PDA

View Full Version : No chase.



Tmg
12-25-2007, 09:35 PM
My PD just went to a felony on view chase policy from a chase for anything policy.

My question to you all is do you have a hard time writing someone a ticket for actually stopping for you like they are suppose to and yet the guy that runs gets nothing at all. Its like i am punishing you for stopping. But if you just run well today is your lucky day cause you ain't getting a ticket.

What message is this really sending?

It just seems wrong to me. and i also work a high crime town and everyone that runs is running because they have drugs or felony warrants. They aren't running because of the stop sing they ran.

pulicords
12-25-2007, 09:46 PM
I didn't like it either, but after you've seen an officer or two severely injured while chasing a misdemeanor (later verified) theft suspect, it's understandable. For known felony violators or those suspected of committing serious crimes, high speed pursuits are serious business. Experienced officers usually know this, but younger officers with less time on the street often fail to recognize the inherent dangers and get hurt or injure others. Bad guys crash too and injure innocent persons, but I've never believed we should be held responsible for those situations.

Tmg
12-25-2007, 09:56 PM
^

I understand how chases are dangerous. But i feel that if we are just going to do nothing if you run then why are we going to punish you if you stop.

I don't have a problem not chasing. i just have a problem writing a ticket to people who actually stop when they can just run and get nothing.

rich75
12-25-2007, 10:03 PM
It's harder to chase now days. There are more cars on the roads now. Sometimes the risks just aren't worth it. Look at those deputies in FL that were suspended for chasing a stolen car. My department has the felony policy. The best we could do is try to get a look at the driver(if possible) and see if the registered owner was the driver and file charges. It's worked for me in the past.

Tmg
12-25-2007, 10:30 PM
I can care less about chasing. I just cant wait for the first law suit someone will fill for the police not doing there jobs,

I am concerned about writing tickets to people who actually stop. Why are we punishing the people who do the right thing instead of running and getting away.

DeputySC
12-26-2007, 12:57 AM
I see your arguement and agree. But its not worth getting YOURSELF in any type of sling over something that "could" be a minor speeding violation.

I can tell you one thing. When you find out later that the guy you let go just robbed, raped, or killed someone. And then the victim or their family finds out we just let them go. I am not going to be the one explaining to them that I let them go because I didnt want to risk getting sued, fired, suspended, or blasted by the media if the suspect wrecked.

t150vsuptpr
12-26-2007, 05:47 AM
I can care less about chasing. I just cant wait for the first law suit someone will fill for the police not doing there jobs,

I am concerned about writing tickets to people who actually stop. Why are we punishing the people who do the right thing instead of running and getting away.

1) If they are really all that much "doing the rigt thing", why are you stopping them?

2) There are other places to work. Not to be giving you a hard time, but if policy is that hard to operate under, if it's something you can't square in your mind, maybe it's time to go look elsewhere?

PhilipCal
12-26-2007, 12:15 PM
I can't pass specific judgement on your agency, but I do understand your feelings. Often times, "No Pursuit" policies are the result of gutless, no-load politicians, and that includes some police executives. Recognize, that any pursuit is a potentially hazardous event. I'm retired from a state law enforcement agency, ( Alabama DPS) and we have what I consider is a pretty well thought out policy. It is the individual Trooper's decision whether or not to continue or terminate the chase. The guiding principal is whether continuing the chase would be to the greater advantage of the public (safety) or terminating the chase would be of the same value. This is essentially the Trooper's call. While a Supervisor can order the termination of a chase, should a Trooper decide to terminate the chase, the Supervisor cannot overule him/her. Certainly, the policy has other provisions, but it's pretty workable, and one I found rather easy to work with. Don't look for the perfect policy, it ain't out there. When all the smoke clears and the dust settles, you really have two options. you accept your department's current policy(like it or not), or you start looking elsewhere. Not trying to be smart with you, just sharing some thoughts. Stay safe out there, and good luck.

CityCopDC
12-26-2007, 12:48 PM
Its dangerous. Especially in densely populated urban areas where an out of control car becomes a 2,000 lb missile. Im all for pursuing criminals to the depths of hell, but at what cost? Some innocent civillians standing on a corner at a bus stop and get hit by this fool or the family in the minivan that gets tboned because the fool thinks he can beat the red light? A pursuit for a theft from CVS or simple assault with no visible injuries TO ME wouldnt be worth the risk of pursuing this vehicle through a densely populated area. If someone was shot/stabbed, hit and run, thats a different story.

Narco
12-26-2007, 01:28 PM
No agency can have an absolute "no chase" policy. The agency would definitely be sued for failure to act. I believe a dept. in either N. or S. Carolina tried that and they were told by the state that if they didn't change it they would be dissolved as a PD.

When I was a rookie I felt the same way. I couldn't believe we would just let a guy get away. As others metioned, you get older, more experienced and see things for what they really are. I can't bear the thought of someone running from the cops for a busted tail light and blowing an intersection and killing my wife in an accident.

Chases should be a totality of the circumstances kind of thing. Supervisors should make the call. Should you chase a stolen car through rush hour traffic with wet roads? No. You should be allowed (IMO) to chase them at 0200 with light traffic on the roads though.

Officers should be well trained and MATURE enough to do the right thing and not be negligent. They also need to be RESPONSIBLE enough to cancel the chase themselves if they feel it becomes too dangerous, and that's a hard thing to do...especially for newer officers.

Our chase policy is pretty restrictive. Murder, rape, armed robbery, agg battery, kidnapping is all we can chase for. There's a catch-all in there also that says that if the officer feels the violator poses a signifigant risk to the public should he not be apprehended immediately the chase can go on. This can include severe DUI's, a person who maybe just did a drive by, etc.

Tmg
12-26-2007, 08:10 PM
these are all great points for the chase or don't chase argument.

But my problem is ticketing people who stop but not doing anything to people who run? It just seems kind of wrong to punish the person doing the right thing and not doing anything to the guy who does the wrong thing.

Do you even think it could be a defense in court to fight the ticket? " well the guy who ran and got away while risking everyones life didnt get a ticket so why should i?"

tzbv2p
12-26-2007, 09:03 PM
Just to add my two cents

Pursuits are no fun. Trust me.

Its a terrible feeling to tell the mother of a 5 year kid that little Johnny isnt coming home because I decided to chase a shoplifting suspect through town when a suspect or myself wrecked into the family car. LE work is all about balance. In metro areas, the risk is usually just too high. Criminals that run will eventually get caught. Its just a matter of when. I truly believe that unless the crime committed endangers the general population, a chase is not necessary. There have been far to many chases where the only reason why the perp ran was a little weed or a suspended drivers license. Unless we have actual knowledge of a violent crime against a person, chases in my opinion are no good. Hope that all makes sense. Be safe guys!

PhilipCal
12-26-2007, 09:19 PM
these are all great points for the chase or don't chase argument.

But my problem is ticketing people who stop but not doing anything to people who run? It just seems kind of wrong to punish the person doing the right thing and not doing anything to the guy who does the wrong thing.

Do you even think it could be a defense in court to fight the ticket? " well the guy who ran and got away while risking everyones life didnt get a ticket so why should i?"

Fully understand your feelings. Consider though, that you're NOT responsible for the policy your department operates under. You do the best job you can within those policies. As far as your agency's policy is concerned, I really don't think it would be too much of in issue (defense) for a violator in court.

JB2245
12-26-2007, 09:33 PM
In my 12 years, I've seen many changes for the worse as it relates to the way criminals view the police. It used to be that we could chase for anything and the criminals knew it. The criminals also knew that if they got caught, they had what was coming to them. As a result, criminals feared and respected us. Now, criminals look at us as "b itches". Is it sad that innocent people get killed as a result of police chases? Sure it is. But I think that as police departments become more "soft" as they have in the last 20 years and are sure to continue, eventually police won't even be a factor. They are always telling us what we can't do in our roll calls. It seems like the list of can'ts are becoming more than the list of cans.

ppd101
12-26-2007, 10:27 PM
I also agree with TMG's post. I posed a few examples to some citizens who were upset that police were chasing for traffic infractions. One example was: your 16 yearl old daughter is getting of work at McDonalds. While walking to her car, someone comes up from behind her and takes her car with her in it. This suspect runs a red light and is speeding. An officer witness's only the traffic infaction and the kidnapping is unreported. The officer attempts to stop the vehicle but it speeds away because the officer is prohibited from chasing. The officer goes to the registered owner's home and asks who was driving. The parents say their daughter was and should have been home hours ago. The girl is later found assaulted, raped or dead.

I then asked the citizens what would their reaction be if it were their daughter. They rethought their thinking on pursuits and are now for officers chasing. The thing is, there have been two incidents within the last year near here were a girl was snatched and later found dead. One made national news. Now I ask, if an officer attempted to stop any of these vehicle's, do you think the suspect would stop. I'm all for traffic enforcement like TMG is saying, but are we punishing people who stop, have s valid license and insurance and their only crime was going 10 over the limit. And to clearify, Officers may be attempting to stop a vehicle for only a traffic violation, but when the vehicle is stopped, it is found out more often than not, they ran for a more serious crime.

As for the officers in florida, I can't excuse them. They drove reckless and should be suspended. But if they drove the way they were supposed too, I would have no problem chasing a stolen vehicle. Because stolen vehicles are usually used to commit more serious crimes. The problem now with restrictive pursuit policies, if when someone runs and gets away, they tell everyone which department will and won't chase. And we now have kids running just because they know we can't chase. Also drug runners are being found with maps in their vehicle indicating which areas will and will not chase.

As far as I have seen, restrictive policies don't work. No deparment keeps a record of how many vehicle's fled when the lights go on. They only say that the number of accidents have declined since their new policy when into effect.

Fugitive Hunter
12-26-2007, 11:35 PM
During a Fugitive Sweep the other day I talked with a Phoenix PD Officer about this exact subject. He said if your partner got shot in front of you and the suspect fled in a vehicle, they might think about letting you chase him. I laughed and really hoped he was kidding:eek:

MesaParatrooper
12-26-2007, 11:42 PM
I am guessing that you do not have air support at your disposal. Here, we tend to make them feel as if we are NOT pursuing so they slow down and relas. Meanwhile, we are parralleling them and letting the air unit "follow" them. Typically, we end up meeting them at the end with cuffs in hand. Typically, this stills gets the dirtbag and we all get to go home to our families.

Narco
12-26-2007, 11:53 PM
write the tickets to those who break the law...it doesn't matter if you feel bad...they still broke the law.

Boyle176
12-26-2007, 11:57 PM
fugitive hunter....not to knock you because im sure your phoenix friend did say that, but i work for phoenix and thats not the case. just the other day we had a pursuit because the suspect 245'd po(no injuries, he swerved at the officer who was on foot) and they let the pursuit go on for miles before the suspect crashed into the canal....its situation to situation, if there was a 999 there would ABSOLUTELY be a pursuit

andy5746
12-27-2007, 12:23 AM
^

I understand how chases are dangerous. But i feel that if we are just going to do nothing if you run then why are we going to punish you if you stop.

I don't have a problem not chasing. i just have a problem writing a ticket to people who actually stop when they can just run and get nothing.

Please do not try and compare pursuit policy with traffic enforcement! I understand your frustration, but please understand that the folks that stop will get the ticket they deserve for the violation they committed, nothing unfair about that. Tickets are not a punishment, they are a corrective measure meant to change behavior - in this case, the poor driving that you observed prior to the stop.

Now, the rest is up to you and your creativity. If someone does not yield, what are your options? I usually don't initiate a stop until I have the plate number of the car. If they run, I follow for as long as it is safe to do so and my department's policy allows - all the while broadcasting the plate, vehicle description, direction of travel, violations seen, and so on. We will get a bird in the air that will follow this car - it will have to stop eventually. If the plate comes back as a stolen or felony vehicle- even better, more latitude for us. If the car is local, someone goes by the house to see what's up. You don't just have to sit there and wave bye-bye. If we can't get an airship on it, then we go to plan B, then C, and so on. It's not perfect, but we don't just give up.

If the driver is a kid trying to beat a ticket, we will find the car eventually and impound it as evidence of a crime (failing to yield and evading). If we can prove who was driving, they will be charged with the original violation and all additional violations for failing to stop. If we can't, well at least they loose the car!! I've been successful the few times I have had to resort to this.

If the driver is a serial killer, well, we just have to hope that one of the above option works. The odds are greater that someone will get hurt in a pursuit than they are that there is a victim in the trunk. It comes down to two words I have grown to hate: Risk Management.

Some will get away even if you DO chase them. Others will get way for now, but will eventually get caught. It's far from perfect, and until the folks that make the rules have family that fall victim because of the shackles they have bound us with, things won't change. You just have to find that grey area and work within it as much as you can. Gotta learn to see the ghost in the machine, as it were. Good luck!

Garbage Man
12-27-2007, 12:52 AM
This topic really makes my blood boil. It's a classic example of too many untrained cooks in the policy writing kitchen, and many of them are our Chiefs. The first thing they did was restrict the number of units that could roll code 3 as a result of a pursuit, then you only have two guys chasing a maniac what good does that do? They just follow the idiot until he crashes, or they do.

Here is the Garbage Man official Police policy. When a pursuit is initiated everybody rolls. I mean everybody drops what you are doing (unless you have a completely necessary arrest either in progress or pending and even then do a body drop at the jail and get out there). I want every thing with a light bar and siren in the entire metro area flashing and sounding out the alarm as much as possible. Get people stopped get in the idiots path and ASAP (you would be surprised how little time this will take) get the guy blocked in. I mean a real road block not this mamby pamby "lets leave him an escape route" idiocy. I he rams the cars to get away...he dies...pursuits will be cut in half the first year then by 2/3 the next and soon it will end. Most pursuits will end in under 15 minutes, lives will be spared and mothers of stupid 16 year olds will be all over the news crying that their little boy just had a suspended CDL, but so what? A win for Darwin I call it.

Someone is probably going to respond that all those code 3 driving cops will crash into each other. Well no they wont because we will train them properly. As it stands now guys do these high end code 3 runs once a year. When I say we all roll code 3 I mean we do it like we roll to a T/C or some routine matter, using the lights and sirens for what they were meant for, a tool to allow us to driver faster safer, a tool to get cars stopped at lights so we can safely, lane by lane, cross the intersection. As long as guys drive within their limits the lights and sirens are not going to increase your chance of T/C. The guys who today get all excited and drive like maniacs when the siren goes on, will be taught to slow down.

I do not advocate this policy merely because I want to catch the crooks, if that were the only reason then I would agree, we will catch them tomorrow, but the problem is that people get killed everyday in traffic fatalities where someone was driving like a maniac that was not being chased by the police. Stopping this kind of driver is exactly what the critics would call traffic want only pursuits. But in many of these cases, what no one is taking into account, is that the guy is not driving that way because we are chasing him, we are chasing him because he is driving that way. I have seen many pursuits where we drop off and the guy still drives like an idiot, shortly thereafter he collides with some innocent person, why? Because there was no longer any lights or sirens to warn oncoming traffic. I have stood there looking at the carnage and destruction from these accidents just to hear the administrators happily chatting how it's all OK because we weren’t chasing him at the time. Its not OK people still died!

As far as leaving these agencies, I don’t know, does any one work for a Chief who cares about anything other than not getting sued, or looking bad to the media?

JB2245
12-27-2007, 01:08 AM
Tickets are not a punishment, they are a corrective measure meant to change behavior...

What is your definition of punishment? Tickets are most definately a punishment. A corrective measure meant to change behavior is a punishment.

andy5746
12-27-2007, 01:25 AM
What is your definition of punishment? Tickets are most definately a punishment. A corrective measure meant to change behavior is a punishment.

OK, lets not get picky with semantics. Call it what you will, the fact remains that they aren't being "punished" for stopping. They are getting the cite they deserve. If they want to roll the dice and run, fine. Their "punishment" well be 10 fold if/when they are caught. Jeeez people, if you don't like the policy, then stop making vehicle stops if it gets you all fired up! Do the best you can with the chains you've been bound with, then call it a day, go home and have a warm glass of milk to help you sleep.

Yeah, these policies upset me sometimes too - but before I let it bug me that much I'll get a desk job somewhere. Just roll with it and catch the ones you can.

JB2245
12-27-2007, 01:37 AM
OK, lets not get picky with semantics.

Semantics? No. The whole point of this thread is that someone feels bad about writing otherwise law abiding citizens for traffic violations when a crook can just decide he doesn't want to stop and get away with it. Seems that your point was that giving somone a ticket isn't a punishment but was a "corrective action". My point is that the original poster does bring up a good point and he is right in my opinion. It sends the message that if you don't want a ticket, just run...they can't chase you anyway.

andy5746
12-27-2007, 02:04 AM
Semantics? No. The whole point of this thread is that someone feels bad about writing otherwise law abiding citizens for traffic violations when a crook can just decide he doesn't want to stop and get away with it. Seems that your point was that giving somone a ticket isn't a punishment but was a "corrective action". My point is that the original poster does bring up a good point and he is right in my opinion. It sends the message that if you don't want a ticket, just run...they can't chase you anyway.

Ok, Ok, "Uncle".

Tmg said he felt bad for "punishing" the drivers that stop by giving them tickets while those that run "get away". What I was trying to point out is that you are not "punishing them" for being honest and stopping. You are giving them the cite that they have earned by their bad driving. The cite is a "punishment" "corrective measure", "deterrent", or whatever word you want to pull form your Thesaurus, for the bad driving. They are not being punished for stopping.

That was the intent of the first paragraph of my post, and I think most people understood that. Regardless, I do understand the base concern: Criminals are learning to use our policies against us. We just need to figure out a way around the chains that bind us - which was what the rest of my post was about. Can we get back on track now? Please?

JB2245
12-27-2007, 02:24 AM
Ok, Ok, "Uncle".

Tmg said he felt bad for "punishing" the drivers that stop by giving them tickets while those that run "get away". What I was trying to point out is that you are not "punishing them" for being honest and stopping. You are giving them the cite that they have earned by their bad driving. The cite is a "punishment" "corrective measure", "deterrent", or whatever word you want to pull form your Thesaurus, for the bad driving. They are not being punished for stopping.

Soooo, are they being "punished" if they don't stop? Funny how you say in one sentence that you are not punishing them, but in the very next sentence, you state the ticket is a punishment. Which is it?

What if they keep on running and never stop? Are they being "punished"? Is that really a "deterent"? They ARE being punished for stopping unless you decide to cut them a break. I never thought we got off track. Are we not discussing the topic of the thread?

andy5746
12-27-2007, 03:00 AM
Soooo, are they being "punished" if they don't stop? Funny how you say in one sentence that you are not punishing them, but in the very next sentence, you state the ticket is a punishment. Which is it?

Please, lets not be smug. Try and understand the context of what I was trying to explain. Which is it, you ask? OK, one more time for the record. They get the ticket they deserved. That is the result of the traffic violation. I called it a corrective measure, you called it a punishment. OK, I said "uncle", same thing, different way of saying it. The POINT is that whatever you call it, they deserved it. They stopped. Good, they are supposed to, they are law abiding citizens. Most of my tickets are written to law abiding citizens that used poor judgement and committed a traffic infraction. I cite them, and hopefully they will be more careful in the future. In general, the ones that run are criminals and would run anyway.


What if they keep on running and never stop? Are they being "punished"? Is that really a "deterent"? They ARE being punished for stopping unless you decide to cut them a break. I never thought we got off track. Are we not discussing the topic of the thread?

Go back and read the rest of my original post. Here is an example that happened a month ago. A lady passed a school bus with the red lights flashing. I went to stop her. She chose not to. After a short distance it became clear that she was not going to stop. I broadcast her plate, vehicle description and direction of travel. Because I had nothing else but a traffic infraction, I let her go - per my department's policy. Fast forward 2 hours. I am impounding her car from her driveway. She steps out of her home, yelling this and that. I arrest her. Now, instead of just a ticket, she is taken to jail for a failing to yield AND gets charged with the original violation. When she decided not to stop she transitioned from good citizen that made a mistake to a criminal. So, will she ever do that again? Don't think so. Was that a "deterrent"? Who received the worst "punishment", the person that stopped for me prior and got a ticket, or the young lady who didn't stop and went to jail and lost her car?

And again, I don't like the trend anymore than most, but it is just the changing nature of the job we do. And yes, I felt that we were getting off track by this bickering we are doing in this thread (sorry to the rest of you). If you felt we were still on track, good for you, we'll just have to disagree and move forward in our lives. Unless you have something new to add, I'm done - and if you honestly don't understand what I've been trying to say by now, I don't know how to make it any clearer. Guess I'm just going to have to live with that.

JB2245
12-27-2007, 04:19 AM
Please, lets not be smug.

Not being smug. Just stating my beliefs and asking yours. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Garbage Man
12-28-2007, 12:16 AM
And another thing that drives me nuts...if they really wanted to end pursuits all they would have to do is put a device on everyones car that would shut off the gas line when an officer sends it a signal. Require that it be placed on all vehicles to re register, just like smog devices. I am not talking about that Sci FI stuff that they are working on in some lab somewhere. This technology has been in existance since radio. But they wont do that because then its "big brother"

Am I ranting to myself here....hello?

Resq14
12-28-2007, 12:46 PM
Am I ranting to myself here....hello?

Nope. I agree 100% with your view on chases. I also agree with a digital engine cut-off.

I figure On-Star will likely incorporate this as an anti-theft device at some point... perhaps everyone will be able to swallow that pill without cries of Big Brother. You'd think the insurance companies would push for it...

Nightshift va
12-28-2007, 12:58 PM
My PD just went to a felony on view chase policy from a chase for anything policy.

My question to you all is do you have a hard time writing someone a ticket for actually stopping for you like they are suppose to and yet the guy that runs gets nothing at all. Its like i am punishing you for stopping. But if you just run well today is your lucky day cause you ain't getting a ticket.

What message is this really sending?

It just seems wrong to me. and i also work a high crime town and everyone that runs is running because they have drugs or felony warrants. They aren't running because of the stop sing they ran.

It's a flawed policy and your administrators are just that administrators not police anymore. There is no such thing as chasing someone for a minor infraction because if they ellude you in a reckless manner it should be automatic FELONY endangerment period. Instead the powers back pedal. Running from the Police is something that has to be dealt with harshly or it will add to the list of things we dont enforce anymore and the crime will esculate. As far as cops not being able to keep from getting injured training will help in that area and if the officer feels it becomes too dangereous to continue a pursuit the officer "in the pursuit" should make that decision not some ROD sitting at a desk. Trust em with firearms but not making driving decisions? whatever.

Nightshift va
12-28-2007, 01:17 PM
In My Honest Opinion, there are ways to end this whole issue of pursuits but it will never happen as long as the CORRUPTION of POLITICS exist in L.E. In other words, Cops having to answer to nontrained, nonknowing, nonpolice personnel like "Board Members" or a City Mangager versus the Attorney General(Not that they dont answer to people, but that's another thread.)

Give the Police devices that automatically turn off a fleeing automobile and entrust the Police to make appropriate decisions as to when to use such device like Resq14 was talking about above.

or the othe extreme, pass a law that when you are in a motor vehicle the sheer fact that you are driving to escape capture or detention creates a deadly force situation where deadly force is authorized. period. People will not be as quick to endanger others on the road to include the officers involved regardless of what traffic offense are at first obvious if they know they will be shot if they flee. Neither of these options will be considered in this country so until then follow whatever ancient unrealistic pursuit policy your department uses and good luck with that.

Nightshift va
12-28-2007, 01:33 PM
No agency can have an absolute "no chase" policy. The agency would definitely be sued for failure to act. I believe a dept. in either N. or S. Carolina tried that and they were told by the state that if they didn't change it they would be dissolved as a PD.

When I was a rookie I felt the same way. I couldn't believe we would just let a guy get away. As others metioned, you get older, more experienced and see things for what they really are. I can't bear the thought of someone running from the cops for a busted tail light and blowing an intersection and killing my wife in an accident.

Chases should be a totality of the circumstances kind of thing. Supervisors should make the call. Should you chase a stolen car through rush hour traffic with wet roads? No. You should be allowed (IMO) to chase them at 0200 with light traffic on the roads though.

Officers should be well trained and MATURE enough to do the right thing and not be negligent. They also need to be RESPONSIBLE enough to cancel the chase themselves if they feel it becomes too dangerous, and that's a hard thing to do...especially for newer officers.

Our chase policy is pretty restrictive. Murder, rape, armed robbery, agg battery, kidnapping is all we can chase for. There's a catch-all in there also that says that if the officer feels the violator poses a signifigant risk to the public should he not be apprehended immediately the chase can go on. This can include severe DUI's, a person who maybe just did a drive by, etc.
regardless of the "Offense" known or not known at the time, wouldn't you agree a person driving a vehicle in a reckless manner where others are close by does in itself "pose a significant risk to the public? I do. That's the whole point of this thread to me, people always ellude to the "nature of the offense" when all Im saying is we have a duty to stop someone who drives in this manner if not for our safety as police officers but for the safety of the general public. When you go chasing someone and you leave a rural setting and come up on a populated area with heavy traffic even if you do the right thing and call off your further chase the bad guy then still flys into a populated area and runs up on a side walk killing five people at a bus stop, wheter you ended your part or not people are still dead. it wouldn't be an issue if we had the power to remote shut off the fleeing vehicle before it ever made it to a populated area or ended the driver. Both would work.

ppd101
12-28-2007, 04:13 PM
I have heard this statement many times. And is now in most pursuit policies. "Does the risk of the pursuit, outweigh the danger to the public".

Well there was an officer in near Kansas City Missouri that attempted to stop a vehicle late at night. The vehicle was seen driving in a closed auto dealership and when the he went to investigate, the vehicle sped off. The officer, following policy, did not give chase. The next day the suspects kidnapped, rapped and murdered a little girl who was waiting to go to school.

Now many could argue that the events leading up the girls kidnapping was unforseen by police. And although true, if we let fleeing vehicle go, are we not risking the publics safety by letting criminals go. In this case, I would argue if the suspects had been chased and caught, they would not have been in a position to commit such a crime.

I have seen officers say " I don't want to tell a parent that their love one is dead because I chased a suspect for a traffic violation". To me that officer is putting the blame on himself and taking it away from the person responsible, The criminal. We already have the citizens and the media putting these incidents on us. Why are we feeding this by doing it to ourselves. To me, I would not want to have been the officer who told the parent of that little girl that her daughter is dead by criminals who fled from police in a vehicle and the officer just turned around and went onto something else.

DeputyZee
12-29-2007, 12:53 PM
If you can only chase for a felony, how does that mean you just let go whoever runs from you? If someone runs from me and their plate comes back not-stolen and there is no other felony present. If I stopped the pursuit I'd still contact the vehicle owner and issue them an Owner's Liability Citation if they didn't tell me who the driver was. The punishment is the same $$ amount as the actual fleeing/eluding.

Tmg
12-29-2007, 05:16 PM
If you can only chase for a felony, how does that mean you just let go whoever runs from you? If someone runs from me and their plate comes back not-stolen and there is no other felony present. If I stopped the pursuit I'd still contact the vehicle owner and issue them an Owner's Liability Citation if they didn't tell me who the driver was. The punishment is the same $$ amount as the actual fleeing/eluding.

We dont have that in Texas that i am aware of. And in texas if you run from the police it is a felony.

My police states all felonies EXCEPT fleeing.

ppd101
12-29-2007, 06:20 PM
If you can only chase for a felony, how does that mean you just let go whoever runs from you? If someone runs from me and their plate comes back not-stolen and there is no other felony present. If I stopped the pursuit I'd still contact the vehicle owner and issue them an Owner's Liability Citation if they didn't tell me who the driver was. The punishment is the same $$ amount as the actual fleeing/eluding.

The problem with citing the owner of the vehicle is you have to prove he was lying to you. You have to prove he knew who was driving. And, in most cases, when you track down the vehicle, it belongs to someone out of your jurisdiction and most departments will not follow up. I say if they don't say who was driving, tow the vehicle, keep it for one year, release it back to the owner after he pays the impound fee. And at 25 dollars a day, the owner might think twice before running from a police officer.

DeputyZee
12-29-2007, 06:34 PM
I don't have to prove the owner lied to me. I just have to prove the owner was the owner. If they own the vehicle, it is their responsibility to provide me the driver. If they don't, it falls on them. That's why we call it owner's liability.

scratched13
12-29-2007, 10:28 PM
Restrictive policies/no chase policies are in line with the current trend in policing: give up/quit/don't try/liability/cops fault/crooks win/etc.

It is funny: cops keep getting MORE and MORE tolls that MINIMIZE the danger to criminals. The police keep getting slapped with MORE and MORE restrictions on how they deal with criminals. Crookc get more and more benefits, even when the get caught ----- when they are allowed to be caught.

YET!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cops are sued more and more. They are arrested MORE and MORE for doing their job. They are raked over the coals in the news. They get LESS respect than ever.

Who wins? Society? No. Good honest working folk? No. The ONLY winners I see here are lawyers, politicians and crooks. Good for them!!!!!!

engleeesh.cop
01-01-2008, 06:02 PM
Many of these policies have been / are being played with here in england.

Police pursuits have caused deaths and carnage on the roads, and every now and then someone with enough political power manages to have decisions made about pursuit policies.

There are now very strict guidelines about what we can and cant do during police pursuits. Unfortunatley some of our civilian despatchers and even some senior officers still dont know how to implement them properly.

One county in recent years enforced a complete no pursuit policy. The result was that it became the car crime capital of the country..!! This of course was revoked when a new chief was selected and they saw the error of their ways.

Its been proven time and time again that criminals who drive illegaly and recklessly do so even when there are no cops chasing them. Thats why its so easy to spot them on the roads..!

a few Police Depts over here though are actualy going the other way, and actively going out to find and catch those that wish to evade the law whilst driving. Specialist units set up to deny criminals the use of the roads are using high powered, good handling cars like Subaru Imprezzas and the like, they are also using high powered "hot hatch" cars that are unmarked. One PD i know of even has a Subaru estate car kitted out for K9 unit. If a Pursuit starts up, its the K9 officers role to get in position directly behind the target vehicle ready to deploy the dog as and when the target stops.

You need a very calm measured Officer though in these units that you know wont get "sucked in" if the driving becomes really dangerous. As other Officers have stated on this thread, its a fine line to balance on when in a pursuit to make sure actions are justified and proportionate.

At the end of the day, NOT chasing bad guys just goes against everything we stand for.

WKT
01-02-2008, 01:21 AM
Those restrictive policies are political, and are put in place by administrators and indirectly by politicians who: 1. are afraid of litigation, and 2. pressured by a small but outspoken segment of the population.

The people who want to "end all pursuits" are shortsighted. For example, people die every day in the construction industry, but do we campaign to "end all construction"? When a large building is in the construction phase, certain steps are taken to prevent injuries and death. But the workers, their bosses, and everybody up the line knows very well that someone will be hurt or killed during the construction. Yet they continue to build. When we go to war, we know that some U.S. soldiers will die. But we continue to go to war. Why? Our society has decided that we would rather "live" our lives instead of hiding in a cave somewhere, afraid of everything, and just "existing".

The same applies to pursuits. There is a certain amount of risk, and we have to trust our officers and their supervisors to do the right thing. Chase when at all possible, end it when it's too dangerous. Most of them work out okay, but once in a while there is a casualty.

Departments that have gone to "felony only" pursuits are giving 'get out of jail free' passes to the largest percentage of violators that decide to flee.

Woffski
01-02-2008, 03:51 PM
The reason for more restricted pursuit policies is as a result of Police Officers not doing the right thing alot of times. Usually, we are our own worse enemy.

engleeesh.cop
01-02-2008, 05:58 PM
How ironic though

in the news today, the chief who wrote the code of practice for pursuit management, covering the whole country, has found himself being ridiculed in the media due to him saying that soft drugs like extasy are probably less harmful than asprin..!!

ooooops

they probably misquoted him, but its not the first time Mr Brunstom has made himslef look an ***. :D

LA DEP
01-02-2008, 10:37 PM
I can care less about chasing. I just cant wait for the first law suit someone will fill for the police not doing there jobs,

I am concerned about writing tickets to people who actually stop. Why are we punishing the people who do the right thing instead of running and getting away.

The lawsuit wouldnt go very far at all. USSC ruled years ago that LE agencies have ZERO duty to protect someone. Not saying that I agree with it, but that is the current ruling (and since it was the US Supreme Court, it isnt getting overturned anytime soon)

My agency (LASD) also has an extemely limited pursuit policy; and if you violate the policy, you are looking at serious time on the bricks

We are only allowed to chase CONFIRMED felonies; reckless DUI; and reckless brandishing of a firearm...that's it.....and even a 'confirmed felony' will probably be shut down by the on-duty watch commander of your station and/or SRC (Central Dispatch)...if THEY dont, they are also looking at days off.

DAL
01-02-2008, 11:24 PM
It seems only logical that you must have some balancing test. You can't let everyone go or chase everyone for everything. In urban areas, helicopters may also be an option.

One of the considerations may be civil liability under the law of your state, Here's what the US Supreme Court said last year in Scott v Harris, but it only applies to liability under the federal civil rights laws:

Second, we are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger. It is obvious the perverse incentives such a rule would create: Every fleeing motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times, and runs a few red lights. The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment , even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.

ppd101
01-03-2008, 06:30 PM
Big Mack, these incidents occure more often than they are reported. The problem is we are not advising the public of such events. They only hear of the chases that involved a citizen who was hurt because of a fleeing driver. And when an incident like yours is brought up, even our own command staff will say that those are very rare. Even though they know they are not.

And I would think your chief would have a different opinion on his chase policy when he found out that his officer had to let an attemped murder suspect go. The deputy was hailed as a hero and his officer was looked upon by the citizens as someone who didn't do his job.

j706
01-04-2008, 01:45 AM
I can not help but think that "no pursuit policy's" are sending the wrong message. My dept. leaves the decision to us. We also have the PITT in our ppolicy and certify on it anuallly. I live and work in a rural area. I had a pursuit in March of 07. The runner was a parolee who was severly intoxicated. At his trail he was convicted and recieved 36 months at the state farm. That is IMO a deterent to fleeing. These criminals need to do some prison time. No pursuit policys are not the answer IMO.