Whether a court should apply the intent-to-harm standard of liability to all police high-speed driving

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A police officer at the scene of a no-injury accident observed an SUV with hazard lights flashing drive past his position at what he believed was a high rate of speed. He finished the accident call, then drove at high speeds in search of the SUV, which was no longer in sight, for approximately five minutes. Driving in a congested area at ninety-eight miles per hour at the time of impact, without emergency lights and siren, the officer collided with a vehicle making a left turn in front of him, killing both occupants of that vehicle. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a court should apply the intent-toharm standard of liability to all police highspeed driving, as have the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, or instead employ an analysis which examines the facts of individual cases to decide whether there was an opportunity to deliberate and apply the standard of deliberate indifference or another standard other than intent-to-harm, as have the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits. 2. Whether a court reviewing high-speed driving by a police officer should use an objective test to determine whether an emergency existed, as have the Third, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits, or rely merely on the asserted claim of an officer that he subjectively believed there to be an emergency, as has the Eighth Circuit.