Which case supports the idea that a police officer can end a high-speed chase without violating the 4th Amendment?

The case of Scott v. Harris is pivotal in establishing the conditions under which police officers can engage in high-speed pursuits without violating the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that when a suspect is fleeing from law enforcement in a manner that poses an immediate danger to the public, officers may take necessary actions to terminate the pursuit.

The Court found that the government’s interest in maintaining public safety outweighs the individual’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure in scenarios where the police are actively pursuing a suspect who is demonstrating clear disregard for traffic laws and endangering others. This decision provides law enforcement officers with the legal grounds to use their vehicle to stop a fleeing suspect if the risk to public safety justifies such action.

In the context of the other choices, Tennessee v. Garner addresses the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect, focusing more on the circumstances under which officers can use lethal force rather than the nuances of ending a pursuit. Graham v. Connor deals with the "objective reasonableness" standard for excessive force claims, which is important but not specifically about high-speed chases. Crowell v. State may contain relevant legal principles, but it does not support the