f the court on May 26, 1998. He said that the issue in this case is whether a police officer violates the Fourteenth Amendments guarantee of substantive due process by causing death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high-speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender.(Souter) The court said that an officer did in fact not violate the due process protection since there was no purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest.(Souter) With the decision in this case of Sacramento v. Lewis cases of deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process when dealing with high-speed pursuits will have a previous decision to look back on. High-speed pursuits are still debated as being worth the risk given to officers, suspects, and even innocent bystanders. In this case Officer Smith also failed to follow many of the procedures of the Sacramento County Sheriffs Department but that is another case altogether. In United States Supreme Court issued its decision, over eight years after the incident, that fourteenth amendment argument against high-speed pursuits have no standing in court.County of Sacramento v. Estate of Phillip LewisHigh-speed pursuits by police officers have been debated as to whether they are beyond the limits by putting people in unnecessary danger or if they are justifiable in every aspect. In the case of the County of Sacramento v. the Estate of Phillip Lewis a high-speed pursuit ended in the death of one of the fleeing suspects. Parents of Phillip Lewis brought claims against the county, sheriffs department and the deputy involved, saying that the actions taken by the officer and the policy of sheriffs department are deprivation of life without due process. This case was first taken to the district court then to court of appeals and eventually ended up in the United States Supreme Court.On May 22, 1990 two Sacramento County sheriffs deputies were resp...
