Who could be liable if South Carolina police spike strips injured an innocent person during a chase?

Plain-English summary

A South Carolina police chief asked who would be responsible if an innocent person were hurt by spike sticks used during a vehicle pursuit. The 1999 informal opinion did not assign liability to either the officer or the town. It said any legal claim would depend on the specific pursuit, the device’s use, and the surrounding facts.

The writer described spike sticks as tire-deflation devices used ahead of a fleeing vehicle. He said courts would assess whether force or a device used to apprehend the person was objectively reasonable. He also identified possible defenses, including good faith, proximate cause and immunity, without deciding whether any defense would succeed in a particular case. For further information he suggested the Criminal Justice Academy and legal counsel for the Insurance Reserve Fund.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does using spike sticks during a chase automatically make a town liable for bystander injuries? A: The letter did not say so. It said legal liability always depended on the particular facts and circumstances.

Q: What standard did the letter identify for judging the device’s use? A: It said courts would not impose liability where using force or a device to apprehend a fleeing person was objectively reasonable. The letter quoted an attorney’s article applying that test to stop sticks and other police force.

Q: Did the AG decide whether the chief’s proposed use of spike sticks was reasonable? A: No. The letter did not examine a particular chase or injury and said a legal opinion could not adequately decide fact-specific liability.

Q: Did the opinion name potential defenses?
A: Yes. It listed good faith, proximate cause and immunity as possible defenses for officers or the municipality, without determining their application.

Background and statutory framework

The town council was concerned about spike sticks in a pursuit and the possibility that an innocent person could be hurt. The letter described the devices’ operation and noted their use by South Carolina law-enforcement agencies. Its legal discussion was deliberately limited: reasonableness and liability would depend on a real incident. The writer enclosed an article and other AG opinions, but the official PDF contains the letter itself.

Citations and references

• Standard discussed: Objective reasonableness in the use of force or devices to apprehend a fleeing person.
• Quoted commentary: Hanna, Jr., “Excessive Use of Force,” 590 PLI/Lit. 353, 357 (September 1998), as quoted in the letter.
• Potential defenses named: Good faith, proximate cause and immunity; none was applied to specific facts.

Official title

Indicating that the Council “is concerned about using spike sticks in a pursuit, and would like to know what liability is involved in such a chase; who is responsible should an innocent person fall victim.”

Requester

John R. Watford, Chief of Police, Town of Jefferson

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-1-1999-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99march1watford.pdf

Original opinion text

I

j

I

«

'. ~

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M OLONY CON DON
ATTO RNE Y GENERAL

I
I

March 1, 1999

John R. Watford, Chief of Police
Town of Jefferson
Post Office Box 306
Jefferson, South Carolina 29718

Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Chief Watford:
You note that your Town Council "is concerned about using spike sticks in a pursuit chase." You indicate that the Council "would like to know what liability is involved in such a chase; who is responsible should an innocent person fall victim to these sticks."

Law I Analysis

L

rm.

;

Spike sticks are folded metal sticks with hollow needles, or spikes, attached to the rods and a rope at one end. Police officers use these by having one unit ahead of the chase. The officer places the rods on the side of the highway and stretches the rope across the road. Regular traffic can pass over the rope without damage to their vehicles. When the officers involved in the chase radio the officer ahead that the offender is approaching, he quickly pulls the rope and unfolds the folded spiked rods across the highway. The offender runs over this, and the spikes embed in the vehicle' s tires. The spikes are hollow so the tires deflate, not blow out. I am advised that the use of spike sticks by South Carolina law enforcement agencies is not uncommon. The highway patrol uses these devices frequently and several police departments in South Carolina employ them as well. The supervisors are usually equipped with these devices. With respect to the potential for liability in using stop sticks, of course, it is impossible to adequately address this question in a legal opinion of this Office because legal liability in any given situation will always turn upon the particular facts and circumstances present.

~

R EM BERT c. D ENNIS B VI LDING
~~777,,. ,

•

POST O FFICE B ox 11 549

•

COLl.!MB IA , S.C. 292 11-1 549

•

T ELEPHONE:

803-7J4-3970

•

FACS l ~ I LE: 803-253-6283

(

r

Chief Watford
Page 2
March 1, 1999

f

Certainly, the potential for liability is always present in any law enforcement activity, particularly where high speed chases are involved. Law enforcement officers must inevitably take risks when apprehending dangerous individuals and such risks will necessarily involve danger to themselves and others. Courts will not impose liability, however, where the use of force or devices to apprehend a fleeing individual is deemed objectively "reasonable." I am enclosing a copy of an article written by an attorney who has represented law enforcement officers for over twenty years and who comments as follows about the potential of liability:
[t]he objectively reasonable police officer test is applied to all types of situations. These situations include: roadblocks, stop sticks, or other devices designed to deflate tires, the use of pistols, shotguns, rifles, tear gas, mace or OC spay. This analysis applies to the application of force through the use of open hand control techniques, night sticks, PR 24s, handcuffs, leg shackles, forced entry into a home (kicking the door, with or without a warrant). Hanna, Jr., "Excessive Use of Force," 590 PLI/Lit. 353, 357 (September 1998).

I

In addition, there will always be a number of defenses available to the officer, as well as the municipality, such as good faith, proximate cause, immunity, etc. which may foreclose liability altogether. I suggest that you may wish to contact the Criminal Justice Academy as well as the legal counsel's office of the Insurance Reserve Fund (Budget and Control Board) for additional information in this area. I am also enclosing copies of other opinions issued by this Office which address the question of liability generally for your review as well. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. Very truly yours,

RDC/an
Enclosures

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General