|
|
Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989)
Brower v. County of Inyo No. 87-248 Argued January 11, 1989 Decided March 21, 1989 489 U.S. 593
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioners’ decedent (Brower) was killed when the stolen car he had been driving at high speeds to elude pursuing police crashed into a police roadblock. Petitioners brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Federal District Court, claiming, inter alia, that respondents, acting under color of law, violated Brower’s Fourth Amendment rights by effecting an unreasonable seizure using excessive force. Specifically, the complaint alleges that respondents placed an 18-wheel truck completely across the highway in the path of Brower’s flight, behind a curve, with a police cruiser’s headlights aimed in such fashion as to blind Brower on his approach. It also alleges that the fatal collision was a "proximate result" of this police conduct. The District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim, concluding that the roadblock was reasonable under the circumstances, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that no "seizure" had occurred.
Held:
1. Consistent with the language, history, and judicial construction of the Fourth Amendment, a seizure occurs when governmental termination of a person’s movement is effected through means intentionally applied. Because the complaint alleges that Brower was stopped by the instrumentality set in motion or put in place to stop him, it states a claim of Fourth Amendment "seizure." Pp. 595-599.
2. Petitioners can claim the right to recover for Brower’s death because the unreasonableness alleged consists precisely of setting up the roadblock in such a manner as to be likely to kill him. On remand, the Court of Appeals must determine whether the District Court erred in concluding that the roadblock was not "unreasonable." Pp. 599-600.
817 F.2d 540, reversed and remanded.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, O’CONNOR, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 600.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989) in 489 U.S. 593 489 U.S. 594. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9SX4IG86J8VKZWZ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989), in 489 U.S. 593, page 489 U.S. 594. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9SX4IG86J8VKZWZ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989). cited in 1989, 489 U.S. 593, pp.489 U.S. 594. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=9SX4IG86J8VKZWZ.
|