Online Video Clips: Not Just for Porn Anymore

An astute observation about today’s opinion in Scott v. Harris, from Howard Bashman:

Here’s a first — A U.S. Supreme Court decision issued today has its own accompanying video: Talk about multimedia rulings! The Court’s opinion today in Scott v. Harris, No. 05-1631 — a dispute about the lawfulness of a high-speed police chase captured on video — appears online at the Supreme Court’s web site with this 91.7 MB RealPlayer video file. No word yet from the Court on whether the volume of U.S. Reports in which this decision will appear will include its own embedded video player.

The dueling opinions — Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, and Justice Stevens’s dissent — discuss the video extensively.
Some brief discussion, of the video and of the opinions, after the jump.


The Opinion of the Court, footnote 5, introduces the video as follows: “We are happy to allow the videotape to speak for itself. See Record 36, Exh. A, available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb and in Clerk of Court’s case file.” We’re guessing that this textual mention incorporates by reference the video document (available online and in the case file) — so no embedded video player needed.
You can access the video by clicking here (Real Player file). The video is actually multiple videos combined in a single file.
Its aesthetic is très “COPS.” As you watch it, hum to yourself: “Bad boys bad boys, whatcha gonna do…”
It doesn’t get interesting for a while. You can hear overheard remarks from various police officers (one of whom sounds a bit like Bill Clinton).
At around 6:15, the first view of the crash appears. It doesn’t look like much in this part of the clip, just a vague smoky mess.
The next video starts at around 8:45. This one is a bit more interesting, since it gets closer to the action. The highlight takes places at 14:00, when the police car hits the suspect’s car, giving rise to the injuries that the case was predicated upon.
In his opinion for the Court, Justice Scalia dishes out his trademark snark: “It is not our experience that ambulances and fire engines careen down two-lane roads at 85-plus miles per hour, with an unmarked scout car out in front of them.”
Justice Stevens, in dissent, counterattacks (foonote 1):

“I can only conclude that my colleagues were unduly frightened by two or three images on the tape that looked like bursts of lightning orexplosions, but were in fact merely the headlights of vehicles zooming by in the opposite lane. Had they learned to drive when most high-speed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhighways—when split-second judgments about the risk of passing a slowpoke in the face of oncoming traffic were routine—they might well have reacted to the videotape more dispassionately.”

Good stuff. Supreme Court justices taking judicial notice of highway driving conditions.
From Justice Scalia:

“Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury.”

Sponsored

Justice Stevens’s rebuttal: “”This is hardly the stuff of Hollywood.” And also this:

“It is unclear whether, in referring to “innocent bystanders,” the Court is referring to the motorists driving unfazed in the opposite direction or to the drivers who pulled over to the side of the road, safely out of respondent’s and petitioner’s path.”

Nice work, JPS. Who says Nino has to have all the fun?
Update: More thoughts on the video available here, from Marty Lederman of SCOTUSblog.
Here’s a First [How Appealing]
2006 Term Opinions of the Court [Supreme Court (official website)]

Sponsored