County of Sacramento v. Lewis
1998 United States Supreme Court case

Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving police action in a high-speed car chase.
Background
This case concerned a high-speed chase between Sacramento County sheriff's deputies and two men on a motorcycle: Brian Willard driving and Phillip Lewis as a passenger. The chase wove in and out of moving traffic and reached speeds up to 100 miles an hour, ending when Willard lost control and the bike tipped over. One of the deputies could not stop in time and hit Lewis, killing him. Lewis' parents sued the county's Sheriff's Department, accusing the deputy of depriving Lewis of his Fourteenth Amendment due process right to life through deliberate and reckless conduct. A district court ruled in favor of the deputy, the Ninth Circuit appeals court reversed, and then the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the department's favor.
Decision
The question before the Court was: Does a police officer violate substantive due process by causing death through reckless indifference to life in a high-speed chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender? The answer was a unanimous "no."
The majority opinion based this on an analysis of the 14th Amendment due process concept and an application of the "shocks the conscience" test. Prior cases have held that the "core" of due process concept is "protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." In dealing with executive action, only the "most egregious" conduct is "arbitrary in constitutional sense."
In determining what is "egregious" action, one should consider whether such action "shocks the conscience" (Rochin v.
“County of Sacramento v. Lewis” enters the record as 1998 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what County, Sacramento and Lewis can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“County of Sacramento v. Lewis” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, County, Sacramento and Lewis provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5177914. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1998.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “County of Sacramento v. Lewis”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow County of Sacramento v. Lewis primary sources, County of Sacramento v. Lewis archive and County research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “County of Sacramento v. Lewis”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “County of Sacramento v. Lewis” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.