog, we are reviewing a case where a shoplifter was fleeing from a police officer and during that pursuit, two adults and a child were killed and another adult seriously injured. Was the price worth it? Again, we think not.

It appears that litigation is the best avenue currently available to decrease these unwise and unwarranted police practices. The police do not protect the public when they kill innocent members of the public they are sworn to protect. The police should not chase non-violent offenders. There are ways to capture these suspects through license tag registration information, radio traffic and other police practices. Even if we as a society have to let a shoplifter or traffic offender go, is this not the more prudent approach than to impose the death penalty on innocent third parties having nothing to do with the crime? If the reader says that he or she disagrees with this conclusion, then I would ask the reader to ask themselves why then should the police not fire their weapons in a crowded mall? The analysis is the same.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Torts , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our wrongful death and serious injury lawyers work with our clients on a contingency fee basis. The contingent fee is perhaps the one device that gives seriously injured people, no matter what their financial means, an even break in the courtroom against giant corporations and insurance companies. Contingent fee practice has been an essential part of the United States justice system for more than a hundred years. It permits every American regardless of wealth or social standing the opportunity to pursue a valid claim against even the most powerful corporation or individual. In a large measure, it has made our judicial system the envy of the world. It is no surprise that it has been under almost constant attack for years by corporations and insurance companies.

Increasingly, there have been calls by organizations sponsored in secret by large corporations and insurance companies, to abolish the contingency fee. Big businesses and individuals who want to avoid accountability for their negligent and reckless acts are pushing for special protections in state legislatures and in the U.S. Congress. These wrongdoers have initiated a less obvious line of attack on the American consumer, an attack that directs itself not of the consumer, but an easier target, the lawyers that represent them. Many of these attacks are coordinated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Without the contingency fee, many people would never be able to bring a claim to redress wrongs done by large corporations and powerful individuals. In essence, the contingency fee allows a lawyer to advance his services and time in return for a percentage of the recovery. In this day and age, due to increasing burdens placed by the legislatures on claimants, the cost of bringing a lawsuit are extremely high. In fact, almost none of our clients could afford to bring a lawsuit without the contingency fee.

The assault on the contingency fee is nothing more than an attempt by powerful interests to deny access to justice to tens of thousands of Americans who are injured each year due to another’s wrongful acts.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Brain Injury , Medical Malpractice , Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Police Chases , Products Liability , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

In serious injury and death cases our attorneys consistently face challenges from the defense to the testimony of our highly qualified expert witnesses. These challenges are based upon the rule of evidence known as the Daubert standard.

The Daubert standard is a legal precedent set in 1993 by the United States Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of expert scientific testimony during legal proceedings. In Daubert, the Supreme Court ordered federal trial judges to become the “gatekeepers” of scientific evidence. Trial judges were instructed to evaluate expert witnesses to determine whether their testimony is both “relevant” and “reliable”.

A two-prong test of admissibility was established. The relevancy prong refers to whether or not the expert’s evidence fits the facts of the case. The relevancy requirement has always existed in the law.

The reliability prong was new. The Supreme Court explained that in order for expert testimony to be considered reliable, the expert must derive his or her conclusions from the scientific method. The court then offered general observations of whether proffered evidence was based on scientific method including such things as empirical testing, peer review, the potential error rate, and whether the theory or technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

In practice, this standard has been burdensome, and grossly unfair to claimants in courtrooms. Trial judges are simply in no better position than juries to serve as “gatekeepers” to scientific evidence. In fact, many of these judges bring their own biases to their determinations. One example given is that under this standard, if Christopher Columbus were required to appear in a courtroom during his lifetime using the Daubert standard, his opinion that the world is round would have been inadmissible.

As part of the so-called Governor’s tort reform of 2005, the Daubert standard was adopted by the state legislature for use in Georgia. However, bowing to pressure from the Prosecuting Attorney’s of the state, who realized how gross unfairness of the Daubert standard, the governor and legislature exempted criminal cases from the Daubert standard. However, catering to the demands of the insurance industry and large corporations, the legislature adopted the Daubert standard for civil cases.

Currently pending before the Georgia Supreme Court is a case in which the Daubert standard is being challenged on constitutional grounds. An argument is being made that it denies equal protection to adopt the standard in civil cases and not in criminal cases. It will be very interesting to see how the Georgia Supreme Court handles this challenge, especially in light of the fact that in recent years, large insurance companies and corporations have thrown millions of dollars into the judicial races in attempts to elect candidates who will follow their agenda.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Brain Injury , Civil Procedure , Dangerous Drugs , Medical Malpractice , Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Police Chases , Products Liability , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Finch McCranie, LLP currently represents three individuals who have been tragically added to the ever growing and long list of innocent victims either killed or seriously injured in a police chase case. In two of the cases we filed on behalf of these victims, the police department involved is seeking to have the claims dismissed based on an argument that the Georgia Legislature has allegedly abolished the legal doctrine joint and several liability. While the law does not support the government’s argument, nonetheless, this argument is likely to be seen in every police chase case filed in Georgia until such time as the Georgia Supreme Court has officially rejected it.

Georgia law has long followed the doctrine of joint and several liability. If two or more people acting in concert with one another (even though not associated with one another) nonetheless contribute to damages to an innocent third party through their actions either, or both, may be sued and either, or both, are 100% individually liable for the damage caused by their acts. In short, if the acts of one person combine with the acts of another to produce an injury to an innocent third party, Georgia law has long been that either or both parties may be sued and either or both parties held 100% liable for the full extent of the damages inflicted. This is in essence what the doctrine of joint and several liability doctrine has stated in Georgia for 200 years. Thus, in a police chase case, if the fleeing suspect causes the damage to the innocent third party, he may be sued. Also, if a police officer recklessly disregards proper police procedure (and thereby contributes to plaintiff’s damages) he may also be sued and held jointly liable. This is how the joint and several liability doctrine applies in a police chase case. Recently, however, jurisdictions sued in high speed police chase are contending that the Georgia Legislature allegedly changed this law in 2005 when the infamous “SB3" tort reform package was enacted into law.

One of the provisions of the tort reform package was an amendment to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 which does say that in those cases where the plaintiff is himself to some degree responsible for his own injuries that in such a limited context a jury may individually apportion damages against named defendants, and even non-parties, rather than holding all the responsible parties each 100% liable each for all of the plaintiff’s damages. What is noteworthy about this modification to the law, however, is that it only applies in those cases where the plaintiff himself was to some degree responsible for this own damages.

In virtually every police chase case we have seen, our clients are totally innocent third parties caught up in the chase. In most cases, the injured third party is simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and is crashed into either by the fleeing suspect or the police vehicle. In such circumstances, it is absurd for a police department to contend that the innocent third party somehow was responsible for creating his own damages. And yet, even though the innocent third party cannot be legitimately claimed to have in any way contributed to their own damages, police departments in Georgia and their attorneys are now asserting that such innocent victims should not recover damages under the longstanding joint and several liability doctrine but should instead be limited in their damages as if they somehow contributed to their own damages. In short, they seek to have juries apportion damages against the most responsible party (the fleeing suspect) thereby abrogating completely the joint and several liability doctrine for the police officer.

Continue reading "Denying Justice to Innocent Victims of Police Chases: New Defense Strategies By The Government " »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Police Chases

Bookmark:

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is a tool often overlooked by practitioners when it comes to available statistical data regarding vehicular accidents. For example, our firm has been handling several high speed police pursuit cases and in connection therewith obtained from the Federal Motor Carrier Administration information submitted to it on a nationwide basis to its Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Unfortunately, the statistics are likely under reported because there is no mandatory form which is utilized by all the states to report fatalities and motor vehicle accidents such as police pursuits. Nonetheless, what we saw is that from 1982 through 2004, 7,434 people were reported to FARS as being killed in high speed pursuit cases. The national average was approximately 350 deaths per year with approximately 20 deaths per year in Georgia.

The FARS reporting data also makes available to the public the number of fatalities from motor vehicle collisions involving commercial tractor trailers. Again, this data under-reports the extent of the problem but is still the best data we have. While the statistics do not show who was at fault in these accidents, nonetheless, the statistics are sobering. Indeed, from 1994 through the end of 2005, there were approximately 2,741 fatalities in Georgia. Regrettably, these statistics could be reduced were there a greater emphasis on safety. Nonetheless, what these statistics teach us is that people will continue to die on our public roads and highways in accidents involving commercial trucks and in situations involving high speed pursuits. We believe that these statistics prove that there is a greater need for regulation, not less, in both areas. While the current regulatory environment is not conducive to public safety, it appears that the best available tool to address these safety issues remains litigation. As the saying goes, “if you hit them in the pocketbook, maybe they’s start paying attention.” Because regulators have a “non-regulatory” free market approach today, trial lawyers today have the best chance of anyone to hold these companies accountable for their negligent acts.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

In a case decided April 30, 2007, entitled Scott v. Harris, the United States Supreme Court held that a suspect fleeing from the police during a high speed police chase case has no Fourth Amendment right to be protected from the use of excessive force by the police against them. As we interpret this case, essentially, what this means is that a suspect assumes the risk of injury by the police during a police chase case.

In the Harris case, a 19 year old was fleeing from the police and the police employed a “pit maneuver” in order to knock the suspect’s car off the road. The pit maneuver is one in which the police hit the corner of the fleeing car with their car in order to force it off the road. In this case, when the suspect’s car left the road, it crashed rendering him a quadriplegic.

Harris filed suit against the police officer alleging that the officer had violated his Fourth Amendment rights against the use of excessive force. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the police office did not violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights by utilizing the contested pit maneuver.

In ruling against the claimant, the Supreme Court noted that he intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in a reckless high speed flight. The Court obviously concluded that it was not reasonable for Harris to take the action that he took and that the deputy (Timothy Scott) was authorized to terminate the chase with force because of the suspect’s danger to the public. The Court specifically ruled that a police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high speed chase that threatened the lives of the public did not violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights even if the maneuver utilized by the police placed the fleeing suspect at risk of serious injury or death.

Continue reading "THE SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST FLEEING SUSPECT IN POLICE CHASE CASE" »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases

Bookmark:

After years of litigation, the City of Hampton paid $1 million to the family of Grashaunda Banks to settle a wrongful death claim brought as a result of a high speed police chase that resulted in a deadly collision. The crash occurred on Hwy. 19/41 near midnight on July 23, 2000, near the Atlanta Motor Speedway.

The Plaintiff, Olivia Banks, alleged that her 22-year old daughter was killed as a result of a reckless disregard of police policy and procedure when City of Hampton Police Officer Jeremy Pirtle engaged in a high speed pursuit of Dwight Allen Dixon (at speeds in excess of 100 mph), allegedly because Dixon had committed a traffic violation. Dixon crashed head-on into the vehicle being driven by Grashaunda Banks as Dixon was fleeing from the officer. While there was some evidence that Dixon might also have been impaired, this evidence was disputed because the blood sample taken from Mr. Dixon (who was also killed in the collision) was lost for eight days and allegedly became contaminated before it was tested.

The Banks family alleged that it was a violation of established procedure for a police officer to dangerously pursue at high speeds a suspect who allegedly was guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense. The Plaintiff alleged that the risk of danger to the motoring public, including her innocent daughter, was too great to justify the deadly high speed pursuit of Dixon for a mere traffic violation.

While police chase cases have always been the subject of considerable public debate, apparently the City felt that it should settle the case rather than take its chances with a Clayton County jury. The sum of $1 million paid to settle the Banks wrongful death suit is believed to be one of the higher settlements in the state in a case involving a high speed police pursuit.

The settlement ended over five (5) years of litigation between the parties. Suit was initially filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County because Dixon’s Death Certificate incorrectly stated that he lived in Fulton County. Two years later, it became known that Dixon had moved to Clayton County, approximately thirty (30) days before his death. The Banks family was forced to re-institute the lawsuit in Clayton County, only to have the City of Hampton transfer the case to Henry County.

Continue reading " HIGH SPEED POLICE CHASE CASE SETTLES FOR $1 MILLION" »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Just a few weeks ago we blogged about the dangerous nature of police chase cases. See Blog entry entitled High Speed Police Chase Cases: An American Tragedy (2/15/07). Today we wake up with a headline in the Atlanta paper stating that “Two teens are dead and four others injured in a police chase case involving a juvenile that was driving a stolen vehicle.” According to the newspaper report of this incident, police in Clayton County, just outside of Atlanta, pulled over a joyriding juvenile who was in the process of providing a driver’s license to the investigating officer when word came over the police radio that the vehicle the teen was driving was stolen. The teenager took off and the police began to chase. Even though the police had obtained proof of the identify of the juvenile and knew that the only offense in question was a non-violent theft of a motor vehicle, according to the newspaper article, this chase lasted for over four (4) miles. As is so often the case in these dangerous pursuits, the juvenile driver lost control of his vehicle during the chase and crashed head on into several trees off the side of the road. The result: all too predictable. Two were killed and four others seriously injured.

As a result of this tragic situation, we see the same pattern emerge that we have seen in far too many cases. The police decide to chase for a non-violent felony and people are seriously injured and died. Why? Here, because of a stolen vehicle. The question, of course, is whether it was all worth it. We have two young people dead and four others seriously injured with thousands and thousands of dollars in medical expenses expected not to mention the tragedy and devastation sustained by the families of the deceased.

Of course, no one can defend the right of the juvenile suspect in fleeing from the police. The teenager should have cooperated with the police. And yet, past experience indicates that juveniles often flee for a variety of reasons, most predictably fear. Because they are young and inexperienced and afraid of the police, juveniles oftentimes do stupid things. Here, it is not likely that the juveniles would have killed themselves or anyone else had the police not chased them so furiously over four miles. If a chase lasts for any period of time at high speeds, particularly where a juvenile is involved, past experience indicates over and over and over again that there will almost certainly be tragic results.

When will the police learn that the price to the public is too great to continue in these ill-advised high speed police chases.? Yes: we want the criminals caught and prosecuted. But No: we do not want to inflict the death penalty or life sentences on either the public or those involved. While the juvenile that was driving paid the price with his life, his passengers were not driving and yet they have paid the price too. One of them is dead and four others are seriously injured. We hardly think it was worth it. Moreover, as we advanced in our earlier blog, we have three other cases with very similar facts and once again, we are confronted with the same troubling question that also appears in the other Georgia cases we are handling on behalf of other families devastated by these chases. Was the chase for a non-violent offense worth it? We think not.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Police Chases

Bookmark: