opinions prior to May of 1990 supporting the fourteenth amendment protection against high-speed pursuits. The court also referred to a California Vehicle Code 17004, which states [a] public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle ... when in the immediate pursuit of an actual suspected violator of the law. Phillip Lewis parents then took the case to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the district court. The court stated that the appropriate degree of fault for substantive due process liability for high-speed police pursuits is deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard for, a persons right to life and personal security.(Citation) The case of Sacramento v. Lewis was moved into the United States Supreme Court.The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari, a writ from a higher court to a lower one requesting a transcript of the proceedings of a case for review.(American Heritage) After looking over the case Justice Souter issued the opinion of 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 of...
