Posted: 3/30/2005 3:13:54 PM EDT
|
I had my pursuit class yesterday and started to wonder about something... If people know the cops won't chase them or if they drive dangerously enough the cops will quit, why would anyone stop? (In my case we can always pursue but are strongly encouraged not to, especially for small stuff) What about cases where you have a murderer/rapist/etc fleeing from a scene you don't know about yet, and have to let them go when they run on a regular traffic stop because of the pursuit policy? What do you guys think? |
I've been in too many pursuits. Your question about people knowing that they can drive crazy and get away with it is a valid one. Unfortunately in today's lawsuit happy world we won't likely chase someone for long and yes it sucks because truely bad people are going to get away. But until something is done about the liability, then nothing will be done about the pursuit rules. My agency had a pursuit involving a speeding violation. Officer cut it off after a few miles. A few minutes after the pursuit was over, he found out via dispatch that the vehicle that he was pursuing contained a kidnapped girl. He didn't continue because, at the time, it was "just" speed. Pursuit liability is one of the things that sucks about this job. As a result, yes, a lot of really bad people get away. We need a better way to get cars stopped and less civil liability to allow us to do our jobs. |
|
We are struggling with it here in California, Big time. The sad part is what LAPD/CHP does sometimes effects the rest of us and, worse, the rest of the USA. I have been here for over 20 years at this department and the pursuit policy has changed three(3) times in 10 years. For the last 2 years running, legislation has been introduced to ban them completely, with certain exceptions, and I mean only SERIOUS exceptions. This year there is a slew of "No pursuit" bills being introduced and I'm scared one of them will pass. And what's worse is the State of California does not even need to do an impact study to see how this will effect crime as they have a large city in this state with a "no pursuit" policy in place and the affects are devastating. The City of Fresno, Ca. has a no pursuit policy for the last 15 years, for liability reasons, and lets examine how it has effected them. Yes, no liability lawsuits to deal with. Hurray !......... for them. What has it done for us. The city of Fresno is #1 for Grand Theft Auto in this state, and #2 in the nation, yes, you read that right. If you live in the Fresno area, and own any Toyota or Honda products, or the Dodge Neon, your insurance rates are triple that of anywhere else in the state. Crime is rampant and the crooks know it. Red lights in your mirror, run forest run. And they know the cops can't chase them. It's major embarrassing for the cops. The City of Fresno has trouble keeping enough officers on the streets even though they pay a very high salary. (3,861 to 4,054.00 a month, plus generous benefits.) They have continous recruiting at all levels from cadet to lateral. http://www.fresno.gov/adminservices/Personnel/JobsOnLine/joblistings.asp Can anyone imagine what California would be like if this kind of stupidity was implemented state wide ?  I can't even think about it..............  |
"Liability" as a factor in pursuits and pusuit policy is generally a "cop-out," if you will forgive the pun. The US Supreme Court ruled on this a few years back, and set the bar for liability in Police Pursuits very, very high. In order for the officer and the agency to lose qualified immunity for the attmepted arrest of a criminal who is actively evading arrest in a vehicle, the actions of the officers have to "shock the conscience." That standard is a high one, like the pursuit inside of the shopping mall at the start of the "Blues Brothers." State standards may indeed hold officers to a different standard, but liability is generally far less of an issue than police adminstrators typically make it out to be. With my experience in these, pretty much every one I have been involved in was an indicator of some more serious crime. People generally don't run for no reason. A few years back when a neighboring agency loudly proclaimed through the media that they were ending all pursuits for traffic offenses only, I had three violators in as many weeks try to run from me. These policies do have an impact on criminals, and generally as negative one, as many violators get the often unfounded impression that they can flee with impugnity. Personally, I think that a fleeing motorist (not the low-speed, failure to yield cases) is such a hazard to other motorists and officers through their willful, intentional disregard of everyone's safety, while operating a high-velocity deadly weapon that an agency could easily articulate in court that they are a violent, fleeing, armed felon that represents an immediate threat to everyone else if not immediately stopped and apply the TN Vs. Garner doctrine. I bet if it became standard knowledge that Law Enforcement WILL machinegun you off the road if you run, pursuits would drop dramatically. Of course, nobody has the stones to enact such a doctrine for pursuits and take it through the court process. |
|
Originally posted by natez Team Member Personally, I think that a fleeing motorist (not the low-speed, failure to yield cases) is such a hazard to other motorists and officers through their willful, intentional disregard of everyone's safety, while operating a high-velocity deadly weapon that an agency could easily articulate in court that they are a violent, fleeing, armed felon that represents an immediate threat to everyone else if not immediately stopped and apply the TN Vs. Garner doctrine. I bet if it became standard knowledge that Law Enforcement WILL machinegun you off the road if you run, pursuits would drop dramatically. Of course, nobody has the stones to enact such a doctrine for pursuits and take it through the court process. ________________________________________________________________________________ Since "Police Pursuits" are so dangerous, why punish the cops, how about we punish the violators, I know this is a novel idea no one else would have considered.  (I'm bumping my head as I write) Come on, its not that hard, Natez has the right idea, let's give them a serious "strike" violation for every pursuit and see how long pursuits stay a problem. If a person dies as a result, 25 to life. Now that's fair. |