ILNews

7th Circuit rules on police chase violations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Police chases do not violate the Fourth and 14th Amendments when the officers involved do not intentionally and forcibly halt the fleeing subject, according to a ruling today by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case came out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. It follows an April decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that gave police officers significant protection from lawsuits by suspects who lead them on car chases.

This 7th Circuit decision affirms the District Court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the combined appeal of Floyd Steen, personal representative of the estate of Brandon S. Hilbert v. Robert Myers, Brad Ridenour, and City of Portland, Indiana and Richard Philebaum and Teresa Philebaum, as legal guardians of Robyn A. Philebaum, and Robyn A. Philebaum, individually, v. City of Portland, Indiana, Portland Police Department, Robert Myers, and Brad Ridenour.  The court remanded the state law claims back to state court.

The plaintiffs in the combined appeal represent the interests of Brandon Hilbert and Robyn Philebaum. Hilbert was killed and Philebaum was severely injured after a high-speed police chase in which Myers pursued Hilbert's motorcycle.

Myers and Hilbert had a previous encounter in which Myers and another officer mistook Hilbert for an assault subject and held him at gunpoint until determining he was not the wanted suspect. Hilbert's relatives argue he was left in fear of Myers because of this and may explain why he fled.

Myers spotted Hilbert and Philebaum sitting on a parked motorcycle and suspected Hilbert was driving on a suspended license and had no motorcycle license. Once Myers received confirmation that Hilbert's license was indeed suspended and he did not have a motorcycle endorsement, he drove towards the motorcycle, and Hilbert and Philebaum fled. Myers pursued the motorcycle for several minutes at a high speed until the motorcycle went off the road at a sharp turn. Hilbert died and Philebaum was left seriously injured.

The plaintiffs brought suit in the state courts of Indiana, combining both the federal and state law claims. They appealed the District Court's ruling that summary judgment was appropriate with respect to Myers. The court cites County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) as largely controlling. The Fourth Amendment seizure does not occur during a police chase unless an officer intentionally and forcibly halts the fleeing subject. The court cites Brower v. County of Inyo. The District Court ruled the argument Myers struck the motorcycle was "unsupported speculation" and the 7th Circuit agreed.

The appellants argue the history of antagonism between Myers and Hilbert should be considered; however, the court finds it would only allow an inference about whether a collision would have been intentional - and no evidence exists proving a collision.

Under the 14th Amendment, the District Court found Myers conduct did not rise to the level of shocking the conscience, which was established by the Lewis case.

"The question for us, therefore, is whether there is sufficient evidence of some intent to harm that goes beyond the traffic stop, the decision to pursue, and the decision to not terminate the pursuit at some point before the crash," Judge Kanne wrote. "We find no evidence of that intent."

Judge Kanne states the Supreme Court has set the bar very high in pursuing 14th Amendment claims that arise out of a police chase, and even if the court questions Myers was negligent, reckless, or deliberately indifferent, under standards set by Lewis, those questions are to be determined for state courts and the law of tort.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT