In Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 382, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007), a police officer terminated a high speed chase by hitting the fleeing suspect's rear bumper, which caused the suspect's car to leave the road and crash, rendering the suspect a quadriplegic. Id. at 375, 127 S. Ct. at 1773. The suspect sued the police officer, and the Supreme Court considered whether the police officer's actions were reasonable in light of the circumstances. Id. at 384, 127 S. Ct. 1778. One argument the Court considered was whether the officer could have prevented the entire accident by not chasing the suspect. In considering whether police should simply allow suspects to flee, the Court stated: "We are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allowing fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people's lives in danger. It is obvious the perverse incentives such a rule would create: Every fleeting motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times, and runs a few red lights. The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death." Id. at 385--86, 127 S. Ct. 1779.