.f::...

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

POLICE VEHICULAR PURSUITS:
AN ANALYSIS OF STATE POLICE
AND STATE HIGHWAY PATROL POLICIES

presented by
Wendy L. Hicks

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_BhLD_L_degree in Criminal Justice

mama

Major profficjv I ,1 l -

Date ‘0“qu ”151.60”
I

MSU is an Affirmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

DATE DUE DATE DUE l“ 1 DATE DUE
0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDuepGS-pJS

 

POLICE VEHICULAR PURSUITS:
AN ANALYSIS OF STATE POLICE AND STATE HIGHWAY PATROL POLICIES

By

Wendy L. Hicks

AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

School of Criminal Justice

2001

Dr. Vincent Hoffman

 

.333"?
d\b .\.
v

I
av;
. I

r1.
(‘1)

I

 

0';
S. 5

\'
new

3

i
i

 

ABSTRACT
POLICE VEHICULAR PURSUITS:
AN ANALYSIS OF STATE POLICE AND STATE HIGHWAY PATROL POLICIES
By

Wendy L. Hicks

This study was a policy analysis of each State Police and State Highway Patrol
agency in the United States. Policies were compared against a Standard Policy,
developed by the researcher, based on prior academic and legal research, on a variety of
Administrative and Operational elements. A total of 47 written vehicular pursuit policies
were received for a 94% return rate. Two state agencies were unable, by law, to divulge
their policy, and one agency never replied to the letters of inquiry. States were analyzed
on a state-by-state basis as well as on a regional basis. Tables indicating individual
states’ inclusion of each element are included, as is a table detailing the overall amount of
inclusion of the Administrative and Operational elements. Results indicated that the
states comprising the Midwest region had developed the most comprehensive written
vehicular pursuit policies. The states of the Pacific region had the least comprehensive
policies of any other region. Finally, a legislative analysis indicated that states are
beginning to implement laws indicating factors that must be included in a written
vehicular pursuit policy if the agency is to limit its risks of liability. Currently,
California, Minnesota, and Connecticut have legislated bills pertaining to pursuit policies

into law.

COPyright by
WENDY L. HICKS
2001

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Wayne and Joanne

iv

t'l

[Llhxuu

I
i ‘.
l

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this time to acknowledge my parents, Wayne and Joanne
Hicks, without whose constant support and encouragement this degree would not have
been possible. I would also like to thank Dr. Dennis Payne who provided immeasurable
guidance, research assistance, and who was a constant advocate throughout my education
at Michigan State University. I would also like to thank my Committee Chairman, Dr.
Vincent Hoffman, who guided me through the bureaucratic administration of the
university and supported my research endeavors at every junction. Finally, to the
remaining members of my committee, Dr. Cyrus Stewart and Dr. Carol Weissert, I would
like to extend my heartfelt thanks for their patience and helpful guidance during the

course of the writing of this dissertation.

FL‘

\ll.

iii,

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Current Study ............................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 4
Research Question ....................................................................................... 6
Policy Standard ............................................................................................ 6
Future Chapters ............................................................................................ 7

CHAPTER 2

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 9
Public & Police Policy ............................................................................... 14
Legal Aspects ............................................................................................. 18
4th Amendment ........................................................................................... 19
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ........................................................................................ 20
14th Amendment ......................................................................................... 22
Policy Considerations ................................................................................ 23
Chambers v. Ideal Pure Milk Company (1952) ......................................... 24
West Virginia v. Fidelity Gas & Casualty Company of New York (1967)25
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 26

CHAPTER 3

LIABILITY & NEGLIGENCE ............................................................................. 30
Liability ...................................................................................................... 32
Municipal Liability .................................................................................... 36
Barriers to Liability .................................................................................... 37
Negligence ................................................................................................. 38
Legal Duty ................................................................................................. 41
Breach of Duty & Proximate Cause ........................................................... 41
Breach of Reasonableness .......................................................................... 44
Deliberate Indifference .............................................................................. 48
Court Rulings ............................................................................................. 48
Elements of Policy ..................................................................................... 51
Training ...................................................................................................... 52
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 55

vi

CH1?
VII}

4

1

x': (A
'1

E:

CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 58
Introduction ................................................................................................ 58
Research Questions .................................................................................... 58
Factors ........................................................................................................ 59
Definitions .................................................................................................. 59
Design ........................................................................................................ 60
Standard Policy .......................................................................................... 61
Population .................................................................................................. 62
Factor Analysis .......................................................................................... 62
Legislative Analysis ................................................................................... 63

CHAPTER 5

STATE RESULTS ................................................................................................. 64
Data ............................................................................................................ 64
Findings ...................................................................................................... 65
State Distribution ....................................................................................... 68
Administrative Elements ............................................................................ 69
States of the Pacific Region ....................................................................... 71
States of the Mountain Region ................................................................... 74
States of the South Region ......................................................................... 78
States of the Northeast Region ................................................................... 83
States of the Mid-West Region .................................................................. 88
Operational Elements ................................................................................. 93
State-by-State Analysis .............................................................................. 96
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 1 34

CHAPTER 6

REGIONAL RESULTS ....................................................................................... 136
Regional Distribution ............................................................................... 136
Northeast .................................................................................................. 136
South ........................................................................................................ 139
Mid-West ................................................................................................. 142
Mountain .................................................................................................. 145
Pacific ...................................................................................................... 147
Regional Safety ........................................................................................ 150
Factor Analysis ........................................................................................ 152
Legislative Analysis ................................................................................. 160
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 1 63

vii

P
tOXE

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 165
Regional Variations ................. 168
Leglslatlve ................................................................................................ 1 70

APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................... 172

APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................... 176

APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................... 190

APPENDIX D ...................................................................................................... 191

REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 238

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of injuries, accidents, fatalities, and property damage

resulting from vehicular pursuits across the United States ...................................... 3
Table 2: Operational/Tactical rulings of various vehicular pursuit cases ............. 49
Table 3: Administrative rulings of various vehicular pursuit cases ...................... 50

Table 4: Administrative and Operational elements included in State Police
and State Highway Patrol agency vehicular pursuit policies ................................. 66

Table 5: Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies
of State Police and State Highway Patrol agencies on a regional basis ................. 70

Table 6: Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies
of individual states in the Pacific region ................................................................ 71

Table 7: Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies
of individual states in the Mountain region ........................................................... 74

Table 8: Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies
of individual states in the South region .................................................................. 78

Table 9: Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies
of individual states in the Northeast region ........................................................... 83

Table 10: Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies
of individual states in the Mid-West region ........................................................... 88

Table 11: Contextual Operational elements included in each region of the
United States .......................................................................................................... 94

ix

Table 12: Active Operational elements included in each region in the United
States ...................................................................................................................... 95

Table 13: Contextual Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit
policies of individual states in the Pacific region .................................................. 96

Table 14: Active Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit
policies of individual states in the Pacific region .................................................. 97

Table 15: Contextual Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit
policies of individual states in the Mountain region ............................................ 101

Table 16: Active Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit
policies of individual states in the Mountain region ............................................ 102

Table 17: Contextual Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit
policies of individual states in the South region .................................................. 108

Table 18: Active Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit
policies of individual states in the South region .................................................. 109

Table 19: Contextual Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit
policies of individual states in the Northeast region ............................................ 1 17

Table 20: Active Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit
policies of individual states in the Northeast region ............................................ 118

Table 21: Contextual Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit
policies of individual states in the Mid-West region ........................................... 126

Table 22: Active Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit
policies of individual states in the Mid—West region ........................................... 126

lab-F
er‘: -

Table 23: Number and percent of agencies in the Northeast region including
each Administrative and Operational element ..................................................... 137

Table 24: Number and percent of agencies in the South region including
each Administrative and Operational element ..................................................... 140

Table 25: Number and percent of agencies in the Mid-West region including
each Administrative and Operational element ..................................................... 143

Table 26: Number and percent of agencies in the Mountain region including
each Administrative and Operational element ..................................................... 145

Table 27: Number and percent of agencies in the Pacific region including

each Administrative and Operational element ............. ‘ ........................................ 148
Table 28: Factor loadings for Administrative elements ...................................... 152
Table 29: Factor loadings for Operational elements ........................................... 156
Table 30: Administrative factor relevance to written pursuit policy .................. 159
Table 31: Operational factor relevance to written pursuit policy ....................... 159

xi

h . .
113‘»:

MM
Um

05“ ,

It.“
s

‘-

~§;
\u

Chapter 1

Introduction

Law enforcement is an occupation fraught with uncertainty and danger. Officers
are often called upon to analyze critical situations with accuracy, integrity, and
resourcefulness. Not only are officers required to make decisions quickly and accurately,
they must do so within the confines of constitutional legal standards and administrative
guidelines. Police policy is often the only major source of guidance many patrol officers
have while in the performance of their daily duties. This reliance on policy is never so
evident as in the field of vehicular pursuits. Officers must make split-second decisions
while traveling at speeds often in excess of the posted limit all while affording the
general public some semblance of protection from unnecessary safety risks. It is the
responsibility of police administrators to provide officers with the necessary guidance, in
the form of policy, to assist in the decision-making process.

The field of vehicular pursuits is a very important aspect of law enforcement
duties. Negative outcomes of police pursuits, in the form of accidents, injuries, fatalities,
and property damage can pose some very serious problems and questions for society as a
whole. Litigation from negative outcomes of pursuits costs taxpayers and police
departments millions of dollars annually as officers and agencies are found liable for
negligence incurred during the course of a police pursuit gone awry. Hence, it is vital for
a law enforcement agency to have a viable and effective pursuit policy for added
protection should tragedy befall an officer or civilian in the course of a vehicular pursuit,
The policy is designed to protect not only the organization but civilians and officers as
well. It is a guide for officer discretion as to the proper and solicitous course of action

during a pursuit.

GIICCll

‘qug

I]! .
”Dr“

I

:Errfi“

5i. ..

”‘5“
I

*3.
H‘kl
.

Current Study

Early research into police pursuits was occasionally sensational, often finding
itself utilized in courts of law for dubious purposes, by unscrupulous attorneys in pursuit
litigation. These early endeavors resulted in an environment where police pursuits were
regarded with suspicion and cynicism. It would take many subsequent projects
throughout the years before the merits of police pursuits could begin to be appreciated.
As police administration became more sophisticated the need for effectual policies was
ascertained. Comprehensive policies could serve to drastically decrease negative
outcomes of police pursuits. As officers are given more effective guidance in the
performance of pursuits dangerous situations might become evident sooner and tragedy
avoided.

Vehicular pursuits have progressively grown into a major social problem as
pursuit litigation continues to cost taxpayers and individual officers millions of dollars
annually (Alpert & Fridell, 1992). In addition, there remains some threat to the safety of
the officers and the general public associated with many pursuits. While the safety risk is
not exorbitantly high, it is nonetheless present. Police officers are charged with
protecting the public; placing them in unnecessary risk is counter to established police
Protocol. Many researchers have studied the dangerousness of police pursuits in depth.
Table 1 provides a summary of previous research into injuries, accidents, fatalities, and
Property damage resulting from vehicular pursuits across the United States. While each
study uncovered its own distinctive results, findings have, nonetheless, been relatively

srmrlar across time and jurisdiction.

Table l

Summgy of injuries, accidents. fatalities, and property damage resulting from vehicng
pursuits gross the United States.

 

Source

Accident
Rate
% N

Injury Rate

%

N

Fatality Rate

% N

Property
Damage
% N

Pursuits

N

 

MERS (Payne,
1997)

33 65

16.25

32

0.5 1

16.25 32

197

 

N. Carolina
(Fennessy,
Hamilton,
Joscelyn, &
Merritt, 19701

11 5

4

2

O 0

7 3

44

 

Michigan State
University

eckman, l98_6)

42 178

14

59

2.9 12

25 106

424

 

California
Highway Patrol
1983)

29 198

ll

75

29 198

683

 

Charles, Falcone,
& Wells (1992

34 298

17

149

1.7 15

34 298

875

 

Illinois
Auten, 1991)

41 118

12

34

1.4 4

28 80

286

 

Miami/Dads
(Alpert &
Dunham, 198 8)

33 314

17

161

0.7 7

15.3 146

959

 

Kentucky State
Police
Oechsli, 1990)

29 68

5.6

13

0.4 l

23 54

235

 

Chicago Police
Department
(Patinkin &

pm 1986)

 

 

24 178

 

 

 

37

 

 

 

18 133

 

741

 

 

As Table 1 demonstrates, of all of the many hundreds of police pursuits initiated

across the nation, no study has discovered an accident, injury, or fatality rate nearly as

high as that obtained by the Physicians for Automotive Safety, which found a 70%

accident rate and a 20% fatality rate. Some academics have contended that police

pursuits are, in fact, not as dangerous and do not pose the risks to the general public that

was initially believed. Only further research can bring this conjecture full circle from

speculation and supposition to empirical actuality.

 

P4“:
b.yk .
'0’-

ClllllI‘Ti

field:

v i.,.
All:

HF)".
f-Bim

P_urpose of the Study

The purpose of the current study is to analyze administrative pursuit policies of
State Police and State Highway Patrol agencies across the United States. The
comprehensiveness of vehicular pursuit policies of agencies across the country will be
examined according to various factors derived from legal decisions, established policy,
and previous research. Previous research findings, legal precedents, and the pursuit
policies of the Connecticut State Police, California Highway Patrol, and Minnesota State
Police will be utilized in the creation of a Standard Policy upon which all other policies
will be compared and judged. These three policies were chosen based on the fact that
each state’s legislature has determined what a comprehensive policy should contain to
reduce departmental liability, and each policy has been field tested by officers in a
practical, real world manner. The policies from these three aforementioned states have
withstood the test of time. In addition, a factor analysis technique will be utilized to
determine which factors in each policy have been identified as important by the State
Police and State Highway Patrol agencies in the operation of a pursuit.

The policies will be then utilized in the development of a modal profile detailing
the specific variables and outcomes inherent in a typical vehicular pursuit conducted by a
State Police or State Highway Patrol agency. In addition, legislative rulings on issues
surrounding police vehicular pursuits will also be examined as they pertain to State
Police and State Highway Patrol agencies’ pursuit policies. The culmination of this
research will be the development of a vehicular pursuit policy by the researcher
according to established scholarly standards, State Police and State Highway Patrol

policy analysis, and recent legislative and legal decisions.

pm

Iran

Contributions of the study will be an executive summary of findings for the
various State Police and State Highway Patrol agencies. In addition, the findings of this
study can be used in any practical pursuit policy analysis for any police department. The
methods employed to examine the various pursuit policies need not be restricted to state
agencies alone. Municipalities and larger urban centers could benefit from the techniques '
used in the policy analysis. Strong, comprehensive pursuit policies will benefit not only
the agency and its officers but society as a whole as negative outcomes of pursuits could
decrease as a result of further research and development.

For the purpose of this research, various concepts must be operationalized. A
pursuit will be defined as provided in the Michigan Pursuit Driving Research and
Training Manual (1986):

“An event involving one or more peace officers attempting to apprehend a suspect

in a motor vehicle, while the suspect is trying to avoid capture using high speed

driving or other evasive tactics such as driving off a highway, making sudden or
unexpected turning movements, or maintaining a legal speed, but willfully failing

to yield to the officers’ signal to stop.” (p. 2)

The term ‘policy’ will be Operationalized according to the definition of Nicolaidis and
Donner (1960):

“Policy is a rule for action, manifesting or clarifying specific organizational goals,

objectives, values or ideals and often prescribing the obligatory or most desirable

ways and means for their accomplishment. Such a rule for action established for
the purpose of framing, guiding, or directing organizational activities including

decision-making, intends to provide relative stability, consistency, uniformity and
continuity in the operations of the organization.” (p. 74)

-

i .\l~\~..\i1\.i.\.l.~.

Research Question

The primary research question associated with this study concerns the

completeness of each State Police and State Highway Patrol pursuit policy. The

researcher is asking, how complete is each agency’s pursuit policy based upon the

components of the standard policies of the Connecticut State Police, Minnesota State

Police, and California Highway Patrol? This study will also answer the question of

whether each policy incorporates the many issues associated with the dangerousness of

pursuits. Here the researcher will ask, how are the administrative and operational factors

detailed in Chapter 1 addressed in each agency’s policy?

Policy Standard

Various factors gleaned from previous research, legal cases, and pursuit policies

were utilized in the development of the model policy. The factors used in the

development of this model policy were divided into administrative and operational

factors based upon the firnction of the respective element (New Jersey Task Force on

Police Vehicular Pursuit Policy, 1999; Connecticut House of Representatives, 1997;

Alpert & Fridell, 1992; Minnesota House of Representatives, 1999; Emmy v. City of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Pursuit Restrictions

9 Intentional Collisions

 

10. Seriousness of Offense

10. Shootig from Vehicle

 

 

11. Role of Dispatch

 

ll. Unmarked Car/Motorcycle

Detroit, 1989):
.Administrative Operational j
1. Mission Statement 1. Initiate Pursuit _]
A Safety Caveat 2. No_tify Dispatcher/Supervisor j
3. Discontinuance of Pursuit 3. Specifics of Pursuit Conditions j
LNoncompliance 4. Provisions for Lights & Sirens j
5. Definitions 5. Tactical Considerations 7
L Authority to Pursue 6. Jurisdictional Considerations j
LStatutory Duties 7. Pursuit Driving 7
_8_._Case Law References 8. Caravanr'ng j
j
j]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. Requirement of Sugrvisor to Monitor 12. 30mg!) j
13. Role of Supervisor 13. HeadingOff/Passing J
14. Trainini 14. Paralleling J
15. Supervisor at Termination Point 15. Roadblocks J
16. Report ReLuirements 16. Speed J
17. Debriefrng l7. Passengers j
18. Role of PursuingOfficer 18. Tire Deflation Devices l
19. Off Road Pursuit 1
20. Termination of Pursuit/reinstating Pursuit ]
21. Aerial Assistance 1

 

 

Based upon prior research, policy standards of the Connecticut State Police,
Minnesota State Police, and the California Highway Patrol, and legislative decisions each
policy will be analyzed in an effort to determine its comprehensiveness. If a policy is to
be considered complete, each of the above factors must be mentioned in some fashion
within the body of the policy. Detailed definitions of each Administrative and

Operational element can be found in Appendix A. A copy of the Standard Policy can be

found in Appendix B.

Future Chapters

Further chapters in this dissertation will provide a more detailed description of
previous research, legal standards, negligence and liability considerations, and the
research methodology. Chapter 2 provides a more thorough treatment of previous
research and scholarly debate on the myriad of issues inherent in police pursuits. Chapter
3 contains various legal decisions and Supreme Court rulings on a variety of operational

and administrative issues surrounding police pursuits. Chapter 4 details the specifics of
the research methodology that will be utilized for the completion of this pursuit study.

Chapter 5 provides detailed findings on a state-by-state basis while Chapter 6 firmishes

regional results of the policy analysis. Finally, Chapter 7, the closing chapter, is a
discussion section of implications and concluding remarks. Appendices detailing the
Standard Policy, definitions of the elements, and state-by-state tabulations follow the

chapters and the reference sections.

Chapter 2
Previous research

The myriad of issues surrounding police pursuits have been sensationalized to the
point that the general public has been presented with an inaccurate and highly suspicious
picture of pursuits (Barth, 1981). Police officers understand that their actions in many
pursuits will be questioned and scrutinized by administrators as well as scholars
researching the issues surrounding their decisions. Debate concerning the viability of a
national pursuit policy has generated much controversy as speculation and pseudo-
science have been used by the unscrupulous in efforts to portray pursuits as highly
dangerous and in need of new administrative policy. It is interesting to note that past
researchers have debated, in an academic forum, the merits of police pursuits for years.
Many studies have found, and continue to discover, that pursuits are not as dangerous as
previously considered. The rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities have been found to
be similar in many research endeavors across the nation. No discussion of police pursuits
would be complete without a thorough examination of prior scholarly research into the
area.

Early research into police pursuits was, at times, sensational, not likening itself to
the scientific structure of modern academic projects. Later it was discovered that some
studies of police pursuits were to be of limited scholarly value. It became difficult, if not
impossible to make generalizations based upon many of these early investigations
(F ennessy, Hamilton, Joscelyn, & Merritt, 1970; Physicians for Automotive Safety, 1968;

Beckman, 1983). While these studies contributed to the overall store of knowledge

pertaining to pursuits, methodological differences, nonetheless, made the study of
pursuits difficult if not suspicious.

Perhaps the most comprehensive study into police pursuits was conducted by
Charles, Falcone, and Wells (1992; 1992a). In a study of 51 Illinois police departments
researchers conducted an administrative survey, a police field interview form, an
administrative telephone survey, and an officer survey. Officers reported 875 police
pursuits, indicating an accident rate of 34% (n = 298), an injury rate of 17% (n = 149), a
fatality rate of 1.7% (n = 15), and a property damage rate of 34% (n = 298) (Charles,
Falcone, & Wells, 1992).

In addition, Charles, F alcone, and Wells (1992) in their study of police pursuits in
Illinois reported that 16% of the accidents involved third parties. Pursuit-related injuries
occurred in only 9% of the pursuits and injuries to officers and innocent third parties
were even less frequent. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) reported 314 fatalities resulting from police pursuits for the year 1990, Charles
et a1. believed this to be an underestimation. This was based partially on other figures
provided by the NHT SA, which included an estimation of 20,000 injuries occurring
annually from over 50,000 pursuits (Britz & Payne, 1994).

Results from the work of Charles, Falcone, and Wells also indicated that 95.9% of
all officers voiced approval for pursuits and 62% reported that felony offenses were more
likely to instigate a hi gh-speed chase. Officers also indicated that their approval or
tolerance for a pursuit increased in proportionality to the seriousness of the crime. When
asked about the possibility of the abolishment of pursuits officers believed that the police

as a law enforcement institution would suffer a loss of respect from the general public as

10

 

Ti

20

well as potential offenders. As observed by Britz and Payne (1994) “An overwhelming
majority of respondents (96%) supported the notion that more offenders would attempt to
elude police if such a policy were implemented” (p. 117). In addition, 76.3% of officers
indicated that they believed the danger to the public would increase and 85.4%

maintained that crime in general would increase (Charles et. al., 1992a).

While many studies have provided consistent findings, some endeavors have
contributed contradictory results and analyses. One noteworthy example of such
confusing and contradictory results is that of the 1968 study conducted by the Physicians
for Automotive Safety (PAS). The PAS, by relying on three months of newspaper
clippings estimated that 20% of all police pursuits resulted in fatalities, while 70% ended
in accidents. Charles and F alcone (1992) later reported that the PAS study was fraught
with methodological flaws and was an example of a policy-related study with
questionable research procedures, poor reporting, and questionable results. Despite its
many imperfections the PAS study continues to be utilized by attorneys in litigation
against the police in pursuit related suits.

The PAS data were later contradicted in a study conducted by the California
Highway Patrol (CHP)(1983) who conducted a 6-month investigation of all CHP pursuits
and those of ten cooperating law enforcement agencies in Southern California. The
findings collected on the 683 pursuits contradicted earlier studies with the observation
that only 1% (n = 7) of all pursuits ended in a fatality with 29% (n = 198) resulting in
accidents, and only 11% (n = 75) resulting in injury of any kind (CHP, 1983). Thus,
results indicated that the typical law enforcement pursuit did not result in death or injury

to innocent persons and injury to third parties was quite rare.

11

Alpert and Dunham (1988) used a modified version of the CHP instrument in a
study of the Metro Dade Police Department and the Miami Police Department. In an
analysis of 952 pursuits, results indicated that 31% (n = 298) of the suspects escaped
while 68% (n = 646) were apprehended and arrested. Of the suspects who were
apprehended 47% (n = 305) were arrested for traffic violations and 48% (n = 314) were
arrested for felonies. Alpert and Dunham also found that 33% (n = 314) of the reported
pursuits involved accidents, 17% (n == 161) involved injuries, and 0.7% (n = 7) resulted in
a fatality. The researchers would later conclude that their analysis of the pursuits failed
to provide support for a contention that police pursuits resulted in an unfavorable cost-
benefit ratio.

In another recent study of police pursuits in Michigan, Payne (1993) reported that
the majority of pursuits were initiated for speeding (30.5%) followed by other traffic
violations (24.9%) and suspected felony crimes (24.3%). Upon apprehension of the
suspect Payne found that 34.5% of the pursuits resulted in an arrest involving a felony,
33.1% involved a charge of fleeing and eluding with 14.4% involving drunk driving
charges. Payne also found that accidents occurred in 67 out of 197 police pursuits
amounting to an accident ratio of 34%.

Beckman (1986), in his Michigan State University study, also utilizing a modified
version of the CHP questionnaire, surveyed 9 states and 2 US. territories over the course
of a 5-month investigation. Results indicated an accident rate of 42% (n = 178), injury
rate of 14% (n = 59), and a fatality rate of only 2.9% (n = 12). What was absent from the
researcher’s explanation of the methodology was a comprehensive explanation of how

officers were sampled and surveyed for the study. It is still not clear whether officers

12

completed the survey forms immediately prior to a pursuit or after the fact at some
different locale. It is also not clear if all officers of a specific agency were surveyed or if
a sample of officers was chosen to complete surveys. Although the researcher failed to
provide many details pertinent to his project, the data, nonetheless, proved to be quite
usefirl for a general understanding of accident, injury, and fatality rates associated with
police pursuits.

In another study, Auten (1991) used a survey instrument in his study of 86 police
agencies in Illinois. In an effort to make the results more generalizeable and less skewed,
the researcher omitted the State Police and the Chicago Police, the state’s two largest
departments. Results indicated an accident rate of 41% (n = 118), an injury rate of 12%
(n = 34), and a fatality rate of 1.4% (n = 4). Auten cautioned against attempts to
generalize his data to the entire state. Such generalizations must be done with caution, as
Illinois is large with vastly differing demographics across sections of the state.

In a study of a more rural nature, Oechsli (1990) worked with the Kentucky State
Police collecting data on intra-agency teletypes. While details on the exact methodology
used by Oechsli and the State Police were not provided, results, nevertheless, served to
bolster arguments that police pursuits were safer than some had posited previously.
Results indicated a total of 235 pursuits with an accident rate of 29% (n = 178), an injury
rate of 5% (n = 37), and a fatality rate of 0.4% (n = 1).

In a limited project, Fennessy, Hamilton, Joscelyn, and Men'itt (1970) worked
with the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles in a six-day study of the
Departmental offices in response to claims made by the Physicians for Automotive Safety

(PAS) (1968). The survey of the offices indicated a total of 44 pursuits with an accident

13

rate of 11% (n = 5), an injury rate of 4% (n == 2), and a fatality rate of 0% (n = O). The
researchers themselves reported crucial methodological flaws in the study pointing to the
small sample, inadequate questionnaire training, and short duration of the study
(November 4, 1968 to November 10, 1968).

Finally, in a 1986 study Patinkin and Bingharn worked with the Chicago Police
Department in an examination of local pursuits. Results indicated a total of 741 pursuits
with an accident rate of 24% (n = 178), an injury rate of 5% (n = 37), and a fatality rate of
1% (n = 7).

In addition to the perceived danger posed by pursuits, the failure of officers to
report instances of high-speed chases has repeatedly alarmed researchers and scholars.
Charles, Falcone, and Wells (1992), Payne and Corley (1994), and Falcone (1994) have
noted the existences of a shocking trend in under—reporting of police pursuits. There has
emerged a dramatic disparity between the official record of pursuits and those in which
officers actually engage. It has been estimated that the failure to report vehicular pursuits
might be as high as a factor of 14.5 (Payne, 1997). Thus is borne the “dark figure” of

pursuits.

 

Public & Police Policy

In an effort to understand and appreciate the theoretical concepts governing police
policy, it is perhaps best to begin with a brief discussion of public policy. The American
public envisions many things when the tOpic of public policy is broached: military
activities, social security, welfare, agricultural subsidies, or medical expenditures.

Congressional representatives, presidents, governors, administrators, and even lobby

14

groups create policy. Stated most fundamentally, public policy “is the sum of the
activities of governments, whether acting directly or through agents, as it has an influence
on the lives of citizens” (Peters, 1982, p. 4). Public policy has also been defined as “a
course of action intended to accomplish some end” (Heclo, 1972, p. 85). In addition,
Eulau and Prewitt maintained that policy is “a standing decision characterized by
behavioral consistency and repetitiveness” both by those who create it and those who
abide by it (Eulau & Prewitt, 1971, p. 465).

Public policy is cumulative and incremental. It is concerned more with the long-
term rather than a short-term guide for behavior. Although much of the popular media
attention is directed toward critiquing the federal government and its many and varied
policies, it must be understood that in the United States, with a federal system of
government, there are a large number of subsidiary governments also creating policy and
making decisions. In a perfect political environment every subsidiary government would
c00perate with every other to create consistent programs and policies. However, the
actions of the many governments existing within the United States are often in conflict
with one another.

It is also important to remember that not all government policies are implemented
by government employees, whether at the federal or state level. Many government
policies are implemented in the private sector by organizations or by individuals. This
must be understood if an excessively narrow definition of public policy is to be avoided.
Public policy does not concern only those programs that are directly administered in the

public sector.

15

”VJ

As this brief introduction to the intricacies of public policy comes to a close it is
vital to turn now to the domain of police policy. Police policy is but one facet of public
policy. Where public policy is concerned with the provision of many services and
programs to society, police policy is concerned primarily with the provision of law
enforcement and order maintenance services. Public policy makes police services
possible while police policy ensures that this provision of services is in accord with the
laws and mores of a democratic society.

In a democratic form of government, the state is considered subservient to the
citizens. The purpose of government is to provide the citizenry with services and
programs if society is to progress economically and technologically. Although the
legislative functions of government remain with the citizens, the executive and judicial
functions are, by necessity, rendered by special instruments of the government which
remains subordinate to the people (Rousseau, 1948).

Thus, policing is far more than simply enforcing the laws of the land. Designed
after the English system, American policing is performed by a variety of federal, state,
and local agencies falling under civilian control. For the most part state laws govern the
activities of the police within jurisdiction of any particular state. As noted by Kenney
(1972), state laws entrusted with the creation of sheriff’s offices and local police forces
emanate from state constitutions and statutes. Police administration as a function of
government exists primarily in the abstract as individual agencies generally operate as
autonomous units (Kenney, 1972). Therefore, while the United States has a system for

policing its society it does not have a national police system such as those existing in

16

many European and Asian countries. The system of policing in America is “the sum total
of the efforts put forth by each of the multitude of agencies” (Kenney, 1972, p. 7).

Fundamentally, police administration has been defined as “the organization,
personnel, practices, and procedures essential to effective performance of the law
enforcement and other traditional police functions by those agencies to which
responsibility has been entrusted” (Marx, 1963, p. 7). This definition embraces all of the
activities of the federal, state, and local government related to execution of the police
function.

Guidelines and policies for proper police administration are developed by the US.
Constitution, city charters, state statutes, and local ordinances (Kenney, 1972). While
officers and administrators find themselves adhering to a host of Supreme Court
decisions and Constitutional provisions, local legislative bodies also develop guidelines
and requisites administrators are obliged to follow. In addition, internal policies provide
guidelines for officers and administrators alike as to the proper and effective performance
of daily duties. To complicate an administrator’s role, modifications of existing policies
and guidelines must be continuous as public pressure, political concerns, and court
decision generate new, more contemporary policies, highlighting freedom and liberty of
the citizenry.

While the realm of police administration has been defined, the term ‘policy’ is
also want of an Operational definition. According to Nicolaidis and Donner (1960),
“Policy is a rule for action, manifesting or clarifying specific organizational goals,
objectives, values, or ideals and often prescribing the obligatory or most desirable ways

and means for their accomplishment. Such a rule for action established for the purpose of

17

framing, guiding, or directing organizational activities including decision-making intends
to provide relative stability, consistency, uniformity, and continuity in the operations of
the organization” (p. 74).

As Pfiffner has noted, the preceding definition implies that policy is both “flexible
and stable, and dynamic and static” (1960, p. 127). Policy is developed at all levels of
the police organization. The chief alone does not have sole responsibility for forming
and approving organizational policy. It is true that broad policies become formalized
when approved by the chief but there are many more interested parties in the primary
development of policy than simply the chief. Smaller policies relating to specific
functions of police operations may or may not require approval of the chief, depending
on the agency. They may be formalized through approval of an appropriate command

officer.

Legal Aspects

The field of police vehicular pursuits is replete with complex, often conflicting,
legal issues. The consequences of negligence can have far reaching implications for law
enforcement agencies as well as individual officers. Litigation can be financially
devastating for a department. The need for comprehensive pursuit policy is never so
evident as in a brief synopsis of the many recent pursuit legal decisions. Administrators
and policy makers need to continually update policy so as to effect any revisions
necessary to take into consideration recent court rulings. While this is not an appropriate

venue for an in-depth legal analysis of pursuit ramifications the synopsis below will

18

 

p101

111‘er

provide the discriminating reader with a guide to understanding the many legal intricacies

involved in police pursuits.

4‘'1 Amendment

It has been argued that the ultimate issue concerning police pursuit rests on the 4th
Amendment question of whether the police ‘seize’ a suspect by initiating a pursuit
(Alpert & F ridell, 1992). The 4th Amendment ensures, “The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized”.

A number of lower courts have interpreted the ruling in Brower v. County of Inm
(1989) to indicate that a seizure under the 4th Amendment does not occur when a police
officer initiates a pursuit of a suspect. It was understood that a seizure under the 4‘h
Amendment does not occur, “. . .whenever there is a govemmentally caused termination
or govemmentally desired termination of an individual’s freedom of movement. . ., but
only where there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means
intentionally applied” (Brower v. County of Inyo, 1989, p. 1381). Thus, the court
interpreted this ruling to indicate that a pursuit is not in fact a seizure applicable under the
4th Amendment.

The issue of a suspect’s 4th Amendment rights had been considered when United
States District Court Judge Lamberth relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in

Michigan v. Chestemut (I 988) for the ruling in WQJLW. MW (1990)

19

a

title

no t

Sillll.’

if: 153

ill'l
’ /

('7’; .
: "1
;—.'

ll'a

twill

its

when he stated, “The reasonableness of a seizure is to be assessed by balancing the right
of the individual to be free from unreasonable intrusions against the needs of the state to
carry out its law enforcement function” (p. 10).

An exception to the position of Justices Kennedy and Scalia would surface in
Judge Lamberth’s ruling in Wright v. District of Columbija (1990) when he stated that, “It
is undisputed that the police engaged in a high speed vehicular pursuit of plaintiffs and
intended to seize plaintiffs. Under these facts, the court finds that a seizure occurred,
invoking the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of reasonableness” (p. 9). Thus, it can
be argued that the processes involved in police pursuit driving have been identified as a
seizure by the Wright court and when found unreasonable, lends itself to consideration as

an issue of liability.

42 U.S.C. £1983

A use of force issue is litigated under 42 USC. § 1983. In Baker v. McCollan
(1979) the Court decided that the initial inquiry into any § 1983 suit must isolate and
identify the constitutional violation before any subsequent action can begin. As
previously noted, most pursuit cases will involve some issues relevant to the 4th
Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Title 42 of the United States Code reads, “Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
persons within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an

20

 

ll'fl

Cliff.

Lift-

action at law, suit in equity, or other prOper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of
this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall
be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia” (p. 1).

The Brower Court (1989) recognized some similarities between the use of a
firearm and a police pursuit when it was stated that, “Brower’s independent decision to
continue the chase can no more eliminate respondent’s responsibility for the termination
of his movement effected by the roadblock than Garner’s independent decision to flee
eliminated the Memphis police officer’s responsibility for the termination of his
movement effected by the bullet"”(p. 1381). The Court has relied upon its ruling in
fightamg. Connor (1989) to assist in a determination of reasonableness when an officer
effects a pursuit. The reasonableness of the use of deadly force is determined by
analyzing “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate
threat to the safety of the officers or others, whether he is actively resisting arrest or
attempting to evade arrest by flight” (p. 9).

However, the Court in Graham v. Connor (1989) maintained that, “all claims that
law enforcement officers have used excessive force-deadly or not-in the course of arrest,
investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth
Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard” (p. 8). In addition, the Court stated in
Terry v. Ohio (1968) that a seizure, which establishes the Fourth Amendment’s
protections, occurs only when the police have “by means of physical force or Show of
authority. . .in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen” (p. 19). Thus, the opportunity
for an examination of police pursuit as a 4th Amendment issue has existed for many

years.

21

pro-bra

than

815pr
.i‘lltfii
30'. Oil

‘
$2321

The status of police pursuits as subject to 4th Amendment standards is still hotly
debated within the ranks of the legal profession. The District of Columbia in Wri ght v.
District of Columbia (1990) held that a police pursuit constitutes a seizure of the suspect
and is, therefore, subject to the 4th Amendment’s standards of reasonableness and
probable cause. However, the Sixth Circuit Court in Galas v. McGee (1986) remained
dubious when it stated that, ‘Nvithout question high-speed pursuit places the suspect, the
officer, and the public in general at risk of death or serious bodily injury. In that respect
highrspeed pursuits are no different than the use of a firearm to apprehend fleeing
suspects. We conclude that the minimal intrusion on a traffic offender’s Fourth
Amendment rights occasioned by the officer’s participation in a high-speed pursuit does
not outweigh a longstanding police practice which we consider essential to a coherent
scheme of powers’. Accordingly, we hold that the use of high-speed pursuits to
apprehend traffic violators is not unreasonable, and, thus, not violative of the Fourth

Amendment” (p. 4).

14‘h Amendment

Questions have also arisen in regards to various 14‘11 Amendment considerations
raised by police pursuits. In County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1998) the issue of police
culpability was again examined. The case involved the death of a motorcyclist involved
in a high-speed police chase. The Court was called upon to determine whether the
officers involved in the pursuit had violated the defendant’s 14‘h Amendment guarantee
of substantive due process. Litigants claimed that the due process clause had been

violated after the officers caused the death of the cyclist through deliberate and reckless

22

V +7,
FL-
r4

dilllt’l
circun:
will 33

due pi

Polio;

EOIC l

l
1
ill. 0.

Q'il'ill

Wild}:

indifference to life in a hi gh-speed pursuit. In response to the claim, Justice Souter
delivered the Court’s decision by stating, “We answer no, and hold that in such
circumstances only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest
will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a

due process violation” (p. 15).

Policy Cofinsiderafimp

The field of vehicular pursuits abounds with many important topics of which
police administrators must be constantly aware. Researchers continue to develop new,
more effective tools, the use of which only serves to strengthen police pursuit policies
and protect agencies and officers alike from claims of negligence and liability. Policy
makers and administrators must first understand the issues behind claims of liability and
negligence as well as the basis behind firndamental policy development. Once the basic
building blocks of policy development are understood and appreciated departmental
pursuit policies will offer more protection to civilians, officers, and the agency as a
whole.

Emergency vehicles, among which are included police squad cars, are afforded
certain privileges exempting them from traffic laws during the performance of law
enforcement duties. The ability to refrain from obeying traffic laws related to speed,
traffic signals, and right of way poses several dilemmas for police administrators.
Therefore, many states have borrowed language from the Uniform Vehicle Code for
assistance with the creation of departmental pursuit policies. The Uni form Vehicle Code

states that a driver of an emergency vehicle is not relieved “from the duty to drive with

23

due reg

COHSSL'

COUTSL'

cilizer

an.

I

03 SI

irpl
‘ it in.

K.
a..."

nhu‘hl

due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, nor protect him from the
consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privileges granted under the exemption”
(National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 1967, p. 106). Although
the driver of an emergency vehicle is exempt from obeying traffic laws while in the
course of professional duties, an officer is, nonetheless, held to a higher standard than a
citizen due to their special status within the community.

This special status has come under fire in several noteworthy legal cases. In
Thornton v. Shore (1983) the Kansas University Police Department was sued by
plaintiffs arguing that the officer in question failed to drive with due regard after the
deaths of two innocent motorists. Plaintiffs maintained that due to the reckless nature of
the suspect being pursued the officer should have terminated the pursuit based on the
foreseeability of an accident or injury. The defending officer maintained that he was
immune from liability ”pursuant to the state law permitting him to disregard certain
traffic laws but not to disregard the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all
persons” (Alpert & Fridell, 1992, p. 22). The court ruled the officer’s driving to be

reasonable and in accord with the clause of due regard for the safety of citizens.

C_harmbers v. Ideal Pure MilkCompany (19E

In gflnbers v. Idegl Pure mlk_Copr_p_anY the Court (1952) stated, “Charged as
they were with the obligation to enforce the law, the traffic laws included, they (the
police) would have been derelict in their duty had they not pursued him. The police were
performing their duty when Shearer, in gross violation of his duty to obey the speed laws

,

crashed into the milk wagon. To argue that the officers’ pursuit caused Shearer to speed

24

mat l.
ltSlil'

the C'

'10:;

Ill.”

0

u
5
t"

may be factually true, but it does not follow that the officers are liable at law for the
results of Shearer’s negligent speed. Police, cannot be made insurers of the conduct of

the culprits they chase.” (1952, p. 590).

West Virginia v. F idelity Gas & Casualy COIQJQLof New Yorir (1967)

In West flginia v. F ideh'_ty Gas & Casualty Company of New York (1967) the

 

court maintained that, “We are not prepared to hold an officer liable for damages inflicted
by the driver of a stolen vehicle whom he was lawfully attempting to apprehend for the
fortuitous reason only that the criminal drove through an urban area. To do so would
open the door for every desperado to seek sanctuary in the congested confines of our
municipalities, serene in the knowledge that an officer would not likely give chase for

fear of being liable for the pursued recklessness. Such now is not the law nor should it be
the law.” (1967, p. 90).

This sentiment, however, is on the cusp of a major transformation in the
contemporary views of the courts. In the dissenting opinion of Thornton Justice Herd
stated that, “Even with the [emergency] warnings, however, the driver must operate the
[police] vehicle with due regard for the safety of all persons. The majority holds
whenever a high speed chase results in a collision between the person pursued and a third
party, the pursuing officer has, as a matter of law, met the ‘due regard’ standard. . .by
merely turning on his warning signals. . .There are numerous scenarios where an accident
is caused by one not a party to a collision. It is a question of causation.” (Thornton v.

snore, 1983, p. 668).

25

liSL’t

in

El

COT.

-p
L1
n

Dissenting Opinions such as that of Justice Herd demonstrate just one of the many
issues facing police administrators and policy makers as they attempt to solve the
intricacies inherent in policy development. While it is not possible, or even wise, to
attempt to second guess the decisions of legal professionals in rulings pertaining to
liability and negligence claims arising from police pursuits, administrators can be aware
of the legal risks imposed whenever an officer pursues a lawbreaker.

Legal issues aside there is a definite need for adequate policy relating to vehicular
pursuits. Officer’s discretion and performance must be properly guided before they can
become efficient and effective law enforcers. Not only is a policy designed as legal
protection for the agency but officer development and the protection of the general public
must also be under consideration as administrator’s outline a pursuit policy. As stated by
James Fyfe (1979) there is a need for written departmental policy, “To do otherwise is to
simply leave employees “in the dark” in the expectation that they will intuitively divine
the proper and expected course of action in the performance of their duties. . .Discretion
must be reasonably exercised within the parameters of the expectations of the

community, the courts, the legislature and the organization, itself” (p. 1).

Conclusion
As iterated in the opening paragraphs of this chapter there have been numerous
efforts to arrive at quantitative data demonstrating pursuits to be more or less dangerous.
Due to methodological variation, studies continue to obtain contradictory and confusing
results. In addition, officers have repeatedly voiced approval for pursuits stating that they

are an important and integral part of law enforcement’s efforts to apprehend and bring to

26

just;
the

COTS

m1;

EDIT

0116

I.
1'!-

«fl

{at

justice suspected violators of the law. The one constant in all pursuit research continues
to be the necessity for comprehensive and effective policy. Administrators must
constantly be aware of recent court rulings on pursuit litigation. Updated, effective
policy can protect the department, officer, and public from risks involved with
negligence, liability, and needless danger.

Beginning with the study by the Physician’s for Automotive Safety (PAS), which
found an accident rate of 70% and a fatality rate of 20%, researchers have endeavored to
bring the true nature of danger in police pursuits to the forefront. Despite methodological
and jurisdictional variations, researchers have consistently demonstrated pursuits to be
less dangerous than originally believed. Accident rates have consistently been found to
be below the previous level observed by the PAS. Researchers have found accident rates
to vary between a low of 11%, found by Fennessy, Hamilton, J oscelyn, and Merritt
(1970), to a high of 29% discovered by Oechsli (1990).

In addition, fatality rates have been demonstrated to range from a low of 0% in
one study of the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (F ennessy, Hamilton,
Joscelyn, & Merritt, 1970) to a high of 2% in a study by Beckman at Michigan State
University (1986). Some variation has also been noticed in the rates of injuries observed
by researchers. F ennessy, Hamilton, J oscelyn, and Merritt (1970) discovered an injury
rate of 4% while Charles, Falcone, and Wells (1992) observed an injury rate of 17%.

Despite the variation in rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities, police pursuits,
nonetheless, have been identified and supported by researchers and officers, alike, as a
necessary and integral component of police work. Routine vehicular pursuits serve to

apprehend numerous wanted felons and dangerous suspects. In a study by Payne (1993)

27

it was observed that 24.3% of police pursuits were initiated for felony crimes. In another
study by Alpert and Dunham, (1988) it was discovered that, of the suspects who were
apprehended upon termination of a pursuit, 48% were arrested for a felony.

Police pursuits have also involved the legal system to a large extent. The
Supreme Court as well as District Courts have been called upon to rule on issues such as
4th Amendment seizure considerations, 14‘h Amendment due process concerns, and uses
of force in pursuits.

The Supreme Court refirses to specifically detail the circumstances under which a
pursuit amounts to a 4‘h Amendment seizure but suggests that a pursuit “communicate to
a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about
his business” (Miclgan v. Chestemut, 1988, p. 56). Originally, the Court would agree
with the District Courts and state that a pursuit alone did not constitute a seizure
protected under the 4‘h Amendment. Later, a more substantive ruling would be offered
when Justice Lamberth stated that, “It is undisputed that the police engaged in a high
speed vehicular pursuit of plaintiffs and intended to seize plaintiffs. Under these facts,
the court finds that a seizure occurred, invoking the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of
reasonableness” (Wright v. District of Columbia, 1990, p. 9).

Additionally, the Court was called upon to rule on issues related to the 14‘h
Amendment’s guarantee of substantive due process. Justices ruled that only arbitrary
conduct shocking to the conscience unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest would
satisfy the requirements of the 14th Amendments guarantee of due process.

Thus, it is evident that the area of police vehicular pursuits is replete with many

interesting and often conflicting ideas and legal decisions. Many studies have presented

28

Ml

int

1.4.!

list

03!

pursuits in a context of posing serious safety risks to the general public while other

studies have stressed the fact that empirical results indicate pursuits to be relatively safe.
Legal rulings, too, have posed fascinating questions for both police administrators as well
as academics studying this area of law enforcement. It is the responsibility of police
administrators to synthesize the findings of academics with the decision of judges and
Justices to anive at the ideal pursuit policy. This would serve the officers, the public, and

the department well as pursuit litigation is destructive to all involved.

29

 

'V: l
c a
- a

Chapter 3
Liability & Negligence

There exists an exceedingly complex relationship between police pursuits, the use
of force, and the realm of policy with which administrators strive to contend. Policy
makers rarely witness the barrage of daily tensions experienced by patrol officers as they
enforce traffic laws, quell domestic disputes, or help a lost child. Policy makers and
administrators alike must be fully aware of the often tense atmosphere within patrol
officers worn on a daily basis. In efforts to draft effective and efficient policy,
administrators are responsible for a vast array of liability issues and departmental training
conceptualizations. There is no single best method through which to incorporate policy
into the daily business of a department. It is the responsibility of policy makers and
administrators to generate methods by which officers can effectively learn and implement
policy in their daily interactions with the civilian population.

The operation of vehicles by the police can be classified into two distinct
categories: routine and emergency operations. Police officers are required to operate
vehicles during the performance of their daily duties. An officer operating a vehicle
under normal, routine conditions is held to the same standard of reasonableness required
of the general public. Under routine conditions any accident or injury incurred during the
performance of patrol duties is litigated under the general theory of negligence (Kappeler,
1993). If a violation of law is to be considered negligent the complainant must
demonstrate that the law was designed to prevent the damage or injury inflicted. In
addition, the law must have been designed to protect a specific class of persons

(Kappeler, 1993).

30

The second type of operation of vehicles by police officers involves emergency
situations. Due to the inherent dangers posed by the use of emergency vehicles in
responses by police, all states have enacted statutes governing the operation of
emergency vehicles (Silver, 1991). Many jurisdictions grant emergency vehicles limited
statutory immunity for any violations of state or municipal traffic regulation incurred
during an emergency response (Kappeler, 1993). Thus, police officers are afforded some
level of protection while responding to emergency calls for assistance.

Questions have arisen as to what constitutes an emergency situation for police
officers. This query is to be determined by the courts based on situational factors and
individual officers’ perception (Kappeler, 1993). It has been decided by the courts that,
basically, an “officer must be involved in emergency use of the vehicle and the officer
must reasonably feel that an actual emergency exists” (Kappeler, 1993, p. 99).

Previously the Washington Supreme Court had ruled that, “The test for determining
whether a publicly owned vehicle is at a given time responding to an emergency call is
not whether an emergency in fact exists at the time but rather whether the vehicle is being
used in responding to an emergency call. Whether the vehicle is being so used depends
upon the nature of the call that is received and the situation as then perceived to the mind
of the driver” (Lakoduk v. Cruger, 1956, p. 699).

In some instances, for purposes of immunity, courts hold that the chase or
attempted apprehension of a law violator is not always an emergency. Therefore, an
officer’s negligence in violating traffic regulations is determined by the surrounding
circumstances dictating the use of the vehicle and the seriousness of the suspect’s

behavior (Fiser v. City of Ann Arbor, 1983). The Michigan Supreme Court stated that

31

 

{fail

in

152

:31

bf '

“in order for [statutory immunity] to apply, defendants must show that the officers
reasonably believed an emergency existed. The chase or apprehension of violators of the

law does not necessarily constitute an emergency situation” (F iser v. City of Ann Arbor,

 

1983, p. 417).

In states with limited statutory immunity, the officer is not held liable for the
violation of a state or municipal traffic regulation while responding to an emergency. A
violation of a traffic regulation resulting in injury or damage is not conclusive proof of
the officer’s negligence (Kappeler, 1993). If a plaintiff should desire to establish proof of
negligent operation of an emergency vehicle, factors beyond the mere violation of a
traffic must be established if the claim of negligence is to be supported. Limited statutory
immunity varies from state to state and is restricted to the use of vehicles in actual

emergency situations.

My

One area with which policy makers and administrators must become intimately
aware is in the area of liability. Although criminal liability is generally a rarity for the
vast majority of police departments it is, nonetheless, a possibility that must be examined.
Under federal law, the most likely criminal liability for improper police conduct would be
under Title 18 of US. Code Section 242, Criminal Liability for Deprivation of Civil
Rights. Another section with which administrators and policy makers should become
familiar is Title 18 of the US. Code Section 245, Violation of Federally Protected

Activities.

32

 

lat
Elli)
x:

Life

119

Pl“

4};

12"

it"

Although the federal law has many proclamations against police misconduct, state
law has its share of precepts discouraging police indiscretion. Under state law, an officer
may be charged with “penal code provisions specifically addressing public officers for
offenses such as official oppression or official misconduct” (Carter & Payne, 1988, p.
119). It is also true that an officer could be charged with a standard criminal offense if
the officer in question used improper force against a citizen. It is a safe assumption that
if an officer were charged with gross misconduct the department and jurisdiction would
also be held liable for a civil lawsuit.

There are jurisdictions across the country where police negligence is barred by
statutes immunizing officers from liability claims in the emergency operation of vehicles
(Kappeler, 1993). Generally these statutes immunize officers from claims of liability
when they attempt to apprehend escaping suspects. An example of such a statute was
interpreted by the California Supreme Court in the ruling that, “the purpose of the
legislation was to immunize public entities and employees from the entire spectrum of
potential injuries caused by persons actually or about to be deprived of their freedom who
take physical measures of one kind or another to avoid the constraint or escape from it”
(Kisbey v. S‘tatpof California, 1984, p. 1096).

While it has been stated that the probability of an officer or department being held
criminally liable is not dramatically high, the possibility of a civil suit is, indeed, much
higher. Civil lawsuits aimed at police personnel may be based on either state tort law or
federal law as found under the Civil Rights Act (Carter & Payne, 1988).

A tort may be defined as, “a wrong, either intentional or unintentional (as when

caused by negligence), wherein the action of one person causes injury to the person or

33

 

l"

Ill

property of another in violation of a legal duty imposed by law” (Carter & Payne, 1988,
p. 119). If a tort lawsuit is to be brought against an officer or department it is necessary
first that the officer or department act with care toward the suing party. If the duty of the
officer was breached and that subsequent breach created the proximate cause of injury to
the party as a result, liability may be established. “Injury” in such a case is not limited
merely to physical harm but includes injury to the rights of the person under
consideration. There are a myriad of torts for which an officer can be found liable:
wrongful death, use of excessive force, invasion of privacy, libel or slander, negligent
vehicle operation, or negligent administration of first aid (Siegel, 1989).

The most widely utilized provision of law used in police liability cases is 42
U.S.C. 1983, Deprivation of Civil Rights, a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Carter & Payne, 1988). Section 1983 of the US. penal code states, “Every person who,
under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation. . .of any State or Territory. . .causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United states. . .the deprivation of any rights,
privileges. . .shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, in suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress” (42 U.S.C. 1983, p. 1). It is necessary to establish
officer or department liability under Section 1983 through the presence of four elements:
1) the defendant must be a natural person or a local govermnent; 2) the officer must be
acting under color of law; 3) the violation must be of a constitutional or federally
protected right; 4) the violation must reach a constitutional level (Carter & Payne, 1988).
For an officer or a department to act under color of law the entity must be acting “with
the appearance of legal authority; in actual or purported performance of one’s duties as a

state official” (Clapp, 1996, p. 274).

34

 

5":
(I)
f‘.

relic

Pal"

rays
1‘ IV

to?

”‘7.’
(-

Once liability has been established the plaintiff in a Section 1983 suit may request
three types of relief: monetary relief, declaratory relief, or injunctive relief. Monetary
relief, on which there is no set limit amount, is awarded when defendants are required to
pay the plaintiff for damages incurred as a result of actions of the officer. Declaratory
relief is characterized by a declaration of the court that the officer and/or department
acted improperly and bears the full brunt of responsibility for the actions in question.

The court grants, in injunctive relief, the plaintiff’s request that a change in operations or
behavior of the officer and/or department. The impact of injunctive relief cannot be
underestimated. The court can mandate policy and managerial operations for which a
department has little choice but to follow.

Policy makers must also understand that liability can be both a direct as well as
vicarious phenomenon. If an individual is the direct cause of the resultant injury or
violation, it is defined by a claim of direct liability. Substituted responsibility, where
supervisors, administrators, and others in the hierarchical chain of command, are held
responsible for the actions of their subordinates is characteristic of vicarious liability. A
plaintiff wishing to establish vicarious liability must demonstrate that the police
department acted negligently, or with deliberate indifference, in permitting improper
police conduct. Generally, it is necessary for the plaintiff to be required to demonstrate a
pattern of misconduct to exist within a department. However, in instances of gross

impropriety, it may not be necessary to establish a pattern of behavior.

35

llun

Ill

MW

Municipal liability should be a central concern to administrators and policy
makers within a law enforcement organization. Eventually municipalities would be
exposed to unprecedented liability by the Supreme Court (Monroe v. Papg, 1961). Here,
the Court ruled that municipalities were not liable as “persons” under Section 1983 (Hall,
1988). This decision would later be overturned when the Supreme Court concluded that
“the legislative history of the act supported a statutory construction that defined
“persons” to include municipalities” (Lewis, 1991, p. 556; Monell v. Department of
Sociafiervices, 1978). Therefore the Court determined that a government entity may be
held liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. However, such liability must be found upon evidence
“that the government unit itself supported a violation of constitutional rights” and not on
the basis of the “respondent superior doctrine or vicarious liability” (Lewis, 1991 , p.
556).

Thus, municipal liability applies only when the execution of a government’s
policy or custom inflicts the subsequent injury. Generally, the presentation of evidence
of statutes, official proclamations, or policy directives suffices to establish expressed
municipal policy (Lewis, 1991). A single application of an expressed policy deemed
unconstitutional is sufficient to invoke court action.

While it might seem a relatively simple task to establish municipal liability
through the presentation of statutes, proclamations, and directives, it is quite another to
prove a custom a violation of constitutional rights. In response to this question the
Supreme Court ruled that “proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not

sufficient to impose liability under Monell, unless proof of the incident includes proof

36

 

that '

lath

TIT"

m r

m

2031

”*3.
F5

that it was caused by an existing unconstitutional municipal policy that can be attributed

to the municipal policy maker” (Lewis, 1991, p. 557; Oklahomja v. Tuttle, 1985).

 

_B_arriers to Lgbility
Findings of police liability in some jurisdictions are limited by an adoption of the

minsterial/discretionary function distinction (Johnson v. State of California, 1987). A

 

ministerial function is any behavior that is considered a line or operational function such
as duties an officer must perform as part of daily operations. Discretionary functions, on
the other hand, entail policy development or planning tasks such as the introduction of a
new drunk driving policy.

The dichotomy of ministerial and discretionary functions has brought some
confusion to the courts. Some courts have ruled that the emergency operation of vehicles
is a discretionary function. Thus, in such a case the courts have rejected claims of police
liability for negligent operation of emergency vehicles. However, other jurisdictions
have concluded that police pursuits are a ministerial function allowing for claims of
liability to be imposed (Gibson v. Pasadena, 1987). To assuage some of the confusion
brought about by the ministerial/discretionary dichotomy Kappeler and del Carmen
(1988) have noted that courts often maintain that an officer’s decision to engage in a
pursuit is a discretionary function, while operation of the vehicle is ministerial in nature.

In states retaining some vestiges of sovereign immunity such as Virginia, police
pursuit is considered conduct within the “scope of official employment and therefore”
negligence action is barred (Kappeler, 1993, p. 101). The State of Michigan has a much

different position on the issue of police negligence. The position presented in the

37

llicl

Nil:

Ell

tilt

in

lli

Michigan Compiled Law Annotated states, “Governmental agencies shall be liable for
bodily injury and property damage resulting from the negligent operation by an officer,
agent, or employee of the governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the
governmental agency is owner, as defined in Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, as
amended, being sections 257.1 to 257.923 of the Compiled Laws of 1948” (Michigan
Compiled Laws Annotated 691.1405). Courts are increasingly holding officers,
departments, and municipal governments liable for their actions as well as those of the

suspect.

Negligence

As administrators and policy makers become familiar with the concepts and
issues surrounding liability it is necessary to examine the variety of areas within which
officers, supervisors, and their departments can create an environment ripe for claims of
negligence.

Negligence has been defined as “inadvertent behavior that results in damage or
injury” (Kappeler, 1993, p. 23). In negligence tort a lesser degree of foreseeability of
danger is required than in intentional tort. The mental state of the officer in question is
not an issue in an application of negligence tort. Inadvertent behavior leading to injury or
damage can be a cause to action under negligence tort. The fundamental standard applied
in negligence tort actions is whether the “officer’s actions created an unreasonable risk to
another member of society” (Kappeler, 1993, p. 23).

There are four basic elements needed to establish a case of police negligence:

Legal duty, a breach of that duty, actual damage or injury to another party, and the

38

pron
Negl
rear
lets:

cm

tel

proximate cause of such damage due to actions of the officer (Kappeler, 1993).
Negligence is generally determined by the facts of the case and the utilization of the
reasonableness standard (Payne & Corley, 1994). The task is left to the courts to
determine what any reasonable and prudent emergency driver would do in the
circumstances surrounding an emergency (Rutherford v. SLat_e, 1979). Once
reasonableness has been determined, it is left to the plaintiff to demonstrate proof of
negligence providing evidence showing a duty to the injured party, a breach of that duty,

and an injury proximately resulting from that breach wroglcs v. Lundeen, 1981).

 

Basically, there are eight areas where an officer, supervisor, or department can be
held responsible for negligence in the fulfillment of basic duties: negligent hiring,
negligent assignment, failure to train, negligent entrustrnent, failure to supervise, failure
to direct, negligent retention, and failure to protect. In a case alleging negligent hiring,
liability may ensue if it can be established that an employee is unfit for appointment as a
police officer and such unfitness was known by the department. Negligent hiring can
also be established if it can be shown that the department should have been aware of an
employee’s unsuitability as an officer (Carter & Payne, 1988).

Negligent assignment refers to the assignment of an officer to a job or task
without ascertaining if the individual was prepared to adequately perform the
responsibilities required for the task. Negligent assignment can also occur when an
officer remains in a position for which incompatibility has been demonstrated (Carter &

Payne, 1988).

39

it

An allegation of failure to train is a failure of the department to properly provide a
subordinate with the skills, training, knowledge, or activities required to adequately
perform the tasks incumbent of employment as a police officer.

Negligent entrustrnent occurs when there is a failure of a supervisor to properly
supervise an officer’s custody or use of equipment provided for completion of the duties
required of a police officer. It has been stated that in a case alleging negligent
entrustrnent it is a “test of deliberate indifference. The plaintiff must be able to prove that
the officer was incompetent, inexperienced, or reckless, and that the supervisor knew or
had reason to know of [the] officer’s incompetence” (del Carmen, 1986, p. 318).

In a case of failure to supervise it must be shown that a superior officer, at any
step along the hierarchy of command, was negligent in the duty to oversee subordinate
performance of official duties in accordance with the law. Liability can be established if
a supervisor failed to enforce organizational policy in a regular manner.

Very similar to failure to train is failure to direct. The police department has the
responsibility of instructing its employees in the specific procedures, conditions, and
limits associated with performance of their respective duties.

Negligent retention occurs when the police department fails to take appropriate
disciplinary actions or retraining efforts of an officer who has demonstrated unsuitability
for the position as a police officer to a dangerous degree (Swanson, Territo, & Taylor,
1993)

The final area of organizational negligence is failure to protect. A claim of failure
to protect asserts that the police failed to take affirmative or preventive measures to

protect an individual from injury or harm (Carter & Payne, 1988).

40

lit;

Ilia

or

ill

Sill

. .‘llia
“11v r

0.0.—

Lesdflrty

A legal duty is any behavior recognized by the court requiring police officers to
either take appropriate action or to refrain from taking action in certain situations
(Kappeler, 1993). The duties required of police officers arise from various sources
including law, custom, judicial decisions, and departmental policy. Previously, many
plaintiffs were unsuccessful in establishing the fact that this duty was not owed to
individuals. However, lately this has begun to change. Many courts now recognize that
under certain circumstances the police may owe a special duty to individual citizens. In
such a case the actions of the police serve to set the individual apart from the general

public (Kappeler, 1993).

Breach of Duty & Proximate Cause

The existence of a legal duty of protection is not sufficient in and of itself to
establish officer liability in negligence suits. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the
officer breached the duty of protection to the citizen (Kappeler, 1993). Courts recognize
that the police are only liable to specific individuals and not to the general public as a
whole. As noted by Kappeler (1993), “There must exist some special knowledge of
circumstances that sets the individual citizen apart from the general public and shows a
relationship between that citizen and the police” (p. 25). However, it is important to
point out that courts recognize a duty of care by police officers operating emergency
vehicles (Kappeler, 1993). Operators of emergency vehicles are required to drive with

“due care for the safety of all persons using the public roadways (Kappeler, 1993, P-

102).

41

Once a plaintiff has successfully demonstrated the existence of a police duty and
has established the parameters of the breach of that duty to a specific citizen, it is still
required that the plaintiff prove that the officer’s action was the proximate cause of the
injury or damage (Kappeler, 1993). The proximate cause of an injury or damage can be
established by determining if the injury or damage would have been sustained were it not
for the actions of the officer. If proximate cause can be established then the officer can
be held liable for the damage or injury. The proximate cause requirement of negligence
suits is designed to bar liability in instances where damage or injury would have been
suffered regardless Of the actions of the police.

Courts have utilized two distinct techniques when dealing with issues of
proximate cause. The first approach treats cause as a doctrinal barrier to findings of
police liability for injuries sustained by third parties in a pursuit (Kappeler, 1993). Courts
using this line of reasoning maintain that the conduct of an officer in the midst of a
pursuit cannot be the proximate cause for injuries or damage suffered by an innocent
third party (Kappeler, 1993). Hence, such courts are reluctant to discover police liability
if an officer’s vehicle is not directly involved in an accident with the injured party’s
vehicle. Courts Operating under this philosophy do not extend the zone of proximate
cause beyond the actual collision of the police vehicle and the third party.

Kappeler (1993) has stated that such reasoning is based on three points:

1. Police officers have a duty to pursue, apprehend, and arrest law violators. The courts
deem this duty so important that it outweighs any other policy concern. From this

position, the duty of care becomes subordinate to the duty to apprehend.

42

2. Police officers and public entities should not become the insurers of the negligence
damage caused by law violators.
3. The actions of a fleeing law violator are an intervening cause which negates the

possibility of an officer’s conduct constituting the proximate cause of injury (p. 11 l).

The second approach uses the principle of proximate cause as a guide to determine
whether specific police conduct is the cause of injury or damage (Kappeler, 1993). This
approach also reflects a growing trend among state courts. Courts examine the situational
factors srurounding the conduct of the officer in efforts to determine proximate cause.
Rather than formulating a blanket pronouncement on proximate cause courts using this
approach adopt a case by case method. In utilizing a case by case method courts do not
automatically confine proximate cause to the zone of contact between the police vehicle
and the injured party. Instead, the conduct of a “pursuing police officer may be the
proximate cause of injuries sustained in an accident even where the police vehicle did not
directly become involved in the collision” (Kappeler, 1993, p. 102). This frees the court
to determine proximate cause and police liability by examining the extent to which the
officer’s conduct and the situational factors surrounding the accident contributed to the
injury or damage.

Similar to the first approach, this judicial approach to proximate cause is based on
certain legal principles. Courts have recognized a refusal to recognize an absolute duty to
apprehend suspected law violators. Thus, Officers cannot utilize any method available in
an effort to apprehend a suspected law violator. Care must be taken to protect the lives

and property of citizens and bystanders. Second, courts have noted a refusal to relegate

43

In:

for t

the duty of care to the duty to apprehend. Here again, officers must use due care for the
safety and well being of innocent bystanders when endeavoring to apprehend an Offender.
The duty to apprehend an offender is not necessarily more important than the duty of care
for the general public.

Third, courts have accepted the possibility of a concurring cause modification of
proximate cause doctrine. It has been noted that the cause of an accident might have a
secondary causal factor other than that of the officer in pursuit of a suspect. Fourth,
higher courts have demonstrated deference to subjective jury decision making. Lower
courts have been afforded the opportunity to allow juries to render verdicts in many
instances of police liability and negligence. Finally, courts have adopted an application
of a failure to warn doctrine (Kappeler, 1993, p. 111). Officers in pursuit of a suspected
offender have a duty to warn bystanders of danger while engaged in a pursuit by means
of the use of a siren and warning lights.

If a plaintiff is successful in establishing duty of protection, a breach of duty, and
proximate cause, it is still necessary to determine if actual injury or damage has been
suffered. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the damage or injury was such that it

“substantially interfered with an interest of an individual or his/her prOperty” (Kappeler,

1993, p. 26).

Breach of Reasonableness

 

Courts have determined that negligence is a question of fact and law that is
established by proving the existence of duty and then Observing a behavior that

constitutes a breach Of that duty (Kappeler, 1993). The traditional approach of the courts

 

C0115

rear

spec

C0111

1101

considering issues of negligence is to develop principles that negate breaches of the
reasonableness standard (Kappeler, 1993). In so doing the courts do not consider every
specific action by the officer that may breach a duty. Legal principles developed by the
courts exclude certain types of conduct from constituting a breach of duty. Theoretically,
this practice provides consistency in judicial decision making.

The principles negating a breach of duty are derived from two legal distinctions.
First, courts distinguish between the “actual operation of an emergency vehicle and the
initial decision making process of the pursuing officer” (Kappeler, 1993, p. 112). Courts
have held that the duty of care standard and reasonableness test are invoked only by the
actual operation of the emergency vehicle. The officer’s decision to pursue a suspect is
not applied to the reasonableness test or the duty of care standard. This, in effect, shields
officers from claims of liability associated with their decision making processes.

The second distinction deals with the physical Operation of the police emergency
vehicle. In this instance, the court isolates certain types of conduct and removes them
from other actions which constitute conclusive proof of Officer negligence. The courts
have held that an Officer exceeding the speed limit in pursuit of a suspect is not an
instance of police negligence (Brown v. City of New Orlean_s, 1985; Riggs v. State,
1986). The distinction is based on the totality of circumstances, not simply Officer
decision making.

Under this distinction a plaintiff is forced to establish that an officer’s conduct
was a breach of reasonableness (Kappeler, 1993). This can prove to be a daunting task
when the totality of circumstances is considered instead of the individual aspects of the

pursuit. A single factor such as high speeds or failure to use emergency sirens is not

45

 

pus

(KI

in

CO

[99‘

 

conclusive proof of police negligence. Generally, state courts consider a variety of
factors in determining negligence in police pursuit cases. The factors considered by the
state courts can be grouped together into four zones of negligence: Justifications for
pursuits, actual vehicle operation, circumstances Of operation, and external factors
(Kappeler, 1993).

The first justification courts have taken into consideration has been the presence
of a real or apparent emergency (Hgmilton v. Town of Palo, 1976; Keatingv. Holston’s

Ambulance Service, Inc., 1989). As stated previously, an emergency has been

 

demonstrated if an officer honestly believes an emergency to exist. A second
justification considered by the courts pertains to whether the officer’s conduct was
serious (Gibson v. Pasadena, 1978). A serious breach Of the reasonableness standard l
would surely place the officer, as well as the department, in danger of negligence

liability. However, reasonable conduct on the part of the officer greatly lessens any

threat of liability for the department and the officer in question. Third, the court

contemplates whether alternatives to pursuit were available to the officer (Mason v.

Britton, 1975). If an Officer is faced with viable alternatives to a pursuit then claims of

 

negligence can be substantiated. However, the court will recognize if an officer has no
option but to pursue an offender. Finally, the court considers whether the apprehension
of the suspect was feasible. If apprehension of a suspect is dubious an officer and the
department may face charges of negligence. However, if a suspect is easily apprehended
by means of a pursuit then claims of negligence and liability are not likely to be

substantiated.

46

 

Lilli

oil]

Factors in the actual physical operation of the vehicle considered by the courts
include the speed at which the vehicle was Operated, the use of emergency equipment
(Fowler v. North (Larolinia Department of Crime Control, 1989), violation of traffic
regulations, and disregard of traffic control devices (Brown v. City of Pinellas Park,
1990). If any of these factors are blatantly violated with little regard to the safety of
citizen’s claims Of negligence and liability can be confirmed. However, if an Officer
takes reasonable care in the pursuit of a suspect a plaintiff is provided less evidence of
officer negligence.

Factors in the circumstances of operation considered by the courts include the
physical conditions of the roadway, weather conditions (Bickel v. City of Downey,
1987), density of traffic (Brown v. m of Pinellas Park, 1990), presence of pedestrians,
presence of audio or visual warning devices, and area of pursuit (Brown v. City of
Pinellas Park, 1990). An officer demonstrating due care and regard for the safety of
citizens will take each environmental factor into consideration prior to implementing a
pursuit. If a pursuing officer can be demonstrated to have rendered due care with respect
to considering each factor during the pursuit, claims of liability and negligence are much
more difficult for a plaintiff to prove.

External factors considered by the courts include the violation of departmental
policy regarding police pursuits, Officer’s training in pursuit driving (West v. United

States, 1985), and the physical and visual condition of the police vehicle. Claims of

 

negligence are much more difficult for a plaintiff to validate if an officer has been trained
in pursuit driving by the department and adheres to departmental policy regarding

pursuits. The condition of the police vehicle enables a court to determine whether the

47

 

Ollli

law

ll;

of

l

i J

officer in question drove with reckless abandon in attempts to apprehend the suspected

law violator. If a plaintiff can prove any one of these factors it is a much easier task to

support claims of police liability and negligence in court.

Deliberate Indifference

The area of deliberate indifference poses some interesting problems for policy
makers. Officers need to understand instances where suspects might genuinely require
medical care. The failure to be sensitive to the personal needs of suspects and prisoners
can be a serious issue of liability for officers and department, alike.

The Supreme Court has rejected the contention that a municipality can be held
liable under Section 1983 only if the policy of the municipality was itself unconstitutional

(Cinton v. Harris, 1989). This ruling required plaintiffs to bridge the gap between policy

 

and injury in a stringent manner. The Court adopted the deliberate indifference standard
that was required to be met to establish a constitutional violation by a municipality.
Deliberate indifference is utilized by many plaintiffs seeking compensation for instances
of police shootings and the use of excessive force. Most of the claims center around a

municipality's failure to effectively train its Officers so as to avoid the constitutional

deprivation (Lewis, 1991).

Court Rulings
After administrators and policy makers are adept with the terminology required to

understand policy they must next embark on an endeavor to untangle the intricate web of

court rulings relating directly to the use of force by police. It is a basic necessity, when

48

 

11111

C011

5111

Al:

C01

01‘

l
t

'SE

12

0‘.

\shwx 5V": t....r..\

i ..\».

IJU\ up“; fillLN ..

L\

I .v\\ ~\.v~\ hint;

.\:

writing effective and efficient policy, to take into consideration the decisions of the
courts. It does a department little benefit to write policy with no conscious effort to
synthesize the organizational mission, requirements of law, and court rulings.
Administrators must be intimately familiar with what is considered improper police
conduct by the courts if they are to draft formal policy.

Due to the fact that this is not the proper venue for a detailed legal analysis of all
of the many legal intricacies highlighting police pursuits, a matrix has been developed to
assist in a brief synopsis of the variety of legal issues placed before the courts. This
matrix has been divided into discrete categories detailing Operational considerations ruled
upon in the court system and administrative aspects on which the courts have ruled.

Table 2 and Table 3 provide the legal matrix of operational/tactical and administrative

 

issues inherent in police pursuits.

Table 2

Operational/Tactical rulings of various vehicular pursuit cases.

[ Roadblock Environmental Traffic Emergency Speed Existence
Conditions Regulations Equipment Of

& Emergency

__ Conditions

Cig of Sacramento v. X
Supgrior Court in and
for Sacramento Coungg
1982)
Georgia Dgpt. of X
Public Safeg v.
Collins (1977)
Littell y. Maloney
41179)
City of Akron v. X
Charley ( 1982)
Seflle v. Hope (1984) X
Knaggs v. Lewis X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

i \ TS msTwafni ....,.-\.....:\f.rc n17... .1.\.-..i\...tl; «Vent... lei... RE... is

i: no... at. En. a. h. a; l

_ a in: r...

,rn.,m_.1;m,mzk.rErurnau no; 1

 

(I986)

 

Inyo (1987)

Brower v. Coung of X

 

Bickel v. Ci of
Qowney (1987)

 

Brown v. Cig of
Pinellas Park (1990)

 

Brown v. City of New
Orleans (1985)

 

gaggle—£0986)

 

WM
Palo 1976)

 

Rating v. Hofilston’s
Ambulance Service
1989)

 

Ei_ser v. City of Ann
Arbor @983)

 

Lakoduk v. Cruger
Q956)

 

Rutherford v. State
(1 979)

 

Simkins v. Barcus
1951)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X X X X

 

Table 3

Administrative rulings of various vehicular pursuit cases.

 

Government
Liability

Officer Conduct
&
Force

Negligence

Due Care

Policy

Training

 

Tennessee v. Garner
1985)

 

Graham v. Connor (1989)

 

 

Fiser v. City of Ann Arbor
1983)

 

 

Canton v. Harris Q989)

 

Gibson v. Pasadena
1987)

XX

 

West v. United States
1985)

 

Brooks v. Lundeen 1981)

 

Oklahoma v. Tuttle

 

 

1985)
Monroe v. Pa c @969

Monell v. Department of
Social Services (1978)

 

Kisbey v. California
1984)

><><><><

 

Silva v. City of
Albuguerguc (1980)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

 

 

 

 

' h—I

 

 

Thornton v. Shore (1 983L x [
Vicknair v. Malbrough x i

(1986)

Lee v. Mitchell Funeral

Home Ambulance Service

(1980L

Stark v. City of Los X
Angeles (1985)
Zulauf v. State (1983)

Dodge v. Stine (1984L
Smith v. Cityof West

Point (Q81

 

 

 

 

><
#L..—L—-——JL-J

 

 

 

 

 

 

><><><

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elements of PoliLY

As administrators and policy makers strive to identify issues of liability, it is their
next responsibility to understand the areas inherent in a more encompassing policy.
Departmental orders or directives should become a standard part of every law
enforcement organization. Specific departmental orders and directives form the
administrative foundation upon which the organization rests. Without a firm foundation
eventually an organization will become a target for liability and negligence suits. The
administrative foundation of a department must specify the parameters of organizational
behavior through policies, procedures, and rules or regulations. Authority, responsibility,
and duties of each rung of the hierarchical ladder is contained in departmental policy
(Carter, 1986).

In light of the recent litigation it is imperative that each police department, no
matter how small, have a precise, written, comprehensive, and substantively strong policy
and directives. Administrators and policy makers must be aware of the differences in
terminology of the specific directives contained in the composition of the policy. Policy,
objectives, procedures, rules, general orders, special orders, memoranda, and written

directives are each unique entities unto themselves and each provide a small portion of

51

the l

uniq

1111!

iii

11111

the

CO]

the larger departmental directive. Appendix A provides a detailed listing of each of the

unique elements required of any sound policy statement.

11mg

Once administrators and policy makers are adept at recognizing when an issue
might pose a problem of negligence or liability it is necessary to consider the methods by
which the new policy is to be disseminated to Officers in the department. Administrators
must acknowledge the importance of the use of training, supervision, evaluation, and
guidance when presenting Officers with policy.

One strategy to understand and appreciate the domain of police pursuits is within
the frame of police use Of force. In much the same manner that a police firearm is
considered an instrument of deadly force so it is that the patrol cruiser can, at times, be a
mechanism of death. As Alpert and Anderson (1986) have stated, “. . .when a police
officer engages in a hi gh-speed chase in a high-powered police car, that vehicle becomes
a potentially deadly weapon” (p. 2). The myriad Of liability and legal issues contained
within the sphere of police pursuits are extremely interesting and important to understand
for the greater good of society.

The argument can also be established that the constitutional debates developed
out of pursuit litigation parallel those generated by instances of police use of force. Many
of the same legal tactics and issues involved in use of force cases are utilized in suits
alleging liability or negligence in instances of police pursuit. Thus, as the topic of pursuit
is of considerable consequence to the field of policing, it is perhaps wise to couch such

pOIemic in the context of the police use of force.

52

.3511"

 

 

(0'

Additionally, it is incumbent upon administrators to place constraints upon
officers’ use Of force. The incorporation of a use Of force continuum in policy is one
technique to curtail unrestrained uses of force by officers. There are numerous use of
force continuums available for a department to utilize in its use of force policy. A
department should critically evaluate a use of force continuum, examining the model to
determine if it easily understandable and easily recalled by Officers under stressfirl
circumstances. It is also necessary for a department to incorporate a statement into the
policy dealing with such issues as Officer age, size, gender, strength, skill, injury, and
exhaustion. A strong affirmative stance by the department will provide Officers with
confidence and support when trying to make decisions in the field (O'Linn, Cotkins,
Collins, & Franscell, 1992).

Due to the fact that the use of force does not occur in a vacuum, it is imperative
that Officers be properly trained in use of force techniques as a separate entity. Many
departments train Officers in defense techniques in a static environment. Recruits never
experience a realistic training scenario. Thus, it is vital that training in the use of force be
as realistic in nature as possible. This allows Officers an Opportunity to evaluate their
own understanding of the department's policies regarding force. Areas of potential
difficulties for Officers in the field include handcuffing suspects, transporting prisoners,
searching suspects, extracting suspects from vehicles, and making arrests following
pursuits (O'Linn et al., 1992).

Not only is it imperative for line officers to be prOperly trained, it is also
important for supervisory personnel to understand and appreciate the training that such

officers receive. Frequently supervisory and administrative personnel fail to continue

53

£01

in]

gr;

with updated hands- on training. The result of this neglect by administrators and
supervisors is not only a loss of technical expertise but a loss of understanding
concerning this fundamental portion Of a field training Officer's (F TO’s) duty. As stated
by O'Linn et a1. (1992), "FTO's must possess a thorough understanding Of current use-of-
force training and policy as it was provided to recent graduates of the police academy,
since new officers look to the PTO for guidance on implementing their new skills" (p.
53).

One potential result of the lack of administrators’ continued training is a failure to
consistently judge instances of the use of force by officers in the field. Without the same
training as field officers, administrators and supervisors may not evaluate a situation in
the same manner as officers who were trained by departmental instructors. The
consequence Of differing evaluation schema can be a dichotomy between rules followed
by line Officers and those adhered to by administrators. This inconsistency leads only to
confusion and morale problems. It may also lead to hesitancy by officers in the field,
public distrust of the department, and increased liability exposure for the organization
and its employees (O'Linn, et al., 1992).

To lessen the risk of liability a periodic review of use of force incidents may
indicate a trend within the organization. Analyzing use of force incidents in terms of
various techniques employed, devices used, individual problems, an indication of officers
misunderstanding policy, lack of confidence, or lack of self-control is prudent for
administrators seeking ways to lessen potential liability risks for the organization.

Officers also require guidance concerning the proper understanding of the

department‘s use of force policy. Officers are required to be split second decision-makers

54

and they depend upon the guidance and supervision of the training officers to provide
them with the confidence and comprehension to act with deliberation and speed. The law
enforcement agency needs to provide its officers with precise and consistent appraisal

during training and evaluation.

Conclusion

In summation, there are myriads of legal and constitutional issues surrounding
police vehicular pursuits. Due to the inherent dangerousness associated with emergency
driving, legal questions have arisen as to what constitutes an emergency situation.
During an actual emergency Officers are allowed by law to disobey traffic signals and
posted speed limits but are nonetheless obliged to drive with due care for the safety of all
other pedestrians and motor vehicles. The courts have been called upon numerous times
to decide precisely what constitutes an emergency situation under which officers are
allowed to disregard traffic signals and speed limits.

The court has ruled that even if a situation proves not to be an actual emergency,
the police are not liable if the responding officer honestly believes the situation to be an
emergency. Here, the court found that an “officer must be involved in emergency use of
the vehicle and the Officer must reasonably feel that an actual emergency exists”
(Kappeler, 1993, p. 99). The Washington Supreme Court had already laid out a similar
ruling when it stated that, “The test for determining whether a publicly owned vehicle is
at a given time responding to an emergency call is not whether an emergency in fact
exists at the time but rather whether the vehicle is being used in responding to an

emergency call. Whether the vehicle is being so used depends upon the nature of the call

55

 

that

ll’fi'

he

he

it

that is received and the situation as then perceived to the mind of the driver” (Lakoduk v.
Qrpgg, 1956, p. 699).

Municipal liability is also Of fundamental importance to police administrators as
the actions of individual officers can have a dramatic impact on the agency as a whole.
It was in this regard that the Supreme Court would, in time, expose municipalities to
unprecedented liability when it ruled that municipalities were not liable as “persons“
under Section 1983. The Court later overturned this decision, stating that municipalities
were liable as persons under Section 1983. It concluded that, “the legislative history of
the act supported a statutory construction that defined “persons” to include
municipalities” (Lewis, 1991, p. 556).

The duties required of police Officers arise from various sources; law, custom,
judicial decisions, and departmental policy. Police Officers have a duty to protect the
citizenry from unnecessary and unreasonable harm while simultaneously pursuing and
apprehending law violators. The legal duty of protection and breach of that duty can
place officers and departments alike at risk for claims of liability and negligence.
Administrators must caution officers to proceed with due care whenever engaging in
pursuit of a violator.

It is evident that the creation of policy with regard to pursuits is a complicated,
analytical process. Administrators and policy makers must be aware of current liability
trends, tort law, federal civil rights law, negligibility requirements, and liability issues.
These legal details must then be incorporated into a concise, available, and
comprehensible policy. Officers must be thoroughly trained on the proper use of force

and the implications for improper conduct in the field. As administrators develop and

56

implement policy they lessen any chances of subsequent liability or negligence suits from

becoming reality.

57

Chapter 4

Methodology

Introduction
This study is an analysis of State Police and State Highway Patrol vehicular

pursuit policies of agencies across the United States. Each policy was analyzed to
determine its comprehensiveness utilizing the administrative and operational factors
defined in Chapter 1 as well as those features found in the Standard Policy. As stated in
Chapter 1, the Standard Policy was created through the use of previous academic

research, legal suits, and the written pursuit policies of the Minnesota State Police,
Califonria Highway Patrol, and Connecticut State Police. A factor analysis technique

was utilized to determine which factors in each policy contribute most to the overall
dangerousness of the pursuit. In addition, legislative rulings on issues surrounding police

vehicular pursuits were also examined as they pertain to State Police and State Highway

Patrol agencies across the nation.

Research Questions

For the purpose of this study there were two major research questions being
asked. The researcher was asking how complete are the pursuit policies of each State

Police and State Highway Patrol agency as judged against the Standard Policy? In

addition, the researcher was interested in which elements each agency identifies as the
most important with regard to the written pursuit policy. Here the researcher is asking,

which elements have been identified as important by State Police and State Highway

Patrol agencies through inclusion in their written vehicular pursuit policies?

58

F_act_or§
Various factors related to police pursuits were identified in Chapter 1. These

factors were divided into Administrative and Operational factors based upon the function
of each respective element.

Administrative Factors refer to those facets of policy that address internal
regulatory parameters surrounding the dynamics found in internal and external demands
placed on the agency. Operational factors refer to those actions, decisions, and
considerations officers make prior to and during the course of a pursuit. These

administrative and operational factors were utilized to address the research question of

inclusion of elements pertaining to the dangerousness of a pursuit.

Definitions
Due to the fact that there exist many different definitions of police pursuits it is,

perhaps, wise to provide a few working definitions of a pursuit utilized by researchers in

the past. Alpert (1987) has defined a police vehicular pursuit as:

“an active attempt by a law enforcement Officer operating a vehicle with
emergency equipment to apprehend a suspected law violator in a motor vehicle,
when the driver of the vehicle attempts to avoid apprehension” (p. 299).

In a similar tone, Alpert and Fridell (1992) have defined a vehicular pursuit as:
“the driver ofa vehicle is aware that an Officer driving a police vehicle with

emergency lights and siren is attempting to apprehend him or her and the driver of
this vehicle attempts to avoid apprehension by increasing speed or taking other

evasive actions or refirses to stop” (p. 124).

Some consensual elements can be Observed in the two definitions. However, each

could be coupled to provide a more thorough definition. Therefore, a more inclusive

definition is preferable. For the purpose of this study the definition provided in the

59

(‘2‘)

Michigan Pursuit Driving Research and Training Manual (1986) was used to

operationalize the term pursuit. The Michigan Pursuit Driving Research and Training

Manual defines pursuit as:

“An event involving one or more peace officers attempting to apprehend a suspect

in a motor vehicle, while the suspect is trying to avoid capture using high speed
driving or other evasive tactics such a driving off a highway, making sudden or

unexpected turning movements, or maintaining a legal speed, but willfirlly failing
to yield to the Officers’ signal to stop” (1986, p. 2).

In addition, as detailed in Chapter 1, the term “policy” was operationalized

according to the definition of Nicolaidis and Donner (1960),

“Policy is a rule for action, manifesting or clarifying Specific organizational goals,
Objectives, values or ideals and often prescribing the obligatory or most desirable
ways and means for their accomplishment. Such a rule for action established for
the purpose of framing, guiding, or directing organizational activities including

decision-making intends to provide relative stability, consistency, uniformity and
continuity in the operations Of the organization” (p. 74).

Design
Policy Analysis & Policy Standards

This study proposes to examine the melange of variables inherent in police
vehicular pursuits of State Police and State Highway Patrol agencies across the United
States for the 1990’s. The chiefs, directors, or superintendents of each State Police and
State Highway Patrol agency in the United States were contacted via mail with a request
for their departmental vehicular pursuit policy. A copy of the letter can be viewed in

Appendix C at the end of this proposal. After the initial contact via US. mail the heads
of each organization were contacted with a follow-up telephone call to reiterate the
researcher’s request for copies of the pursuit policies. Each agency was also mailed a

follow-up letter of thanks upon receipt of their respective pursuit policy.

60

is

185:

C0

ha

.11

It

These policies were compared against the Standard Policy for comprehensiveness
and inclusion of the many administrative and operational factors discussed in Chapter 1.
As stated earlier, the policy standard was created through a synthesis Of previous
research, legal suits, and the California Highway Patrol, Minnesota State Police, and
Connecticut State Police pursuit policies. These policies were selected based on the fact
that they have been tested in the field and they have withstood legislative and legal
scrutiny. The legislature of each respective state has passed laws regarding what a
pursuit policy should include to decrease liability for each agency. Thus, it is believed
that the policies from these three states represent the best, most inclusive and complete
pursuit policies in the nation. It was also of interest to determine whether agencies

adhere to recent legal rulings and include such decisions in the pursuit policies.

Additionally, interests include whether considerations of liability and negligence claims

are noted in the actual policy used to train recruits.

Standard Polig/

The policies of the California Highway Patrol, Minnesota State Police, and

Connecticut State Police along with legal suits, and previous academic research were

utilized in an effort to detail a modal profile of a typical pursuit policy characteristic of

State Police and State Highway Patrol agencies. The Standard will detail as many

aspects of a typical police pursuit policy as possible. As stated earlier the Administrative

and Operational elements included in the Standard can be seen in Chapter 1.

Grounding the new policy in practical as well as scholarly applications will allow

the researcher to go beyond the consideration of situational circumstances in which

61

pur
fill
pol

110.

127'."

pursuits can occur by offering protections for the agency and officer from unsubstantiated
claims of liability and negligence. The new policy will build on established, practical
policies, and use prior academic research to strengthen and exceed the limits of current

policy. The Standard Policy can be seen in Appendix B.

Population

The population used in this study was all of the 49 State Police and State
Highway Patrol agencies as well as the Honolulu Police Department. The Honolulu
Police were selected to represent the State of Hawai’i due to the fact that this state does

not have an actual state police or highway patrol agency.

Factor AnLlysis

A factor analysis technique was also utilized to analyze each policy for the most
prominent elements included in each vehicular pursuit policy. Each of the administrative
and Operational factors described in Chapter 1 were given a numerical weight. These 17
administrative and 21 operational factors were part of a factor analysis to determine
which factors were deemed most important by the State Police and State Highway Patrol
agencies by inclusion in their written pursuit policies. Dangerousness was
operationalized as the occurrence of any accidents, injuries, fatalities, and property
damage. The factors receiving the highest loading on the various elements serving the
function of increasing dangerousness of a pursuit were considered as having the greatest

impact on the potential peril of a police pursuit.

62

r—<
(D
f

1..

P01

Sh

l2

Le 'slative Anal sis

Once the analysis of the actual pursuit policies was completed, the Standard
Policy developed, legislative decisions pertaining to pursuits were examined for each
State Police and State Highway Patrol agency. Many of these documents were available
directly on-line. The States of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Connecticut maintain
legislative sites where congressional records, court documents, and recent decisions can
be located by the general public. When official documents were not available on-line
they were retrieved from the library or a request was made via mail, e-mail, or telephone
to the respective congressional district liaison for relevant materials.

These legislative decisions were analyzed in an effort to determine if police
pursuit policies adhere to recent congressional decisions and to detect if these decisions
reflect the many and varied circumstances that exist in pursuit events. Legislative
decisions were also examined in a search for any effects of negative outcomes in recent
police pursuits such as the occurrence of accidents, injuries, or fatalities. The serious
nature of negligence and liability claims brought by the general public for accidents,
injuries, and fatalities associated with police vehicular pursuits is never so evident as in
an examination of legislative and court decisions and the monetary compensation
awarded citizens for careless police actions during a pursuit. If police administrators and
policy makers remain up to date on recent decisions, adjustments to existing policy
should have been made to account for liability and negligent protection for both the

officer and department.

63

U
r:

RI

[4.1

Chapter 5

State Results

Data, in the form of written pursuit policies from each State Police and State
Highway Patrol agency in the nation was Obtained primarily through the use of a written
letter addressed to each agency’s commanding Officer. After the initial mailing a period
of four weeks was allowed to pass before a reminder letter was mailed to the agencies
failing to respond to the initial inquiry. After the reminder letter another four-week time
span was allowed to pass before each agency failing to respond was telephoned. Several
agencies telephoned the researcher with questions pertaining to data distribution and
requests for copies of the final executive summary. Any agency voicing any reservations
concerning the confidentiality of their pursuit policy was placated by the assertion that all
data and results would only be reported in the aggregate. No agency would be singled
out for mention in the final write-up and no policy would be distributed publicly or
placed into the text of the dissertation. E-mail was also utilized to contact agencies from
differing regions of the country. This tool served the project well as agencies could be
contacted quickly with return messages Often received after only a few minutes or hours.
Regular US. mail required a much lengthier amount of time.

After the initial mailing, two reminder letters were required to Obtain the needed
policies. A total of 47 written pursuit policies were received, amounting to a 94% retum
rate. Only three agencies failed to respond to the queries initiated through us. mail, e-
mail, and telephone. One state agency commander stated that the department was unable,

by law, to relinquish a copy of the vehicular pursuit policy. The commanding officer of

lih

ICE

._.l I.

it]

(I)
(Y

the agency asserted that the state legislature had placed into law a bill limiting the amount
of policy information the agencies could relinquish to the public. While this information
might be available via the Freedom of Information Act of ( l 974) three reference

librarians at two major Research I institutions stated that it was the responsibility of the
researcher to Obtain the needed information. In essence, it was the researcher’s
responsibility to travel to both locations, locate the policies within the bureaucratic
structure Of the organization and OOpy what was allowed. Logistics and monetary

considerations negated any further consideration of this tactic.

findings

Numerous elements contained within the Standard Policy raise pertinent questions
regarding 4‘‘1 and 14‘h Amendment issues. Elements contributing, or potentially
contributing, to the comparative safety of the general public, the pursuing Officer, and
even the suspect need to be studied and appreciated for their inherent dangerousness.

The 4‘“ Amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized” (Kappeler, 1993, p. 39). The Administrative element of Seriousness
of Offense raises important 4‘h issues, as does the Operational element of Initiate Pursuit.

The 14“1 Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State

wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

65

pi

Pt

.11

A~

\

.. n.1n...\.11}\

privileges or immunities Of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws (Kappeler, 1993, p. 39). The
Administrative elements Of Discontinuance of Pursuit, Noncompliance, Role of
Supervisor, and Training raise issues related to the 14‘h Amendment. In addition, the
majority Of the Operational elements relate to the safety of the overall pursuit, therefore,
they raise important 14‘h Amendment issues for the agency, Officer, suspect, and general
public.

Upon analysis of the policies, the frequency and percentage of inclusion of the
Administrative and Operational elements was tabulated. The frequency and percent of
inclusion of each Administrative and Operational element in the vehicular pursuit

policies of the State Police and State Highway Patrol agencies can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4
Administrative and Qperationglzelements included in State Police and State Highway

Patrol agency vehicular pursuit policies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Element # % I # %
Including Includin Including j Including?

Administrative Operational 1 j j
1. Mission 38 80.85 1. Initiate Pursuit 1 41 87.23
Statement/Purpose I 7
_2_. Safety Caveat 47 100 2. Notify Dispatch [ 43 j 91.49j
3. Discontinuance of 41 87.23 3. Specifics of Pursuit L 39 82.98
3‘13!“ Conditions j ‘l
4. Noncompliance 16 34.04 4. Provisions for Lights & I 44 I 93.627
__ Sirens

5. Definitions 40 85.11 5. Tactical Considerations 1 4o 1 85.11j
6. Authority to Pursue 26 55.32 6. Jurisdictional I 39 82.98
__ Considerations [ 7
7. Statutory Duties 33 70.21 7. Pursuit Driving 1 40 I 85.117
8. Case Law 2 4.26 8. Caravaning I 44 I 93.62
References 7

9. Pursuit Restrictions 45 95.74 9. Intentional Collisions ] 30 I 63 83j

 

 

 

 

66

 

1 (1

1|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is important to note that the vast majority of state agency’s pursuit policies

contained references to safety. The Administrative element of Safety Caveat was

contained within the text of 47 ( 100%) of the agencies’ policies. Discontinuance of

Pursuit, which can also relate to the safety of officers, third parties, and suspects, was

included in 41 (87.23%) policies. Pursuit Restrictions, also pertaining to safety related

functions during a vehicular pursuit was included in 45 (95.74%) of the state policies.

Seriousness of Offense, which can pose 4‘h Amendment issues was contained in 40

(85.11%) of the state policies. Finally, Training, which can increase safety during a

pursuit and limit officer and agency liability, was included in only 13 (27.66%). Thus, as

observed in Table 4, the majority of state agencies included these elements in their

departmental vehicular pursuit policy.

When analyzing the Operational elements safety was again the primary

consideration. The elements of Intentional Collisions, Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-

in, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, Roadblocks, and Speed were believed to pose the

most danger to the pursuing officer, suspects, and general public. These factors also pose

67

10. Seriousness of 40 85.11 10. Shooting from Vehicle 29 61.70 I

offense

11. Role ofDispatch 37 78.72 11. Unmarked 37 78.72 I
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of 35 74.47 12. Boxing-in 12 25.53 I

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor 39 82.98 13. Headig; off/Passing 12 25.53

14. Trainini 13 27.66 14. Paralleligg 12 25.53

15. Supervisor at 14 29.79 15. Roadblocks 36 76.60

Termination Point

16. Report Writing 39 82.98 16. Speed 20 42.55 I

17. Debrieting 14 29.79 17. Passengers 26 55.32_J
18. Tire Deflation Devices 30 63.83 I
19. OffRoad Pursuit 1 2.13 j
20. Termination of Pursuit 46 4 97.87 j

21. Aerial Assistance 20 I 42.55 J

important 4m and 14th Amendment liability risks for a department. While safety has been
emphasized by the inclusion of the majority of Administrative elements serving to
diminish the potential dangerousness of a pursuit, many Operational elements serving a
similar function failed to be included in many state policies. It was observed that only 30
(63.83%) of the state agencies contained the element of Intentional Collisions in their
pursuit policies. The factor of Shooting from a Vehicle was included in 29 (61.70%) of
the policies. Boxing-in was included in 12 (25.53%) of the state policies. Heading—
Off/Passing was contained in 12 (25.53%) of the policies. Paralleling was included in 12
(25.53%) of the policies, Roadblocks was contained in 36 (76.60%) of the policies, and
Speed was included in 20 (42.55%). Finally, Termination of Pursuit was included in 46

(97.87%) of the state policies.

S_t_at_e_Distribution

Due to agreements with the agencies participating in this study, the results for
individual states are numerically coded to ensure confidentiality. For ease of display and
to emphasize the importance of some potentially hazardous Operational elements,
Administrative elements are presented first, with Operational elements divided into
contextual and active categories. Frequency tables for individual states can be observed
in Appendix D.

Operational elements were divided into contextual and active categories based
upon the nature of the respective element. Contextual Operational elements were those
factors inherent in the surrounding environment of the pursuit. These elements did not

contain any potentially dangerous forcible stop techniques or driving maneuvers.

68

C0

611

Characteristics of the circumstances surrounding the pursuit such as Initiate Pursuit,
Notify Dispatch, Specifics of Pursuit Conditions, Jurisdictional Considerations,
Unmarked Car/Motorcycle, Passengers, Off Road Pursuit, and Aerial Assistance were all
considered contextual Operational elements. All other Operational elements were
grouped under the active category. These elements contained all forcible stop techniques

and potentially dangerous driving maneuvers.

Administrative Elements

As Table 5 demonstrates, 63.64%, an average of 6.28, of the Administrative
elements were included in the vehicular pursuit policies for the nation as a whole.
Therefore, 36.36%, an average of 10.72, of these elements failed to be included in the
written pursuit policies of the participating agencies. All state agencies share a need to
develop more comprehensive vehicular pursuit policies. If a total of 63.64%, an average
of 6.28, of the Administrative elements are included in the policies that leaves 36.36% of
the elements missing. While the Administrative elements pose no immediate danger to
the general public, officers, or suspects involved in a pursuit, these elements, nonetheless,
serve to bolster an agency’s pursuit policy. Legal issues regarding supervision, training,
and compliance need to be integrated into a written pursuit policy to serve as additional
protection for the department, officer, suspect, and general public.

In the Pacific region 55.29% of the Administrative elements were included in the
state pursuit policies, despite the fact that, 44.71% of the elements failed to be included in
the written policies of the agencies in this region. An average of 2.76 Administrative

elements were included in the vehicular pursuit policies of state agencies in this region.

69

it

111

1‘
Q
A

\.1.4« .1..cn\i1. tht..\.

3. .4...\ 1451.51,?

\ . 1...

tum..\.1t \ .. 4.. ~1\ 1i..\ ii. .t...”,.1\ n1.l.\ .1114. \

States in the Northeast region included 67.91%, or an average of 7.47, of the
Administrative elements in their pursuit policies. Again, 32.09% of the elements were
missing from these states’ policies.

Agencies in the Mountain region included 63.03%, an average of 5.29, of the
Administrative elements in their written vehicular pursuit policies but failed to include
36.97% of the elements. Agencies in the South region included 63.64%, an average of
7.0, of the Administrative elements but failed to include 36.36% of the elements. Mid-
West agencies included 68.33%, an average of 8.88, of the Administrative elements but

failed to include 31.67% of the elements.

Table 5

Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies of State Police and

State Highway Patrolggencies on a regional basis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region
Administrative Pacific North East Mountain South Mid-West Total
Elements
1. Mission 2 9 6 9 12 38
Statement/Purpose
2. Safety Caveat 5 ll 7 11 13 47
3. Discontinuance of 4 9 6 ll 11 41
Pursuit
4. Noncompliance l 4 3 4 4 l6
5. Definitions 5 8 6 10 ll 40
6. Authority to Pursue 2 8 2 7 7 26
iStatutory Duties 2 10 3 9 9 33
8. Case Law 0 l 0 0 l 2
IBLferences
flursuit Restrictions 5 1 1 10 12 45
10. Seriousness of 1 10 6 10 13 40
rfoense
Mole of Dispatch 4 9 5 8 1 l 37
12. Requirement of 3 9 5 7 11 35
Supervisor to Monitor
13. Role of Supervisor 4 10 6 8 1 l 39
Jilra'LninL 2 2 2 3 4 13

 

 

 

7O

l2

lm‘

\A‘li.

si\..1\nl~\)«..

13-11;.17 giftfl

allx.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. Supervisor at l l 3 2 7 14
Termination Point

16. Report Writini 4 10 5 8 12 39
17. Debnefmi 2 5 3 2 2 14
Total 47 127 90 119 151 534
Percerlage 55.29% 67.91% 63.03% 63.64% 68.33% 63.64%
Mean 2.76 7.47 5.29 7.0 8.88 6.28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_S_t_ates of the gagific Region

The percent of inclusion of individual states in the Pacific region can be seen in

Table 6.

Table 6
Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuitnlolicies of individual states in

the Pacific region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State
[Pacific Region]
Administrative Elements 1 2 3 4 5
1. Mission 0 O 1 1 O
Statement/Purpose
2. Safety Caveat 1 1 l 1 l
3. Discontinuance of 1 l 1 0 1
Pursuit
4. Noncompliance 0 0 l 0 0
5. Definitions 1 1 l 1 1
6. Authority to Pursue 1 0 0 1 0
7. Statutoy Duties l 0 1 0 0
8. Case Law References 0 0 0 0 0
i Pursuit Restrictions 1 1 l 1 l
10. Seriousness of l 0 0 0 0
fiense
A Role of Dispatch l 1 1 0 1
12. Requirement of 1 l 1 0 0
flcwisor to Monitor
iRoIe of Supervisor 1 1 1 0 1
14. Training 1 0 0 0 l
15. Supervisor at 0 1 0 0 0
Llcgnination Point
16. Report WritinL 1 1 1 0 1
l7. Debriefing 0 0 l 0 1
Total 1 2 9 12 5 9

 

 

 

71

IE'C
Ad
rm
1 \.

lil‘

 

 

Percentage 70.59% 52.94% 70.59% 29.41% 52.94%
Total Mean 2.76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Percentage 55.29%

 

 

Administratively State 1 fared fairly well. This agency’s pursuit policy was
recently revised and finalized February 1, 2000 and contains most, 70.59%, of the
Administrative elements. Noncompliance was the only glaring omission in this agency’s
pursuit policy. This element is important due to the fact that officers need to be aware of
any consequences of a failure to follow departmental policy. This element has also been
utilized in courts by attorneys in efforts to substantiate negligence and liability claims
(Tucker v. Branford, 1988).

Although State Two’s pursuit policy, revised May 1998, does contain an initial
reference to safety in the Administrative Safety Caveat, the policy, nonetheless, fails to
provide any reference to Training. The proper training of patrol officers in the safety of
various pursuit tactics is imperative if an agency is to avoid claims of negligence and
liability. There have been numerous liability and negligence suits brought against an
agency that might have been avoided if an officer would have received supplemental
training in the safest course of action during a vehicular pursuit (Fielder v. Stonack,

Jenkins Township of Neptune Police Dfiepartmentgand Townslmlof Neptune, 1995;

 

Nelson v. Thongs, 1996; Coggll v. Town of Pinedale, 1987).

The pursuit policy of State Three, revised February 20, 1998, was found to be
reasonably comprehensive. Administratively there were two noticeable omissions;
Seriousness of Offense and Training. Both of these factors have been the impetus for
legal action in claims of negligence and liability (Dav v. State of Utah, 1999; Weaver v.

The State of California, 1998; fine of Connecticut v. Harmon, 2000; Travis v. The Cm

 

72

01‘

‘.- )

I957

Ir—i

I If.)

 

of Mesquite Texag, 1992). Officers need to be aware of what constitutes an appropriate
offense for which a hi gh-speed vehicular pursuit is warranted. In addition, Training only
serves to enhance officer discretion when deciding upon the most decisive course of
action during involvement in a pursuit.

Administratively, the policy of State Four, revised August 7, 2000, is missing
some pertinent elements. Discontinuance of Pursuit, Seriousness of Offense, Role of
Supervisor, and Training failed to be included in the agency’s vehicular pursuit policy.
While Administrative elements might act primarily as agency protection in legal suits,
they nonetheless alert officers to factors the agency finds important in the proper course
of action during a high-speed pursuit. The missing elements have been demonstrated in
court to act as important considerations to the safety of the pursuit (Sciuto v. State of
Connecticut, 1999; DeWald v. State of Wyoming, 1986; Tucker v. The Town of
Eran_fc1_rc_l, 1998; State of Connecticut v. Harmon, 2000).

The policy of State Five, written in the year 2000, fares well Administratively.
The only glaring omission being a failure to include the element of Seriousness of
Offense. Nonetheless, this single omission has been identified as important in legal suits
involving claims of negligence and liability (City of Dallas v. Garcia, 1998; Travis v.
The City of Mesquite Texas, 1992; Weaver v. The State of CLlifomia, 1998; ngy

State of Utah, 1999). Officers need discretionary guidance to determine when it is

 

appropriate to initiate a hi gh-speed pursuit for certain offenses.

73

~H44~tlr .VL~\...~ttw

R‘ln5;;.tl.\.1.\..\.\.18.\11l 01.1141 .\. ..

.\;l\11\l.l\l

N 1

1\ .11\.01\ 11.\ .lis

 

States of the Mounlgin Region

Table 7 displays the Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit

policies of states in the Mountain region.

Table 7

Administrative element; included in the vehicuLa; pursuit golicies of individugl states in

the Moungin region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State
[Mountain Region]
Administrative Elements 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Mission 1 l 1 1 1 l 0
Statement/Purpose
2. Safety Caveat 1 1 1 1 1 l 1
3. Discontinuance of l 1 1 l l 1
Pursuit
4. Noncompliance 0 l 0 1 0 1 0
5. Definitions 1 1 l 1 1 l 0
6. Authority to Pursue 1 O 0 1 0 0 0
7. Statutog Duties 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
8. Case Law References 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
9. Pursuit Restrictions l l 1 l l 1 l
10. Seriousness of 1 1 l 1 1 I 0
Offense
11. Role of Dispatch l 1 l 1 1 0
12. Requirement of 1 l 1 l 0 l 0
Supervisor to Monitor
13. Role of Sgervisor l l 1 1 l 1 0
14. Training - l 0 0 0 0 0
15. Supervisor at 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Lintimation Point
&. Report Writing 1 1 1 0 l l 0
l7. Debriegg 1 0 0 0 l l 0
,1ng 14 11 10 13 10 15 2
Percentage 82.35 64.7l 58.82 76.47 58.82 88.24 11.76
LMean 5.29
LIgal Percentage 63.03

 

 

The vehicular pursuit policy of State Six, written in January 26, 1996, contains
nearly all of the Administrative elements included in the Standard Policy.

Noncompliance, Statutory Duties, and Case Law References were the only

74

 

Administrative elements not included in the pursuit policy. While it is important for a
fully comprehensive policy to contain each element of the Standard Policy, the failure of
an agency to include Statutory Duties or Case Law References will not be cause for a
plaintiff to bring a claim of negligence or liability against the department or an officer.
The element of Noncompliance is fairly important and should be contained, as officers
need to realize the consequences of a failure to comply with policy and departmental
regulations. This element has been utilized in courts of law as a springboard to
substantiate claims of liability and negligence of an officer and agency (Tucker v.
_B_ran_fo_rg, 1998).

Administratively, the pursuit policy of State Seven, revised March 1995, was
found to be very inclusive. The primary omission discovered in the policy was a failure
to include the factor of Training. This element is important due to the fact that it has
been utilized in courts of law in efforts to substantiate suits alleging negligence and
liability (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999). While this policy states the consequences
for an officer’s noncompliance with policy guidelines there is no mention of the prOper
training officers will undergo to ensure this compliance.

The pursuit policy of State Eight, revised August 1, 1995, was found to be
reasonably complete Administratively. The omissions of Case Law References, Report
Writing, and Debriefing were not considered conspicuous oversights. These elements,
While providing for a more comprehensive pursuit policy, do not contribute to pursuit
safety. An agency would not find itself involved in legal action simply for disregarding
these three elements. However, the failure to include the element of Training and

Noncompliance in the policy was considered a large oversight. As stated previously,

75

In

the:

of:

p11

1g:

CO]

I?"

 

Training allows officers to recognize the seriousness of the pursuit condition and allows
them to know when and in what methods they will be trained for pursuit duties. A failure
of an agency to properly train officers in the appropriate conduct during the course of a
pursuit can lead to claims of negligence and liability (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut,
1999). Additionally, a failure to adequately train officers can increase the dangerousness
of a pursuit and can pose unneeded risks to officers, suspects, and the general public.

Administratively, the pursuit policy of State Nine, revised April 6, 1999, was
missing one necessary component: Training. As sated in the analysis of the previous
state, it is necessary for an agency to include the element of Training in their pursuit
policy. It allows officers to understand precisely when and under what circumstances
they will be trained for the proper conduct of a pursuit. Additionally, a failure of an
agency to include this element can aid prosecuting attorneys in negligence suits as they
can insinuate a lack of proper training in the area of pursuits. This places the agency in
an increased risk of liability and negligence claims if tragedy should occur during the
course of a pursuit (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999).

The pursuit policy of State Ten, revised December 1, 1997, failed to include the
Administrative elements of Noncompliance, Authority to Pursue, Statutory Duties, Case
Law References, Requirement of Supervisor to Monitor, Training, and Supervisor at
Termination Point. The most glaring omissions in the policy were those items relating to
the safety of the officer, suspect, or innocent bystanders. As stated previously, it is the
duty of the officer to protect the public, not place them in unreasonable harm. Therefore,
Noncompliance, Requirement of Supervisor to Monitor, and Training were considered

the most serious omissions. The failure of an officer to follow the departmental policy

76

pit

oil

[11

(‘P

precisely can lead to negligence suits and can unnecessarily increase the dangerousness
of a police vehicular pursuit. In addition, the failure of an agency to properly train
officers in the proper course of action during a high-speed pursuit can place the officer

and the agency at risk for claims of negligence and liability (Sciuto v. State of

 

Connecticut, 1999). Finally, the failure of a supervisor to properly monitor the actions of
the pursuing officer during a pursuit can place the officer in an unnecessarily stressfill
position of relying solely upon discretionary powers to decide the most prudent course of
action during the pursuit. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to monitor the actions of the
both the officer and the suspect and to determine if and when a pursuit should be called
off.

The policy of State Eleven, revised February 9, 2000, was, by far, the most
comprehensive of all policies analyzed. Administratively the only elements missing were
Authority to Pursue, and Case Law References. As stated earlier, the omission of these
two elements will not increase the safety of a pursuit, nor will they be cause for legal
action against a department or an individual officer. However, they do relate to the
overall comprehensiveness of a written vehicular pursuit policy and, therefore, should be
included.

The vehicular pursuit policy of State Twelve, revised June 12, 2000, was one of
the least comprehensive policies analyzed. The Administrative elements of Safety
Caveat and Pursuit Restrictions were the only elements included in the policy. While it is
essential to establish some reference to safety, the Administrative Safety Caveat cannot

stand alone on this factor. This policy states a concern for public safety and the well-

77

being of the pursuing officer in the form of Safety Caveat and Pursuit Restrictions but

fails to include any reference to training or supervision that also serve a safety function.

Stgtes of the South Region
Table 8 displays the Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit

policies of states in the South region.

Table 8

Administrative elements included in the vehicular;pursuit policies of individual states in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the South region.
State
[South Region]
Administrative Elements 13 47 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1. Mission 1 0 l O l 1 1 l l 1 l
Statement/Puglose
2. Safety Caveat l 1 1 l 1 l l 1 l l
3. Discontinuance of l 1 1 1 I l l l l l l
Pursuit
4. Noncompliance 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
5. Definitions 1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 1 1 0
6. Authority to Pursue 0 l 1 1 O 1 1 1 0 1 O
7. Statutory Duties 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
8. Case Law References 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9. Pursuit Restrictions l 1 1 l 1 1 0 l l l l
10. Seriousness of l l 1 1 l l 1 l 1 l 0
Offense
11. Role of Digratch 1 l l l l l 0 1 l 0
12. Requirement of 0 l 1 0 l l 1 l 0 l 0
S ervisor to Monitor
i3: Role of Supervisor 1 l l l 1 1 0 1 1 0
14. Training 0 1 0 0 1 0 l 0
'11‘5. Supervisor at 0 0 1 0 0 O 1 O 0 0 0
emuna '
TRepgftnigfiltit o 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
l—— E
ell Debriegg O 0 l 0 0 1 0 0 O 0
[Eta] 9 12 14 9 11 13 10 11 12 13 5
Percentage 52. 70. 82. 52. 64. 76. 58. . 70. 76. 29
L 94 59 35 94 71 47 82 71 59 47 41
I_M_ean 7 .0
[Mal Pencil—age 63,

 

78

 

V JMIJFIIIIIII

The Administrative elements serving a function of lessening departmental liability
failing to be included in the pursuit policy of State Thirteen, revised October 1, 1991,
were Noncompliance, Requirement of Supervisor to Monitor, and Training. Any
comprehensive pursuit policy should contain these three elements due to the fact that they
pertain to officer, suspect, and public safety. The failure of the department to include
these elements in their pursuit policy increases the risks of liability and negligence suits
(Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999; DeWald v. State of Wyoming, 1986; Tucker v.
The Town of Branford, 1998; State of Connecticut v. Harmon, 2000).

The pursuit policy of State Forty-Seven was considered fairly comprehensive.
The only Administrative element potentially pertaining to officer or departmental liability
was Training. This element should always be included in a vehicular pursuit policy as
officers should be aware of the need for supplemental training in pursuit techniques. The
inclusion of this element in the text of the policy also provides the agency with the added
safety measures of a more comprehensive policy. The element of Training has been
utilized in court to substantiate negligence claims (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999;
DeWald v. S_tate of Wg/oming, 1986; Tucker v. The Town of Branford, 1998; m
Connecticut v. Harmon, 2000).

The pursuit policy of State Fourteen, revised February 1, 1996, was found to be
reasonably comprehensive. Administratively, the only missing elements were
Noncompliance, Case Law References, and Training. The element of Case Law
References might provide for a more comprehensive policy for an agency but, ultimately,

elements pertaining to safety are the causes for negligence and liability suits. There have

79

been numerous liability and negligence suits brought against an agency due to the failure
of an agency to properly train officers and ensure compliance with departmental policy

(Fielder v. Stonack JenkinsLTowpghip of Neptune Police DepartmentLand Townphip of

 

Npptpnp, 1995; Nelson v. Thorp_a_s_, 1996; Corvell v. Town of Pinecgrlg, 1987).

The pursuit policy of State Fifteen, revised August 27, 1998, was also found to be
reasonably comprehensive. The Administrative factors of Noncompliance, Requirement
of Supervisor to Monitor, and Role of Supervisor failed to be included in the pursuit
policy. There have been numerous liability and negligence suits brought against agencies
due to the failure to train or supervise officers (Fielder v. Stonack, Jenkins, Township of
Neptune Police DepartmentLpnd Townshp) of Neptune, 1995; Nelson v. Thomas, 1996;
Corvell v. Town of Pinedile, 1987; City of Cpnton v. Harris, 1989). The failure of an
agency to include these Administrative elements places the department at a much greater
risk of liability suits.

The Administrative elements serving a basic safety function failing to be included
in the policy of State Sixteen, revised March 1, 2000, were Noncompliance and Training.
An agency failing to include these safety elements is left open for suits alleging
negligence or liability. In addition, the failure of an agency to properly train officers in
proper pursuit procedures have been used in legal maneuvers in many suits alleging

negligence or liability (Fielder v. Stonack J enkins, Town_ship of Neptune Police

 

Department, and Towrpihpr of Neptune, 1995; Nelson v. Thomg, 1996; Coryell v. Town

of Pinedale, 1987; City of Cgton v. m, 1989).

 

The policy of State Seventeen, revised February 9, 1999 was found to be fairly

comprehensive. The Administrative elements pertaining directly to liability that failed to

80

be

be included were Noncompliance and Training. As iterated previously, the failure of an
agency to include these two elements has been used in courts of law in efforts to
substantiate claims of negligence and liability (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut. 1999;

Fielder v. Stonack Jenkins Township of Neptune Police Department, and Townshpr of

 

PM, 1995; Nelson v. Thompp, 1996). Therefore, an agency, endeavoring to protect
its own interests, must include in the written policy, any elements relating to the safety of
the officer, suspect, and general public.

The pursuit policy of State Eighteen failed to include the Administrative elements,
serving a safety or liability function, of Noncompliance, Pursuit Restrictions, and Role of
Dispatch. These three elements should be included in a pursuit policy as added
protection against liability suits and as added safety measures for the general public. The
failure of an agency to set restrictions on pursuits places the officer in the position of
relying exclusively on discretion during the course of a vehicular pursuit. With little
guidance the officer is forced to rely on individual discretion or the supervisory
capabilities of the commanding officer during the pursuit. This is an added liability
burden for the agency and the officer.

The pursuit policy of State Nineteen, revised October 12, 1999, failed to include
the Administrative elements of Role of Dispatch, Role of Supervisor, and Training.
There have been numerous liability and negligence suits brought against an agency due to

the failure of an agency to train or supervise officers (Fielder v. Stonack Jenkins

 

Township of Neptune Police Department, and Townphip of Neptune. 1995; Nelson v.

Thomas, 1996; Copvell v. Town of Pinedale, 1987; City of Canton v. Harris, 1989). In

 

addition, the dispatch officer must know their responsibilities during the course of a

81

 

vehicular pursuit as they are often the ones notifying the commanding officer, who, in
turn, generally supervises the pursuing officer. This serves the dual purpose of alerting
the supervisor to the pursuit and of assisting in communications during the actual pursuit.

The pursuit policy of State Twenty, revised February 26, 1996, was found to be
quite comprehensive in the Administrative elements serving functions of safety and
liability. The only element missing which could possibly serve a safety related function
was Requirement of Supervisor to Monitor. Some state agencies allow the pursuing
officer to control the course of the pursuit, with the dispatch assisting in communications
between pursuing officers or jurisdictions as the case arises. However, for purposes of
liability a supervising officer needs to be alerted to the initiation of a pursuit and should
maintain contact with the ongoing status of the pursuit. This provides the pursuing
officer with the added assistance of a supervisor to advise on the most appropriate course
of action during the pursuit itself.

Administratively, the pursuit policy of State Twenty-One, revised September 30,
1999, was found to be relatively comprehensive. The elements of Noncompliance and
Training failed to be included in the policy, however. These elements are fairly
important and should be contained, as officers need to be aware of their training
obligations and they should realize the consequences of a failure to comply with policy
and departmental regulations. The elements have been utilized in courts of law as
springboards to substantiate claims of liability and negligence of an officer and agency
(Tucker v. Branford, 1998). Apart from this omission the policy contained all of the

Administrative elements relating to safety.

82

 

The pursuit policy of State Twenty-Two, written January 1, 1986, was found to be

the least comprehensive policy analyzed. None of the important Administrative elements

serving to lessen departmental liability were included in the policy. Administrative
elements such as Training, Seriousness of Offense, or Requirement of Supervisor to
Monitor raise important 4th and 14th Amendment issues. Officers need to be aware of
their duty to apprehend a fleeing suspect while simultaneously guarding the welfare of

the general public. While the failure to include most Administrative elements will not

jeopardize an agency legally, it is, nonetheless, important to include any pertinent

elements to better serve the public’s interest. A comprehensive policy can only mean a

safer pursuit.

States of the Northeast Region

Table 9 displays the Administrative elements contained in the vehicular pursuit

policies of the states in the Northeast region.

Table 9

 

Administrative elements included in the vehiculgrpogursuit policies of individual states in

the Northeast rggion.

 

State
[Northeast Region]

 

Administrative Elements

24

25

26

27

28

29

31

 

 

1. Mission
Statement/Purpose

0

l

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L2; Safety Caveat

l

1

pm

 

 

3. Discontinuance of
Pursuit

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Noncompliance

 

 

 

 

5. Definitions

HO

 

 

 

 

6. Authority to Pursue

 

 

 

 

O—‘O

 

~00

 

 

 

punt-l.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

taco

..——-4---‘P"'— "

ooO

 

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Statutory Duties 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
8. Case Law References 1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
9. Pursuit Restrictions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
10. Seriousness of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 I
Offense
11. Role ofDispatch 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 I
12. Requirement of 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 I
Supervisor to Monitor
13. Role ofSupervisor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 I
14. Training: 0 1 0 0 0 o 0 I
15. Supervisor at l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Termination Point
16. Remrt Writing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
17. Debriefing 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Total 15 13 14 11 8 14 13 11 6 9 13 I

Percentage 88. 76. 82. 64. 47. 82. 76. 64. 35. 52. 76. I

24 47 35 71 06 35 47 71 29 94 47

Mean 7.4 I

7
Total Percentage 67. L 1
91

 

 

 

 

As can be seen in Table 10 the only Administrative elements missing from the

pursuit policy of State Twenty-Three were Mission Statement/Purpose and Training.

This policy was found to rely heavily on Administrative components. However, the
failure of an agency to properly train officers in the prOper course of action during a high-
speed pursuit can place the officer and the agency at risk for claims of negligence and
liability (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999). In a court of law an attorney can use the
failure of an agency to include Training in its written policy as an indication that this
element is neglected in all patrol officers.

The pursuit policy of State Twenty-Four failed to include only one Administrative
element serving a safety function. The Training element was not included in this
vehicular pursuit policy. Training allows officers to recognize the seriousness of the
pursuit condition and allows them to know when and in what methods they will be

trained for pursuit duties. A failure of an agency to properly train officers in appropriate

84

 

conduct during the course of a pursuit can lead to claims of negligence and liability
(Sciuto v. Stgte of Connecticut. 1999).

The vehicular pursuit policy of State Twenty-Five, revised July 2, 1997, failed to
include only one Administrative element that could potentially serve a safety function:
Noncompliance. Officers should always be aware of any consequences associated with a
failure to comply with departmental regulations. This element has been utilized in courts
of law to substantiate claims of liability and negligence of an officer and agency (nglger
v. Branford, 1998).

Administratively, there were two elements not included in the policy of State
Twenty-Six, revised September 14, 1998, which could serve a safety function.
Noncompliance and Training failed to be included in the policy. The failure of an agency
to properly train officers in the appropriate conduct during the course of a pursuit can
lead to claims of negligence and liability (Canton v. Harris, 1989; Sciuto v. State of
Connecticut, 1999). In addition, the failure of an officer to follow the departmental
policy can lead to negligence suits and can unnecessarily increase the dangerousness of a
police vehicular pursuit (C154 of Pinellgsgarfik v. Brown, 1992). This, in turn increases
the potential for additional legal suits.

The vehicular pursuit policy of State Twenty-Seven, revised January 31, 2001, did
not include the Administrative elements of Noncompliance and Training, which could
potentially impact upon the safety of a pursuit. The failure of an agency to properly train
officers in pursuit conduct can lead to claims of negligence and liability (Sciuto v. State

of Connecticut, 1999; Canton v. Harris, 1989). In addition, the failure of an officer to

 

follow the departmental policy can lead to negligence suits and can unnecessarily

85

 

increase the dangerousness of a police vehicular pursuit. This, in turn increases the
potential for additional legal suits.

The vehicular pursuit policy of State Twenty-Eight, revised December 1, 2000,
failed to include the safety element of Requirement of Supervisor to Monitor. The
importance of proper monitoring during the course of a pursuit is important for safety
considerations and to assist the pursuing officer in following departmental policy.
Attorneys have utilized this element in court in attempts to substantiate claims of
negligence and liability (Tucker v. The Town of Branford, 1998).

The only Administrative element missing from the vehicular pursuit policy of
State Twenty-Nine, revised April 7, 1999, pertaining to safety was Training. There have
been numerous liability and negligence suits brought against an agency due to the failure
of an agency to properly train officers (Fielder v. Stonack. J enkins, Township of Neptune
Police Department, and Towpglrip of Neptune, 1995; Nelson v. Thomas, 1996; Copyell v.
Town of Pinedp_l_e, 1987). Officers properly trained in pursuit Operations can conduct the
pursuit safely and more efficiently. If tragedy should befall an officer during the course
of a pursuit a comprehensive policy can be a safeguard against legal suits alleging officer
misconduct.

The Administrative elements serving a safety function not included in the
vehicular pursuit policy of State Thirty, revised February 4, 2000, were Discontinuance
of Pursuit, Noncompliance, and Training. These three elements serve a safety-related
function and need to be included in any written pursuit policy as an added measure of

protection for the agency, officer, suspect, and public. These elements have been utilized

86

 

in courts in efforts to substantiate claims of negligence and liability (Sciuto v. State of
Connecticut, 1999; Ciry of Dflgs v. Ga_rc_i§, 1998).

The Administrative elements pertaining to safety not included in the vehicular
pursuit policy of State Thirty-One, revised April 1, 1999, were Discontinuance of Pursuit,
Noncompliance, Role of Supervisor, and Training. These elements have been utilized in

courts in efforts to substantiate claims of negligence and liability (Sciuto v. State of

 

Connecticut, 1999; City of Dallas v. Garcia, 1998). An inclusive pursuit policy should
contain all elements related to the safety of the officer, suspect, and public. This, in turn
offers protection for the agency against unsubstantiated claims of negligence and liability.
Administrative elements related to safety not included in the vehicular pursuit

policy of State Thirty-Two were Noncompliance, Training, and Seriousness of Offense.
As stated earlier these missing elements serve the function of increasing the safety of the
pursuit. The failure of the agency to include these elements can place the agency in the
position of increasing its liability risks. Attorneys have utilized these elements in courts
to confirm claims of liability and negligence (City of Dallas v. Gprcia, 1998; DeWald v.

The State of Wyoming, 1986; Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999).

 

Administratively, the policy of State Thirty-Three was quite complete. The
Administrative element of Training was the only missing factor pertaining directly to
safety. As iterated previously, Training is an element that must be included in any
comprehensive pursuit policy. The absence of a Training element in a policy serves to
aid prosecutors in liability and negligence cases as the agency can appear remiss in its

duty to properly train its officers in the appropriate conduct of a high-speed pursuit. The

87

1

mm

purs

S

p01:

111

L1.

1 ~\c \l,b ‘14 u

“\4 .\rt«\.\..\/h.. Ry...\a... .n..u\..10. hru.\r1tl DR\1|1 U\i Poxti

at \etl.\.

1 (s\ llx

inclusion of Training in a policy offers officers the knowledge that they will be trained in

pursuit tactics.

S_tgtes of the Mid-West Region
Table 10 displays the Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit

policies of the states in the Mid-West region.

Table 10
Administrative elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies of individual states in

the Mid-West region.

 

State
[Mid-West Region]

 

Administrative 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Elements

1. Mission 1 l l 1 l 1 1 1 1 l 0 1 1
Statement/Purpose
2. Safety Caveat l l l 1 1 l 1 1 l l l
3. Discontinuance l l 1 1 l l l l l l 1 0 0
of Pursuit

 

 

p—a
H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4- 0 l 0 0 l 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Noncompliance

5. Definitions 1 0 l 1 1 l 1 l 1 1 0 l 1
6. Authority to 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 l 0 l
Pursue

7. Statutory 1 1 0 O l l l l l l 0 O 1
Duties

8. Case Law 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
jpferences

9. Pursuit 1 1 1 l l l l 1 l 1 0 l l
Ijgsptrictions

10. Seriousness of 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 l 1
Offense

11. Role of l 1 l 1 l 1 l 1 l l 0 O l
Dispatch
12. Requirement 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 l 1 1 0 l 1
of Supervisor to

Monitor
13. Role of 1 l 1 l 0 l l O 1 1 l l 1

Supervisor
_1_4. Training 1 0 O 0 l 1 0 1 O 0 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

wl—«ll—Ql; ;,:i:-1 :11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15.Supervisorat 0 0 1 1 0 o 0 1 1 1 1I 1 I 0 I
Termination Point J
16. Report 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 I
Writing
17. Debriefipg 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 o 0 0 0
Total 14 11 11 12 12 14 14 12 12 13 6 9 11
Percentage 82. 64. 64. 70. 70. 82. 82. 70. 70. 76. 35. 52. 64.
35 71 71 59 59 35 35 59 59 47 29 94 71
Mean 8.8
8
Total Percentage 68.
33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The vehicular pursuit policy of State Thirty-Four, revised October 1, 1999, failed
to include the Administrative element of Noncompliance, potentially serving a safety
function. Although this element does not jeopardize the general public directly, it,
nonetheless places the agency and the officer at risk for legal suits if there is a failure to
follow departmental regulations properly. Indirectly, the public could be placed in the
position of unreasonable risk. The element of Noncompliance has been used by attorneys
in court to authenticate negligence claims (Sciuto v. Stat; of Connecticut. 1999; (_3i_ty_of
Dallas v. Garcia, 1998).

The only Administrative element serving a safety related function missing from
the vehicular pursuit policy of State Thirty-Five, revised April 1, 1999, was Training.
Although this policy was quite comprehensive Administratively, the element of Training
regardless, should be included in a written pursuit policy. The element has been utilized
in courts to bring substantiation to negligence claims and places the officer at a greater
risk of liability (DeWald v. Theiate of Wyoming. 1986; City of Dallas v. gamma.
1998)

The vehicular pursuit policy of State Thirty-Six, revised August 1993, failed to

include the Administrative element of Training, potentially serving a safety function.

89

 

Training is essential for effective officer conduct during a pursuit and should be
contained in the written policy. The failure of an agency to properly train officers in the
proper course of action during a hi gh-speed pursuit can place the officer and the agency
at risk for claims of negligence and liability (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999).

The Administrative elements pertaining to safety not included in the vehicular
pursuit policy of State Thirty—Seven were Noncompliance and Training. The element of
Noncompliance is fairly important and should be contained, as officers need to realize the
consequences of a failure to comply with policy and departmental regulations. This
element has also been utilized in courts of law as a springboard to substantiate claims of
liability and negligence of an officer and agency (Tucgr v. BraLnford, 1998). The
element of Training has also been used in courts to substantiate negligence suits (_Sc_i1_lt_o
Lfifgte of Connecticut, 1999). This can increase an agency’s liability risks as a failure to
incorporate this element in a written policy can make it appear as though officers are not
fully trained in appropriate pursuit conduct.

The only Administrative element related to safety not included in the vehicular
pursuit policy of State Thirty-Eight, revised July 24, 2000, was Requirement of
Supervisor to Monitor. The importance of proper monitoring during the course of a
pursuit is important for safety considerations and to assist the pursuing officer in
following departmental policy. Attorneys have utilized this element in court in attempts
to substantiate claims of negligence and liability (Mm v. The Town of Branford,
1998)

There were no Administrative elements pertaining to safety missing from the

pursuit policy of State Thirty-Nine, revised April 1, 2001. This agency’s pursuit policy,

90

 

from the standpoint of Administrative elements was considered very comprehensive. The
missing elements of Case Law References, Supervisor at Termination point, and
Debriefing would certainly provide the policy with all Administrative elements but
considering safety alone the policy is quite comprehensive.

The only Administrative element missing from the vehicular pursuit policy of
State Forty, revised November 9, 1998, related to safety was Noncompliance. This
element has been demonstrated in courts to be a factor in the safety of vehicular pursuits

Ci of Dallas v. Garcia, 1998; Sciuto v. Stpte of Connecticut, 1999). Despite the

absence of this element, the policy of this state agency was found to be quite
comprehensive. Most major Administrative elements related to safety were included in
the policy. This is important for the added safety of the general public and the pursuing
officer. A comprehensive policy also lessens the liability risks for a department.

The only Administrative elements missing from the vehicular pursuit policy of
State Forty-One, revised July 1, 2000, related to safety were Noncompliance and Role of
Supervisor. These elements have been demonstrated in courts to be factors in the safety
of vehicular pursuits (City of Pinellas Park v. Brown, 1992; City of Dallas v. GJarcia,
1998; Sciuto v. State of Connecticut. 1999). While the policy was generally found to be
inclusive, the omission of the Noncompliance and Role of Supervisor could prove to
increase the liability risks for an agency.

Administrative elements missing from the vehicular pursuit policy of State Forty-
Two, revised November 1, 1999, related to safety were Noncompliance and Training.
The element of Noncompliance should be included in the policy, as officers need to

realize the consequences for the failure to comply with policy and departmental

91

 

regulations. This element has also been utilized in courts of law as a springboard to
substantiate claims of liability and negligence of an officer and agency My
mm, 1998). The element of Training has also been used in courts to substantiate
negligence suits (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999). This can increase an agency’s
liability risks as a failure to incorporate this element in a written policy can make it
appear as though officers are not firlly trained in correct pursuit conduct.

The pursuit policy of State F city-Three, revised April 25, 2000, contained all but
one of the pertinent Administrative elements. The element of Training failed to be
included in this agency’s pursuit policy. While it is important for officers to understand
the emphasis placed upon training by the department, the incorporation of this element
ideally serves to protect the agency from liability suits. By stressing Training in the text
of the written policy the agency can place added emphasis upon this element. Training
has often been used in court by attorneys to substantiate negligence claims (Ciiypf
Pinellas Park v. Brown, 1992; Tucker v. The Town of Branford, 1998).

The Administrative elements pertaining to safety not included in the vehicular
pursuit policy of State Forty-Four, revised January 20, 1988, were Noncompliance,
Pursuit Restrictions, Requirement of Supervisor to Monitor, and Training. These
elements serve a safety-related function and increase agency liability. Officers need to be
aware of restrictions placed on them during the course of pursuits. In addition, officers
should be aware of the need for training and the consequences of their failure to follow
departmental regulations. Supervision is also essential in a vehicular pursuit. A
supervisor should monitor a pursuit to provide the pursuing officer with additional

assistance with tactical decisions and policy regulations. Attorneys have used these

92

elements in court to substantiate negligence claims (City of Dallas v. Garcia, 1998;
Wpaiver v. The Stpte of Cglifomig, 1998; Iggy v. Stge of Utg__h, 1999).

The Administrative elements pertaining to safety not included in the vehicular
pursuit policy of State Forty—Five, revised December 5, 2000, were Discontinuance of
Pursuit, Noncompliance, and Training. While the policy of the agency was highly
comprehensive the missing elements, nonetheless, pertain to safety thus increasing the
possibility of claims of officer or agency negligence (City of Dallas v. Garcia, 1998;

Weaver v. The State of California, 1998; Day v. Stgte of Utgh, 1999).

 

The Administrative elements pertaining to safety not included in the vehicular
pursuit policy of State Forty-Six, revised July 1, 1998, were Discontinuance of Pursuit,
Noncompliance, and Training. As stated in previous analyses any elements pertaining to
safety should always be contained in any written vehicular pursuit policy. The three
missing Administrative elements have been demonstrated in court to act as important
considerations to the safety of the officer, suspect, and third party (Sciuto v. State of
Connecticut, 1999; DeWald v. State of Wyoming, 1986; Tuger v. The Town of

Branford, 1998; S_tpie of Connecticut v. Harmon. 2000). By failing to include these

 

elements in the pursuit policy the agency and officer are placed in increased risk of legal

suits alleging negligence or liability.

Qperational Elements

As stated earlier, the Operational elements were divided into Contextual and
Active categories. Contextual Operational elements were those items deemed either non~

dangerous or on the periphery of the pursuit. Active Operational elements were those

93

items encompassing hazardous driving tactics or forcible stop techniques. Table 11
displays the Contextual Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies of
the state agencies in each region of the nation. Table 12 displays the Active Operational
elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies of the state agencies in each region of

the nation.

Table 11

Contextual Operational elements included in egch region of the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region
Contextual Operational Pacific North East Mountain South Mid-West Total
Elements
1. Initiate Pursuit 3 10 6 9 13 41
2. Notify Dispatcher 3 10 7 10 13 43
3. Specifics of Pursuit 2 10 5 9 13 39
Conditions
6. Jurisdictional 4 9 6 10 10 39
Considerations
11. Role of Dispatch 3 10 4 10 10 37
17. Passengers 1 6 4 7 8 26
19. Off Road Pursuit 0 0 0 0 l l
21. Aerial Assistance 3 4 7 3 7 24
Total 19 59 39 58 75 250
Percentage 47.50% 67.05% 69.64% 65.91% 72.12% 64.44%
Mean 2.375 7.375 4.875 7.25 9.375 6.25

 

 

As is evident in Table 11, the written pursuit policies of the state agencies
contained 64.44%, an average of 6.25, of the Contextual Operational elements. The
vehicular pursuit policies of states in the Pacific region contained 47.50%, an average of
2.3 75, of the Contextual Operational elements. Policies of states in the Northeast region
included 67 .05%, an average of 7.375, of the Contextual Operational elements. Written
vehicular pursuit policies of agencies in the Mountain region included 69.64%, an

average of 4.875, of the Contextual Operational elements. Policies in the South region

94

contained 65.91%, an average of 7.25, of the Contextual Operational elements. Finally,

the states in the Mountain region included 72.12%, an average of 9.375, of the Contextual

Operational elements in their written vehicular pursuit policies.

Table 12

Active Opepratiopzil elements included in gach region in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region

Active Operational Pacific North East Mountain South Mid-West Total
Elements
4. Provisions for 3 ll 6 ll 13 44
Li ts and Sirens
5. Tactical 4 9 4 10 13 4O
Considerations
7. Pursuit Driving; 5 ll 5 9 10 40
8. Carvaning 5 9 7 10 13 44
9. Intentional 2 5 5 5 13 30
Collisions

10. Shooting from 2 6 4 8 9 29
Vehicle

12. Bogrflg-in l 4 l 3 3 12
13. Heading- 1 3 2 l 5 12
OfflPassing

l4. Parallelipg 2 4 2 2 2 12
15. Roadblocks 3 10 5 7 11 36
16. Speed 2 4 2 4 8 20
18. Tire Deflation 2 6 5 7 10 30
Devices

20. Termination of 5 10 3 ll 13 42
Pursuit

Total 37 92 51 88 123 391
Percentage 56.92% 64.34% 56.04% 61.54% 72.78% 62.32%
Mean 2.85 7.08 3.92 6.77 9.46 6.02

 

 

 

 

As observed in Table 12, the pursuit policies of the state agencies contained

62.32%, an average of 6.02, of the Active Operational elements. The vehicular pursuit

policies of states in the Pacific region contained 56.92%, an average of 2.85, of the

Active Operational elements. Policies of states in the Northeast region included 64.34%,

an average of 7.08, of the Active Operational elements. Written vehicular pursuit

95

 

. i\-\~\\ls

'l.»\ (.1141 Fi..\ I

.\.

-\1..\1.;\

 

policies of agencies in the Mountain region included 56.04%, an average of 3.92, of the
Active Operational elements. Policies in the South region contained 61 .54%, an average
of 6.77, of the Contextual Operational elements. Finally, the states in the Mountain
region included 72.78%, an average of 9.46, of the Active Operational elements in their

written vehicular pursuit policies.

Siaie-by—State Apaiysis

The following text and accompanying tables provide a state-by-state analysis of
the Contextual and Active Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies
of the State Police and State Highway Patrol agencies. To ensure confidentiality states
have been numerically coded.

Tables 13 and 14 display the Contextual and Active Operational elements

contained in the vehicular pursuit policies of the states in the Pacific region.

Table 13

Contextual Operatiopgl elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies of individual

 

states in the Pacific region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State
[Pacific Region]
Contextual Operational 1 2 3 4 5
Elements

1. Initiate Pursuit 1 l 1 0 0
2. Notify Dispatcher l O 1 0 1
3. Specifics of Pursuit 1 0 1 0 0
_Cpnditions

6. Jurisdictional l 1 0 1 l
Considerations

11. Role of Dispatch O 1 0 1 1

1?. Passengers 0 0 0 0 1

19. Off Road Pursuit 0 0 0 0 0
i 21. Aerial Assistance 0 l 1 0 l I

 

 

 

 

96

1J1.—

1~44u Mu~.\.u

(-

7171711 .\_l_ld.1>1.7;l 1:3

P\‘.114\P\\I\J\~i\

 

 

Table 14

Active Operational elements included in the vehiculgr pmsuitggolicies of individual states

 

in the PaLcific region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State
[Pacific Region]
Active Operational AK CA HI OR WA
Elements

4. Provisions for Lights 1 0 l 0 1
and Sirens
5. Tactical 1 l l O l
Considerations
7. Pursuit Driving 1 l l l 1
8. Caravapipg l l l l 1
9. Intentional Collisions 0 0 1 0 1
10. Shooting from 0 1 1 0 0
Vehicle
12. Boxing-in 0 0 0 0 1
13. Headi_ng-Off/Pas_sipg 0 0 1 0 0
l4. Parallelipg 0 1 l O 0
15. Roadblocks 1 0 l 0 l
16. Speed 0 O l 0 l
18. Tire Deflation 1 0 0 0 l
Devices 1
20. Termination of 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pursuit
Total 7 6 ll 3 10
Percentage 53.85 46.15 84.62 23.08 76.92
Mean 2.85
Total Percentagg 56.92

 

 

 

 

 

It was somewhat unsettling to discover that State One was remiss in including
several Active Operational elements pertaining to safety in their vehicular pursuit. This
department’s vehicular pursuit policy was recently revised and finalized February 1,
2000. While the policy contains an initial reference to safety in the form of an

Administrative Safety Caveat, Operationally the policy fails to contain Active elements

97

such as Intentional Collisions, Shooting from a vehicle, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing,
Paralleling, and Speed. These factors leave the officer as well as the agency open for
claims of negligence and liability. In addition, they can potentially serve to increase the
level of danger inherent in a police vehicular pursuit. Issues associated with the overall
safety of a pursuit have been utilized in courts to substantiate claims of agency and
officer negligence (State of Connecticut v. Harmon, 2000; Robinson v. Ciiy of Detroit,
2000; Madison v. Weldon, 1984; Cog/ell v. Town of Pinedale, 1987; Ciiy of Pinellas
Park v. Brown. 1992).

Although this relatively short policy of 10 pages fails to contain many important
references to safety this agency’s patrol area is quite large with few people per square
mile. The home state for this department is 570,374 square miles with a total population
of 619,500 amounting to only 1.1 persons per square mile. Thus, the fact that the
population is small and scattered does not negate the necessity for the agency to have a
comprehensive written vehicular pursuit policy. The concern for public safety, as well as
desire to protect the agency and the officer from unnecessary risks of liability and
negligence, should prompt the department to devise a more safety conscious pursuit
pohcy.

The vehicular pursuit policy of State Two failed to include a variety of Contextual
and Active Operational elements in their policy. Specifics of Pursuit Conditions,
Provisions for Lights and Sirens, Intentional Collisions, Boxing-in, Roadblocks,
Heading-Off/Passing, Speed, and Tire Deflation Devices failed to be mentioned in this
agency’s written pursuit policy. It is important to note that, although the policy failed to

contain reference to Intentional Collisions, Boxing-in, Roadblocks, Heading-OfflPassing,

98

and Tire Deflation Devices the policy did contain a section pertaining to forcible stops
and legal intervention. None of the actual stop techniques detailed by the researcher were
mentioned but a pursuing officer could use discretion to determine the appropriate
forcible stop or legal intervention technique to use in any given situation.

State Two covers an area of 155,973 square miles with a population of 33, 145,211
people, amounting to a total of 212.5 people per square mile. Therefore, with such a
large pOpulation density it is important for the police to have a very comprehensive
pursuit policy. This not only serves to protect the agency and officer from wrongful
claims of negligence and liability, it also serves to protect the general public from
needless endangerment associated with high-speed pursuit conditions.

The pursuit policy of State Three was found to be rather comprehensive and
complete. State Three has a population of 1,185,497 covering an area of 6423 square
miles for 184.6 people per square mile. With a relatively large, dense population it is
necessary and imminently desirable for the police to have in effect a very comprehensive
pursuit policy. The pursuit policy, revised February 20, 1998, covers most of the
important Contextual and Active Operational elements such as Specific of Pursuit
Conditions, Tactical Considerations, Pursuit Driving, Carvaning, Shooting from a
Vehicle, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, Roadblocks, and Speed. The only Active
Operational elements pertaining to safety that failed to be included in the policy were
Boxing-in, and Tire Deflation Devices.

Although the pursuit policy of State Three was reasonably comprehensive, the
policy, nonetheless, fails to contain several Contextual and Active Operational safety

measures. Specifics of Pursuit Conditions, Tactical Considerations, Intentional

99

 

Col
R0:
Th:
pm
the

the

pie

PO]

Pu

111

Collisions, Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling,
Roadblocks, and Tire Deflation Devices failed to be mentioned in the text of the policy.
These elements can serve to increase the dangerousness of a vehicular pursuit. If
properly trained in the appropriate tactics best employed during the course of a pursuit
the Operational elements pertaining to safety can also serve to increase the well-being of
the pursuing officer, suspect, and third parties.

State Four covers an area of 96,003 square miles with a population of 3,3 16,154,
amounting to 34.5 per square mile persons. While this population density is not as high
as some states in the same region, nevertheless, it is high enough to warrant extra safety
precautions in the vehicular pursuit policy of the primary state agency. In more densely
populated areas of the state the potential for a vehicular pursuit increases and, therefore,
the risks to the general public increase. In addition, a more comprehensive policy would
serve to protect the general public, the pursuing officer, and the suspect in any pursuit, no
matter where it occurred.

Operationally, the policy of State Five was quite comprehensive. Specifics of
Pursuit Conditions, Shooting from a vehicle, Heading-Off/Passing, and Paralleling were
the only elements pertaining to safety failing to be included in the pursuit policy. The
most obvious omission in the Active Operational elements was Shooting from a Vehicle.
Any element involving deadly force raises certain 4th and 14th Amendment issues. The
4th Amendment concerns the rights of persons to be secure in their persons, secure from
any unwarranted searches and seizures. Deadly force is the ultimate seizure therefore it

is necessary to include this element in any vehicular pursuit policy. The 14th Amendment

100

isll

dea

the

is the protection against a deprivation of life, liberty or property. Again, the use of
deadly force certainly qualifies as a deprivation of life.

State Five covers an area of 66,581 square miles with a pOpulation of 5,756,361
amounting to an 86.5 per person square mile average. While the population density of
the state centers primarily around three major metropolitan centers it is, nevertheless,
important to provide the rest of the state with the same level of safety as afforded to the
greater urban centers.

Tables 15 and 16 display the Contextual and Active elements included in the

vehicular pursuit policies of states in the Mountain region.

Table 15
ContextpflQperational elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies of individual

states in the Mountain region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State
[Mountain Region]
Contextual Operational 6 7 8 9 10 1 l 12
Elements

1. Initiate Pursuit 1 1 l l l 1

2. Notify Dismtcher l 1 1 1 l 1 l
3. Specifics of Pursuit 1 1 l 0 1 1

Conditions

6. Jurisdictional 1 1 1 l 1 l 0
Considerations

11. Role of Dispatch 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
l7. Passepgeis 1 0 0 l l l 0
19. Off Road Pursuit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
l1. Aerial Assistance 1 O 0 1 l 0 0
Total 7 5 4 5 7 6 1
Percentage 87.5 62.5 50.0 62.5 87.5 75.0 12.5
Mean 4.875
@1 Percentage 62.5

 

 

101

a1.

:1. t_‘,...._.1_1_,1..w:1.

51.11.17. [.2

EN!

.~ltl~11.1i.~.

Table 16

Active Operaiional elements included in the vehiculg pursuit policies of individual states

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the Mountain reg'on.
State
[Mountain Region]
Active Operational 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Elements

4. Provisions for Lights 1 l 0 l l 1 1
and Sirens
5. Tactical 1 l 0 0 l 1 O
Considerations
7. Pursuit Driving 1 l l l 0 l O
8. Caravanigni 1 l 1 l l l l
9. Intentional Collisions O 1 l l 0 l 1
10. Shooting from 1 0 l 0 l l 0
Vehicle
12. Boxing-in 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
l3. HeadELOff/Passing 0 0 l 0 0 1 0
14. ParallelipL 0 l 0 0 0 1 0
15. Roadblocks 0 1 l l 1 l O
16. Speed 0 0 1 0 0 l 0
18. Tire Deflation l l l l 0 l 0
Devices
20. Termination of l 1 l l l l 1
Pursuit
Total 7 9 9 7 6 l3 4
Percentage 53.85 69.23 69.23 53.85 46.15 100 30.77
Mean 3.92
Total Percentage 60.44

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operationally, State Six failed to include several pertinent elements in their
vehicular pursuit policy. The Active Operational elements of Intentional Collisions,
Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, Roadblocks, and Speed failed to be
included in the vehicular pursuit policy. These elements pertain to safety and the
possibility of claims of officer or agency negligence and liability increase as these factors

are omitted in a policy Cit of Dallas v. Garcia, 1998; Myer v. The State of

California, 1998; Day v. State of Utah, 1999).

 

102

State Six covers an area of 103,729 square miles with a population of 4,056,133
amounting to a 39.1 per square mile person average. The policy of this state was found
to be fairly inclusive although the omission of several Operational elements pertaining
directly to safety was a serious oversight for the agency in question. Any element
directly serving a safety firnction necessarily should be included in any comprehensive

pohcy.

Operationally the policy of State Seven was found to be lacking in one area:
Dangerous tactics. The Active Operational elements of Shooting from a Vehicle,
Boxingein, Heading-Off/Passing, and Speed failed to be included in the pursuit policy.
Any element raising any 4th or 14th Amendment issues should, by necessity, be included
in any agency’s vehicular pursuit policy. In addition, any element with potentially
dangerous consequences for the pursuing officer, suspect, and general public should be
included in any vehicular pursuit policy. This offers additional protection for the general
public not involved in the actual pursuit, the pursuing officer, and the fleeing suspect. It
also affords protection against claims of negligence and liability for the agency. A
comprehensive policy only serves to bolster an agency’s legal defense in instances of
tragedy during a pursuit.

Although State Seven has a small population of 1,251,700, a low per person
square mile average at 15.1 and covers a large area of 82,751, it is nonetheless important
for purposes of safety to have an inclusive pursuit policy. While the possibility of a high-

Speed pursuit in a densely populated area in such a rural environment is not dramatically
high for the legal protection of the agency and officer, not to mention the safety of the

pursuit itself, a more comprehensive policy always serves the greater good.

103

P10

161

Ca

Operationally, the policy of State Eight did not fare well. The elements of
Provisions for Lights and Sirens, Tactical Considerations, Boxingein, Paralleling, and
Termination of Pursuit were missing. The Contextual Operational elements of Unmarked
Car/Motorcycle, and Passengers were also not included in the policy. While it is
considered important for every Operational element to be included in a policy, any
element pertaining to safety was considered too important not to be included in a policy.
The failure of an agency to include any reference to Tactical Considerations or Provision
for Lights and Sirens can lead to dangerous encounters with the general public during a
pursuit and can place the agency and the officer at risk for claims of liability and
negligence (DeWTald v. The State of Wimming, 1986; Tucker v. The Town of mm,
1998; S_taie of Connecticut v. Hgnnon, 2000). An officer can follow departmental policy
but still appear negligent due to an inadequate pursuit policy. An incomplete policy
increases the dangerousness of a police pursuit unnecessarily.

State Eight is in a similar situation as State Seven. This is a primarily rural
environment covering an area of 145,556, with a population of 882,779, and a per person
square mile average of only 6.1. Nonetheless, however rural the environment, there are
certain elements, both Administrative and Operational, that must be included in any
comprehensive vehicular pursuit policy.

The policy of State Nine was lacking a few very essential elements: Specifics of
Pursuit Conditions, Tactical Considerations, Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in,
Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, and Speed. Each of the missing elements can raise
issues actionable under the 4th and 14th Amendments. Any element pertaining to safety,

whether it be the pursuing officer or the general public, should be included in any

104

departmental pursuit policy. Elements related to safety considerations during the course
of a pursuit have been used in courts to substantiate negligence claims against an agency
or officer (Tucher v. The Town of Branford, 1998; S_tpte of Connecticut v. Harmon,
2000).

State Nine is, again, a relatively rural environment covering an area of 109, 806
square miles, with a population of 1,809,253 people, amounting to a 16.5 per person
square mile average. Although the state is rural the pursuit policy of the primary state
agency should be complete. Elements pertaining to safety should always be included in a
pursuit policy. This serves the public interest, as innocent bystanders are not
unnecessarily endangered during a police pursuit. It also serves the interests of the
officer, suspect, and agency as all parties involved in a pursuit are afforded a semblance
of additional safety. It is assumed a more complete policy will increase the safety factor
in a high-speed police pursuit.

The policy of State Ten failed to include the Active Operational elements
associated with safety of Pursuit Driving, Intentional Collisions, Boxing-in, Heading-
Off/Passing, Paralleling, Speed, and Tire Deflation Devices. As stated previously it is
necessary for all law enforcement agencies to include in their vehicular pursuit policies
reference to any technique utilized in a pursuit that could potentially prove deadly.
Deadly force raises a multitude of 4th and 14th Amendment issues. Agencies without
comprehensive written pursuit policies are placed at a much greater risk of the possibility
of legal suits. The failure of an agency to include these dangerous tactics ultimately

creates a situation of increased risk to the officer, suspect, and general public. It also

105

SCIV

0I0

P0?

mil

serves to increase the possibility of a prosecutor successfully demonstrating departmental
or officer negligence.

This state is in a similar position as many others in the same region. The total
population is 1,739,844 covering an area of 121,365, amounting to a per person square
mile average of 14.3. As stated previously the small population density does not negate
the necessity for a fully comprehensive pursuit policy. The well being of the public
should always be a concern for law enforcement agencies. A comprehensive policy
serves to protect the general public as well as those parties directly involved in the
pursuit.

The policy of State Eleven contained all elements, both Contextual and Active
Operational, related to danger and safety considerations. The agency has insured that the
pursuing officer, suspect, and general public is offered an added degree of safety by the
inclusion of dangerous pursuit tactics and a safety caveat. In addition, the agency is not
open to any unsubstantiated claims of negligence or liability.

The state is, like many others in the region, primarily rural with a total population
of 2,129,836, covering an area of 82,168 square miles, amounting to 25.9 people per
square mile. Despite the rural nature of the state the agency had a very comprehensive
written pursuit policy. This fact serves several purposes. The agency and officer are
protected from unsubstantiated claims of negligence and liability while the safety of the
parties involved in the pursuit is also safeguarded.

The pursuit policy of State Twelve was found to be severely lacking in several
Operational elements. While it is essential to establish some reference to safety, an

Administrative Safety Caveat cannot stand alone on this factor. This policy states a

106

C0111

concern for public safety and the well-being of the pursuing officer in the form of Safety
Caveat and Pursuit Restrictions but fails to include any reference to training or
supervision that also serve a safety function. Operationally, the policy does not contain
elements concerning 4th and 14th Amendment safeguards. Shooting from a Vehicle,
Specific of Pursuit Conditions, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, Speed,
Roadblocks, and Tire Deflation Devices were not included anywhere in the written

policy. The missing Contextual and Active Operational elements have been

demonstrated in court to act as important considerations to the safety of the officer,
suspect, and third party (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999; DeWald v. State of

Wyoming, 1986; Tucker v. The Town of Branford, 1998; State of Connecticut v.

 

Harmon, 2000).

 

Although this state is considerably rural in nature, it is still advisable for a
department to have a more comprehensive policy than this state has on file. The state’s
population is 479,602, covering an area of 97,105 square miles, summing to a per person
square mile average of 4.9. With such a low population density it might not be vital for
an agency to have in effect a completely comprehensive policy Administratively. Apart
from safety considerations the majority of Administrative elements will not place the
officer or the general public in harm’s way during a pursuit. A department will not be
taken to court due to non safety related missing Administrative elements. However,
despite the small population density it is necessary for any department to have a
comprehensive written pursuit policy. Operational elements are those elements

pertaining to officer actions, tactics, and maneuvers. These elements pose the greatest

107

danger to the officer, suspect, and general public. They are also the main components for

which agency’s are brought to court.
Tables 17 and 18 display the Contextual and Active Operational elements found

in the vehicular pursuit policies of states in the South region.

Table 17
Contextual Qperatiopai elements included in the vehicular pursuitpolicies of individual

states in the South region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State
[South Region]
Contextual Operational 13 47 14 15 16 1 7 1 8 19 20 2 1 22
Elements

1. Initiate Pursuit 0 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 l l 0
2. NotifLDgpatcher I l l 1 l l l 1 l l 0
3. Specifics of Pursuit 1 1 0 1 1 1 l l l l 0
Conditions

6. Jurisdictional l 1 1 l l 1 l l l 1 0
Considerations

11. Role of Dispatch 1 l l l 1 1 1 l l l 0
17. Pamers O 1 0 1 l l 1 1 l 0 0
19. Off Road Pursuit 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O O O
21. Aerial Assistance 0 0 1 0 O l 0 l 0 0 0
Total 4 6 5 6 6 7 6 7 6 5 0
Percentage 50. 75. 62. 75. 75. 87.5 75.0 87.5 75.0 62.5 0

0 0 5 O 0
Mean 7.2
5

Total Percentage 65.
L 91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108

_

_4. 4.1.7107 an._.u;.ll.|.1.1_1t.llftm;l.lL

1| 1|... MT

~

 

Table 18

Active Qperjaiionpai elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies of individual stfleg

in the South region.

 

State
[South Region]

 

Active Operational
Elements

13

47

14

15

l6

17

18

I9

20

21

22

 

4. Provisions for Lights
and Sirens

l

l

 

5. Tactical
Considerations

O

 

7. Pursuit Drivirg

 

8. Caravaning

 

9. Intentional Collisions

 

10. Shooting from
Vehicle

Gov—O

u—ep—n-u.‘

u—aH—o—o

HOHH

HOD—‘u-I

u—nOp—sp—o

OOt—nt—t

HI—‘D‘H

”##—

COCO

 

12. Boxing-in

 

l3. Heading-Off/Passirg

 

 

14. Paralleling
15. Roadblocks

 

16. Speed

 

18. Tire Deflation
Devices

OOOOOO

t—AOu—aOOt—n

H—li—‘l-‘il-‘D-I‘

O—II—Iu—IOOr—O

h—nt—dt—Iooo

”CHOOO

HOHOOO

OOOOOO

”OOOOO

Ou—nu—or—noo

OOOOOO

 

20. Termination of
Pursuit

.11—

u—.

p—n

 

Total

10

13

10

IO

 

Percentage

30.
77

76.
92

100

76.
92

69.
23

69.
23

61.5

38.4

61.5

76.9

15.3

 

 

Mean 6.7

 

Total Percentage 61.
54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The vehicular pursuit policy of State Thirteen failed to include numerous Active
Operational elements. The missing Operational elements serving a primarily safety
function not contained in the pursuit policy were Pursuit Driving, Intentional Collisions,
Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, Roadblocks,
Speed, and Tire Deflation Devices. These elements pertaining to safety can serve to
increase the safety of the pursuing officer, suspect, and third parties. As stated

previously, these elements pertain to safety and the possibility of claims of officer or

109

agency negligence and liability increase as these factors are omitted in a policy (City of

Dallas v. Garcia, 1998; Weaver v. The State of Cplifomia, 1998; Day v. State of Utah,

 

1999).

The state’s population is 4,369,862, covering an area of 50,750 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 486. 1. With a dense population it is
imperative that an agency patrolling such an environment have in effect a comprehensive
written vehicular pursuit policy. An inclusive pursuit policy provides for a safer pursuit
for the officer, suspect, and public. A comprehensive policy also lessens the liability
risks an agency faces.

Operationally, vehicular pursuit policy of State Fourteen was missing few vital
elements. The elements of Specific of Pursuit Conditions, Passengers and Off Road
Pursuit failed to be included in the pursuit policy. This policy was considered fairly
comprehensive due to the fact that any potentially dangerous pursuit tactics or forcible
stop techniques were included in the written policy. The omission of Passengers and Off
Road Pursuit is, ultimately, not going to pose any real threat to the general public,
pursuing officer, or suspect. The omission of these three Operational elements is also not
going to place the agency in unnecessary jeopardy of negligence or liability suits.

The state’s population is 15,111,244, covering an area of 53,937 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 280.2. With a dense population the
policy fared well. The Administrative elements of Noncompliance and Training should
necessarily be contained in a written policy for liability protection for the agency and for

the added safety of the general public and pursuing officer. However, the policy

110

C01

pu1

IE

contained the majority of elements that could pose a danger to the general public or
pursuing officer.

The Active Operational elements of Intentional Collision, Heading-Off/Passing,
and Paralleling were not included in the policy of State F ifieen. As iterated previously, it
is imperative for an agency to include in its written vehicular pursuit policy any
potentially dangerous pursuit tactics or forcible stop techniques. The failure of any
agency to include these elements in its written policy places the pursuing officer, suspect,
and general public at a much greater risk of harm due to the inherent dangerousness of
such tactics and techniques. These elements pertain to safety and the possibility of
claims of officer or agency negligence and liability increase as these factors are omitted

in a policy (City of Daillas v. Garcia, 1998; Weaver v. The State of California, 1998;

 

Day v.gS_t2_1t_e of Utah, 1999).

The state’s population is 7,788,240, covering an area of 57,919 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 134.5. Due to this state’s population
density it is necessary for the agency to have in effect a comprehensive written vehicular
pursuit policy. The failure to do so places the pursuing officer, suspect, and general
public in harm’s way unnecessarily and also leaves the agency open for liability suits.

The Active Operational elements serving a safety function that failed to be
included in the pursuit policy of State Sixteen were Intentional Collisions, Boxing-in,
Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling. The omission of these potentially dangerous elements
increase the risk of agency and officer negligence and liability and have been used in

many legal suits (City of Dallas v. Garcia, 1998; Weaver v. The State of California,

1998; Day v. State of Utah, 1999).

111

The state’s population is 3,960,825, covering an area of 39,732 square miles,
summing to‘a per person square mile average of 99.7. Although the state’s population
density is not as high as other states in the same region, it is nonetheless important for
any agency’s written vehicular pursuit policy to contain any elements relating to the
safety of the officer and the general public. The failure to include all elements pertaining
to safety raises the risk of agency and officer liability and increases the dangerousness of
a pursuit.

The vehicular pursuit policy of State Seventeen was found to be reasonably
complete although some potentially dangerous elements failed to be included. The
Active Operational elements serving a safety function failing to be included in the policy
were Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, and Speed. A pursuit policy, by necessity must
include any elements pertaining to safety. These elements have been used in courts of
law to attempt to substantiate claims of officer negligence and departmental liability (iny
v. Shim of Uiap, 1999; Travis v. The City of Mespuite, 1992; Egaver v. The State of
California, 1998). Therefore, to protect the agency, officers, suspect, and general public
from unreasonable harm associated with a vehicular pursuit any elements related to safety
must be included in a comprehensive pursuit policy.

The state’s population is 4,372,035, covering an area of 43,566 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 100.4. This state has a similar
population density as the previous state. Although not dramatically high it is,
nonetheless, vital for the agency to have a comprehensive written vehicular pursuit

policy. This serves to protect the agency from unsubstantiated claims of negligence and

112

llil

ha:

58

liability while also protecting the officer, suspect, and general public from unnecessary
harm.

The pursuit policy of State Eighteen was considered lacking in several important
safety elements. The Operational elements serving a primarily safety function that were
not included in the policy were Intentional Collisions, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing,
Paralleling, and Speed. Each of the missing elements serves a safety purpose by
providing guidelines for the pursuing officer in the appropriate use of forcible stop
techniques and maneuvers. These elements have been used in courts of law to attempt to
substantiate claims of officer negligence and departmental liability (Dav v. State of Utah,
1999; Irgvis v. The City of Mesgpite, 1992; Ma v. The State of California, 1998).

The state’s population is 2,768,619, covering an area of 46,914 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 59.0. Although this state is mainly a
rural state devoted to agriculture, the written pursuit policy, should still contain any
elements pertaining to safety. This increases the overall safety of the pursuit and also
protects the agency and officer from claims of liability and negligence.

The policy of State Nineteen did not contain the Active Operational elements of
Intentional Collisions, Shooting from a vehicle, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing,
Paralleling, Roadblocks, Speed, and Tire Deflation Devices. The missing Operational
and Administrative elements have been demonstrated in court to act as important
considerations to the safety of the officer, suspect, and third party (Sciuto v. State of

Connecticut, 1999; DeWald v. State of Wyoming, 1986; Tucker v. The Town of

 

Branford, 1998; gage of Connecticut v. Hgnnon. 2000). Any element potentially acting

 

113

358

the

5111

WI

116

as a force of deadly force also rises 4th and 14’h Amendment issues which can also place
the agency and officer at risk for claims of negligence and liability.

The state’s population is 7,650,789, covering an area of 48,719 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 157. This state is again primarily rural
with a diverse physical geography. Nevertheless, the written pursuit policy of the state
needs to contain any element pertaining to safety. This protects the agency, pursuing
officer, suspect, and the general public from unnecessary harm associated with the
pursuit.

The written pursuit policy of State Twenty failed to include several items related
to safety. The Active Operational elements pertaining to safety that failed to be included
in the policy were Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, Roadblocks, and Speed.
As stated previously, these elements pertain to safety and the possibility of claims of
officer or agency negligence and liability increase as these factors are omitted in a policy

Cit of Dallas v. Garcia, 1998; Weaver v. The S_tiite_of Califomgr, 1998; fly v. State of
U311, 1999). To avoid increasing the dangerousness of a pursuit and to avoid possible
legal suits any element relating to safety should be included in the pursuit policy.

The state’s population is 3,885,736, covering an area of 30,1 11 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 129.0. Although the state’s population
density is relatively low the written pursuit policy still, by necessity, should contain any
elements related to safety. This protects the general public, pursuing officer, agency, and
SHSpect from unreasonable harm. It also limits the number of legal suits brought against

the department for negligence or liability.

114

C01

be

Di

39
b

The written pursuit policy of State Twenty-One was considered fairly
comprehensive with regard to safety items. The Active Operational elements failing to
be included in the policy were Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, and Tire Deflation
Devices. There have been numerous avoidable liability and negligence suits brought
against an agency due to the fact that the officer failed to receive proper training in the
safest course of action during a vehicular pursuit (Fielder v. Stonack, Jenking, Township
of Neptune Police Dep_artrnent_,gnd Townsghip of Neptune, 1995 ; Nelson v. Thongs,
1996; Corvell v. Town of Pinedglp, 1987). As stated earlier, dangerous techniques and
maneuvers raise 4th and 14th Amendment issues and place an agency and officer at risk
for negligence suits. Therefore, they need to be contained in any written vehicular
pursuit policy.

The p0pulation density of this state is higher than other states in the same region.
The total population is 5,483,535, covering an area of 41,220 square miles, summing to a
133 per person square mile average. Therefore, with a denser population it is even more
imperative for a department to have a comprehensive written vehicular pursuit policy in
effect. This allows officers to understand their duties during a pursuit, increases the
safety factor for all parties involved, and lessens the risks of departmental liability.

The pursuit policy of State Twenty-Two was found to be the least comprehensive
policy of any state in the nation. The only Operational elements serving the function of
safety included in the policy were Provisions for Lights and Sirens and Termination of
Pursuit. As stated previously, the failure to include any elements pertaining to safety
increases the possibility of claims of officer or agency negligence and liability (M

Dallas v. Garcia, 1998; Weaver v. The flgte of California, 1998; Day v. State of Utah,

 

115

1999). This policy failed to include any mention of potentially dangerous pursuit tactics
such as Intentional Collisions, Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing,
Paralleling, Roadblocks, or Tire Deflation Devices. In addition, there was no reference to
Specific of Pursuit Conditions, Tactical Considerations, or Speed. These elements, too,
pose liability and negligence risks for an agency. The omission of Operational elements
related to safety leaves a department open to legal suits and only serves to make a
prosecutor’s effort of substantiating these claims that much easier.

This state shares some demographic features with several other states. The
population of the state is 20,044,141 , covering an area of 261 ,914 square miles, for a per
person square mile average of 76.5. This density of population is large enough to warrant
a written pursuit policy that is much more comprehensive than the current one on file. As
iterated above, the primary duty of the police is to protect the general public’s welfare.
Endangering innocent bystanders unnecessarily during the course of a pursuit is counter
to the fundamental mission of the police.

Operational elements related to safety not included in the policy of State Forty-
Seven were Heading—Off/Passing, Paralleling, and Speed. Although the policy does not
specifically mention the elements of Heading-Off/Passing or Paralleling there is reference
to Precision Immobilization Techniques (PIT). Therefore, it is possible that the missing
tactical elements are defined by this agency as PIT’s. The element of Speed should be
contained in the policy due to the inherent dangerousness the element introduces into a
vehicular pursuit. Any elements pertaining to the dangerousness of a pursuit have been

utilized in courts to corroborate claims of departmental or officer negligence and liability

116

(itiaidison v. Weldon, 1984; Corvell v. Town of Pinedale, 1987; City of Pinellas Park v.
m, 1992; Slate of Connecticut v. Hgnnon, 2000).

The population of the state is 2,551,373, covering an area of 52,075, amounting to
a per person square mile average of 49.0. Despite the low population density the pursuit
policy of the state was more comprehensive than other states with similar population
densities. As stated earlier a low population density does not negate the importance of a
fully comprehensive vehicular pursuit policy. A complete policy, including all the
Administrative and Operational elements of the Standard Policy, provides for added
safety in the occurrence of a vehicular pursuit. This protects all parties directly involved
in the pursuit, the general public, and the department as a whole.

Tables 19 and 20 display the Contextual and Active Operational elements

contained in the vehicular pursuit policies of the states in the Northeast region.

Table 19

Contextual Operational elements included in the vehicrgrrmlrsuitipolicies of individpgi

states in the Northeast region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State
[Northeast Region]
Contextual Operational 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33
Elements
_L Initiate Pursuit 1 l l l l l l 1 1 0 l
2. Notify Dispatcher l 1 l 1 1 1 l l l 1
3. Specifics of Pursuit 1 l l l l 1 1 1 l 0 1
Conditions
6. Jurisdictional 1 l l 0 l l l 1 l 0 l
_Cpnsiderations
11. Role of Dispatch l 1 1 l l l l 1 0 l 1
l7. Passengers 1 O 1 l 0 l 0 l 0 0 l
19. Off Road Pursuit 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21. Aerial Assistance 1 l l 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
logal 7 6 7 5 6 6 5 6 3 2 6
Percentage 87. 75. 87. 62. 75. 75. 62. 75. 37. 25. 75.

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 5 O 0
Mean 7.3

75
Total Percentage 67.

05
Table 20

Active Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuiL policies of individual states

in the Northeast region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State
[Northeast Region]
Active Operational 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33
Elements
4. Provisions for Lights 1 l l 1 1 l l l l l l
and Sirens
5. Tactical l 1 1 l l l 0 l 0 1 1
Considerations
7. Pursuit Driving 1 l l 1 l l 1 1 l 1 1
8. Caravanmg l 1 0 l l l 1 1 l l O
9. Intentional Collisions 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 O l l
10. Shooting from 1 0 1 0 0 l l 1 0 O 1
Vehicle
12. Boxgkin 0 O 0 1 O l l 0 0 1 0
l3. Heading-OfflPassipg 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
14. Parallglipg O 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 l
15. Roadblocks l 1 l l 1 1 1 l 0 l l
16. Speed 1 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 l 0 1
18. Tire Deflation 0 0 1 l 1 1 0 0 l 0 l
Devices
20. Termination of 1 1 1 l 1 1 l l 0 l l
Pursuit
Total 8 6 7 9 10 9 ll 7 6 8 11
Percentage 61 . 46. 53. 69. 76. 69. 84. 53. 46. 61 . 84.
54 15 85 23 92 23 62 85 15 54 62
Mean 7.0
L 8
Total Percentage 64.
L 34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operationally, several elements pertaining to safety were missing from the policy
of State Twenty-Three. Intentional Collisions, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing,
Paralleling, and Tire Deflation Devices failed to be included in the vehicular pursuit

Policy. However, the policy does contain a lengthy reference to forcible stop techniques.

118

It is possible that the missing Operational elements are included under the heading of
“forcible stop techniques”. Whatever the case, it is still essential that a department
include any potentially dangerous pursuit technique, or forcible stop maneuver, in the
written pursuit policy. A failure to adequately reference any dangerous technique or
maneuver places the agency as a whole in jeopardy of claims of deprivation of 4‘“ and
14‘“ Amendment rights.

This state covers an area of 4845 square miles, with a total population of
3,282,031, amounting to a per person square mile average of 677.3. Due to the high
population density it is even more imperative for this state agency to have a
comprehensive written pursuit policy. The absence of any potentially dangerous pursuit
tactic or forcible stop technique places the general pubic, pursuing officer, and suspect at
greater risk of harm. In addition, the lack of a comprehensive policy also places the
agency as a whole at a greater risk of claims of negligence and liability.

As was the case with numerous pursuit policies in this study, several Operational
elements pertaining to safety failed to included in the policy of State Twenty-Four.
Intentional Collisions, Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing,
Paralleling, Speed, and Tire Deflation Devices were missing from this policy. The failure
to include any elements pertaining to safety, which in turn lead to 4’“ and 14’“
Amendment considerations, increases the possibility of claims of officer or agency
negligence and liability (FCiiy of Daliasiv. Garfl, 1998; Weaver v. The 831mm

California, 1998; Day v. State of Utah, 1999). It also serves to increase the danger

 

associated with the pursuit itself.

119

The state’s population is 753,538, covering an area of 1955 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 385.5. With such a dense population any
element pertaining to safety and Constitutional considerations should, by necessity, be
included in any written vehicular pursuit policy. A small, added amount of safety in the
form of an inclusive pursuit policy can set the stage for a safer pursuit for all parties
involved.

Operationally, Caravarring, Intentional Collisions, Boxing-in, Heading-
Off/Passing, Paralleling, and Speed were not contained in the policy of State Twenty-
Five. The failure to include safety elements increases the possibility of claims of officer
or agency negligence and liability, and increases the risk of unreasonable danger to the
general public (City of Dallas v. Garcia, 1998; Weaver v. The State of Caiifomia, 1998;
Dayv. giatg of Utgp, 1999). In addition, the omission of safety elements can raise
important Constitutional issues associated with the 4’“ and 14‘“ Amendments.

The state’s population is 1,253,040, covering an area of 30,865 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 40.6. As stated previously, a lack of
population density does not give an agency carte blanche to allow an inadequate pursuit
policy to remain in effect. To protect the agency from negligence and liability suits, and
to protect the officer, suspect, and public from unnecessary harm a pursuit policy must be
inclusive.

The policy of State Twenty-Six was missing several Operational elements
pertaining to safety considerations within the course of a pursuit. Shooting from a
Vehicle, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, and Speed failed to be included in the policy.

The missing Operational elements have been demonstrated in court to act as important

120

considerations to the safety of the officer, suspect, and third party (Sciuto v. Sgate of
Connecticut, 1999; DeWald v. State of Wyoming. 1986; Tucker v. The Town of
Branford, 1998; S_tate of Connecticut v. Harmon, 2000). Any element posing a risk to
the officer, suspect, or general public raises important 4’“ and 14’“ Amendment
considerations. Therefore, all elements relating to safety should be contained in any
written pursuit policy.

The state’s population is 5,171,634, covering an area of 9775 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of529.1. Due to this state’s dense
population it is even more imperative for the written vehicular pursuit policy to be
comprehensive and include all pertinent safety elements. The comprehensiveness of a
pursuit policy adds and increased measure of safety to the entire pursuit condition.

The Operational items serving a safety function missing from the policy of State
Twenty-Seven were Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in, and Speed. Any element
potentially proving deadly raises 4’“ and 14‘“ Amendment issues and should always be
included in any written vehicular pursuit policy. The failure to include any elements
pertaining to safety, which in turn lead to 4‘“ and 14‘“ Amendment considerations,

increases the possibility of claims of officer or agency negligence and liability (C195 of

 

Dallas v. Garcia, 1998; Weaver v. The gate of Califomig, 1998; Day v. Stage of Utah,

1999)
The state’s population is 6,175,169, covering an area of 7838 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 787.9. In such a densely populated area

a comprehensive policy adds safety to an otherwise potentially dangerous situation. The

121

public is well served and the agency is not jeopardized by legal suits with a
comprehensive pursuit policy on file.

Operational elements pertaining to safety that failed to be included in the policy
of State Twenty-Eight were Intentional Collisions, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, and
Speed. The Operational elements missing from the policy have been demonstrated in

court as important safety considerations for the officer, suspect, and third party (Sciuto v.

 

Spite of Connecticut, 1999; DeWald v. State of Wyoming, 1986; Tucker v. The Town of
Branford, 1998; Slate of Connecticut v. Hannon, 2000).

The state’s population is 1,201,134, covering an area of 8969 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 133.9. While this state is primarily rural,
with a varied geographic landscape, the agency nonetheless should not lack a completely
comprehensive pursuit policy. The dangerousness associated with a pursuit can be
decreased through the inclusion of any elements relating to safety. This serves the
agency as legal suits associated with negligence and liability can be prevented, and the
officer, suspect, and public are afforded additional safety considerations.

Operational elements pertaining to safety not included in the policy of State
Twenty-Nine were Tactical Considerations, and Tire Deflation Devices. The omission of
these two elements could, given the right set of circumstances, prove problematic for an
agency or an officer. Tactical Considerations and Tire Deflation Devices are elements
that pertain to safety. A failure to include these elements in a written pursuit policy could
place the pursuing officer and agency at a risk for negligence and liability suits.

Additionally, these two elements, serving a safety related function, could place the public

122

in potentially dangerous situations. This, in turn, leads to the possibility of 4‘“ or 14‘“
Amendment considerations for the agency as a whole.

The state’s population is 8,143,412, covering an area of 7419 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 1097.7. Despite the relative
comprehensiveness of this written policy, it nevertheless, remains that any element
pertaining to safety should be included in the departmental pursuit policy. This offers
protection for the agency, officer, suspect, and general public.

Operational elements pertaining to safety failing to be included in the policy of
State Thirty were Intentional Collisions, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling,
Speed, and Tire Deflation Devices. The dangerousness of a pursuit can be negatively
related to the inclusion; the more inclusive the policy the less the danger. These
elements serving the safety interests of the agency, officer, suspect, and public have been
utilized in numerous legal suits alleging officer or agency negligence and liability
(Madison v. Wiley. 1984; Tucker v. The Town of Branford, 1998; Corvell v. Town of

Pinedale, 1987; DeWald. v. The State of Wyoming, 1986; City of szas v. Gaicia,

 

1998)

The state’s population is 990,819, covering an area of 1045 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 948.2. With such a dense population
covering a small area the written pursuit policy of the agency must be highly
comprehensive. With a larger population the probability of a vehicular pursuit increases
as does the potential for danger. For the added safety of the pursuing officer, agency,

suspect, and public a pursuit policy should include any element related to safety.

123

 

 

Operational elements pertaining to the dangerousness of a pursuit not included in
the policy of State Thirty-One were Tactical Considerations, Intentional Collisions,
Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in, Heading—Off/Passing, Roadblocks, and Termination
of Pursuit. These elements, related to the overall safety of the pursuit, can raise 4‘“ and
14’“ Amendment issues for an agency and the pursuing officer. The elements have also
been utilized in legal cases alleging officer negligence in pursuit instances (Weaver v.
The Stgie of California, 1998). Therefore, to lessen the liability risks for an agency and
an officer these safety-related elements should be included in the written vehicular
pursuit policy.

The state’s population is 6,872,912, covering an area of 39,598 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 173.6. Although the policy of this state
contained the majority of Administrative and Operational elements, the missing safety
factors were considered a large oversight. An effective pursuit policy needs to include
any element related to the safety of the overall pursuit. This offers an additional measure
of safety for all parties involved.

The pursuit policy of State Thirty-Two failed to include several Operational
elements serving a safety function. The elements of Initiate Pursuit, Specifics of Pursuit
Conditions, Shooting from a Vehicle, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, Speed, and Tire
Deflation Devices were not contained in the policy. These elements pertain to the overall
safety of the pursuit itself. Therefore, to lessen the possibility of negligence or liability
claims these missing Operational elements should be included in the policy. They have

been used in courts in attempts to substantiate liability suits ( City of Pinellas Park v.

124

3193.11, 1992; Madison v. Wiley, 1984; Coryell v. Town of Pinedale, 1987; Ciiyaf
Dallas v. Garcia, 1998; DeWald v. The State of Wyoming, 1986).

The state’s population is 593,740, covering an area of 9249 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 64.2. Although this state is primarily
rural, with a low population density, the written pursuit policy of the agency,
nevertheless, should be inclusive of any elements pertaining to the safety of the pursuing
officer, suspect, public, and agency. This provides increased safety for bystanders while
protecting the agency and officer from claims of liability and negligence.

Operationally, the only missing elements serving a direct safety function omitted
from the policy of State Thirty-Three were Carvaning, Boxing-in, and Roadblocks.
These pursuit tactics can be potentially deadly for the officer and suspect and pose a
greater risk of danger to the general public. The failure to include these elements can
also place the agency as a whole at a greater risk for suits alleging negligence and
liability.

Although State Thirty-Three is primarily rural with a population of 1,806,928,
covering an area of 24,087, and a per person square mile average of 75, its policy was
more comprehensive than many states with a similar population density. This increases
the safety of the pursuit not only for the general public but protects the agency and officer
from legal suits associated with negligence.

Table 21 and 22 display the Contextual and Active Operational elements included

in the vehicular pursuit policies of the states in the Mid-West region.

125

 

Table 21
Contextual Qperational elements included in the vehicular pursuit policies of individual

atates in the Mid-West ragion.

 

 

 

 

 

State
[Mid-West Region]

Contextual 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46

Operational

Elements
1. Initiate Pursuit 1 1 1 l 1 l l l 1 1 l 1
2. Notify 1 l l 1 1 1 l l 1 l 1 1 l
Dispatcher
3. Specifics of 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 l 1 1 1 l 1
Pursuit Conditions

 

6. Jurisdictional 1 1 0 l 0 1 I 1 l l l l 0
Considerations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Role of l l l 1 1 1 1 l l 0 0 O 1
Dispatch
1?. Passengers 1 l 0 1 1 1 1 0 l 1 0 0 0
19. Off Road 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 l O
Pursuit
21. Aerial O 0 0 1 0 1 l l 1 0 0 l 1
Assistance
Total 6 6 4 7 5 7 7 6 7 5 4 6 5
Percentage 75. 75. 50. 87. 62. 87. 87. 75. 87. 62. 50. 75. 62.
0 0 O 50 50 50 50 0 50 50 0 O 50
Mean 9.3
75
Total Percentage 72.
12
Table 22

Active Operational elements included in the vehicular pursuitipolicies of individual states

in the Mid-West region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State
[Mid-West Region]

Active 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Operational

Elements
4. Provisions for l 1 l 1 l l l 1 l 1 l 1 1
Lights and Sirens
5. Tactical 1 1 1 1 1 l l 1 l l 1 1 l
LCpnsiderations
LPursuit Driiing 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 0 1 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

126

 

 

8. Caravaning

 

9. Intentional
Collisions

 

10. Shooting from
Vehicle

 

12. Boxipgin

O

CO

C

 

13. Heading-
Off/Passing

C

y—o

C

fl

H

O

o»—

C

O

 

14. Parallelirg

 

15. Roadblocks

 

16. Speed

 

 

18. Tire Deflation
Devices

proud-do

I—Ot—do

when—no

r-‘Ov-‘O

OH-‘C

O~OC

t—ns—‘v—IO

t—nOo—IO

pupae—II-fi

OOOO

put-did"

p—ov—‘U—‘o

 

20. Termination
of Pursuit

_It

 

Total

11

10

12

12

12

 

Percentage

84.
62

61.
54

69.
23

76.
92

61.
54

69.
23

92.
31

61.
54

92.
31

46.
15

92.
31

69.
23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean 9.4

 

Total Percentage 72.
78 I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Operational elements not included in the policy of State Thirty-Four related
to safety were Heading-Off/Passing, and Paralleling. This policy references numerous
forcible stop techniques and driving tactics but fails to mention the elements of Heading-
Off/Passing and Paralleling. These two st0p techniques could, ultimately, prove deadly
in certain circumstances. Any element which could potentially be defined as a deadly
force maneuver raises 4‘“ and 14‘“ Amendment issues and should always be included in
any written pursuit policy.

The state’s population is 12,128,370, covering an area of 55,593 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 212.2. A written pursuit policy should
always be inclusive of any potentially dangerous elements despite a state’s population
density. Needless to point out, with a large population density it is even more imperative

for a state to have a comprehensive pursuit policy.

127

Operational elements pertaining to safety missing from the pursuit policy of State
Thirty-Five were Pursuit Driving, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, and
Speed. As stated previously, any element related to the overall safety of a pursuit needs
to be included in a written pursuit policy. This protects the general public from
unreasonable risks, and decreases the risks of liability for the agency and officer. These
elements have also been used in courts in attempts to verify claims of agency negligence

and liability (Weaver v. The State of California, 1998; DeWald v. The State of

 

Wyoming, 1986; City of Dallas v. Garcia, 1998).

The state’s population is 5,942,901, covering an area of 35,870 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 165.7. Although this state is mainly
rural farmland, with a single large metrOpolitan center, the agency nevertheless needs to
have a comprehensive pursuit policy on file. It is the responsibility of the department and
the officers to serve the public and protect their welfare. A comprehensive policy
devoted to safety fulfills the police obligation well.

Operational elements related to safety not included in the policy of State Thirty-
Six were Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, and Paralleling. It is
necessary for all law enforcement agencies to include in their vehicular pursuit policies
reference to any technique utilized in a pursuit that could potentially prove deadly.
Deadly force raises numerous 4‘“ and 14‘“ Amendment issues. Agencies without
comprehensive written pursuit policies are placed at a much greater risk of the possibility
of legal suits.

The state’s population is 2,869,413, covering an area of 55,875 square miles,

summing to a per person square mile average of 51.4. As iterated earlier, although this

128

 

state is primarily rural farmland, the pursuit policy should still contain any elements
related to safety. Even in rural environments pursuits occur and unnecessary danger
jeopardizes the safety of the pursuing officer, suspect, and the public. It also raises the
risks of legal suits due to officer or agency negligence and liability.

The only Operational elements related to safety not included in the policy of State
Thirty-Seven were Boxing-in, Paralleling, and Speed. These missing elements can
increase the overall safety of a pursuit and, thus, should be included in a written vehicular
pursuit policy. These elements have also been used as causes of support for negligence
suits (Weaver v. The State of California. 1998; DeWald v. The State of Wg3ming,
1986)

The state’s population is 2,654,052, covering an area of 81,823 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 32.4. As was the case in other states of
this region, this state is mainly rural farmland. Despite this fact, the vehicular pursuit
policy of this agency should contain any elements detailing tactics associated with safety.
This protects the parties involved in the pursuit, plus it offers safety for the general public
and lessens the burden of liability for the department.

Operationally the elements pertaining to safety not included in the policy of State
Thirty-Eight were Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling,
and Tire Deflation Devices. The missing Operational elements have been demonstrated
in court to act as important considerations to the safety of the officer, suspect, and third
party (Sciuto v. S_tatp of Connecticut, 1999; DeWald v. State of Wyoming. 1986; TLker

V. The Town of Branjord, 1998; State of Connecticut v. Harmon, 2000).

129

 

The state’s population is 9,863,775, covering an area of 56,809 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 173.6. It has been stated that all written
pursuit policies need to contain any references to safety. These references can increase
the safety associated with a vehicular pursuit as officers are better prepared for a variety
of pursuit tactics. This state, with its relatively large population density definitely needs
to have a fully comprehensive written pursuit policy on file. With a larger population the
possibility of a pursuit occurring increases so safety considerations should be of
paramount importance for an agency.

The Operational elements related to safety not included in the policy of State
Thirty-Nine were boxing-in, Paralleling, and Roadblocks. These elements pertain
directly to the safety of the pursuit, therefore it is essential that they be included in the
written pursuit policy. Elements such as Roadblocks posing the threat of deadly force
raise a myriad of 4‘“ and 14‘“ Amendment issues. The failure of an agency to include
these elements in their pursuit policy also increases the liability of the agency and the
officer.

The population of the state is 4,775,508, covering an area of 79,617, amounting to
a person per square mile average of 60.0. Although the state’s population density is
rather low that does not negate the need for a fully comprehensive pursuit policy. An all-
inclusive policy would protect the agency from increased liability, while also decreasing
the overall dangerousness of the pursuit for the officer, suspect, and general public.

The only Operational element pertaining to safety not included in the policy of
State Forty was Paralleling. Again, it is important for any element related to safety

considerations to be included in a written pursuit policy. The element of Paralleling

130

should be included in the policy due to the possibility of danger associated with the
technique. However, despite the absence of this Operational element, the policy was
considered extremely comprehensive. Nearly every aspect of safety associated with the
course of a pursuit was included in the policy.

The state’s population is 5,468,338, covering an area of 68,898 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 79.4. This state’s vehicular pursuit
policy was considered very comprehensive. While not an extremely p0pulous state it was
evident upon analysis that the drafters of this policy were conscious of the need for
additional safety measure and the potential for liability risks.

Operational elements related to safety not included in the pursuit policy of State
Forty-One were Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in, Paralleling, and Speed. The failure
to include these elements was considered a large oversight for the agency. Any element
potentially proving deadly should be included in any written pursuit policy. The use of
deadly force during a pursuit raises 4‘“ and 14‘“ Amendment issues for a department and
increases the danger of the pursuit for the officer, suspect, and general public. Deadly
force has been used in numerous legal suits alleging officer or departmental negligence

(Madison v. Weldon. 1984; Coryell v. Town of Pinedale, 1987; CiQ/ of Pinellas Parayi

 

13m, 1992).

The state’s population is 1,666,028, covering an area of 76,878 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 21.7. Although this state’s population
density is small, the need for added safety measures associated with deadly force cannot

be understated. Agency liability is increased, as is the danger associated with the overall

pursuit.

I31

The pursuit policy of State Forty-Two was missing some vital elements pertaining
to safety and dangerousness. Operational elements related to safety not included in the
pursuit policy were Shooting from a Vehicle, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing,
Paralleling, and Speed. The missing Operational elements have been demonstrated in
court to act as important considerations to the safety of the officer, suspect, and third
party (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999; DeWald v. State of Wyoming, 1986; Iac_k_e_r
v. The Town of Branford, 1998; State of Connecticut v. Harmon, 2000). In addition, any
potentially deadly pursuit tactic also raises 4‘“ and 14‘“ Amendment issues. This places

the agency in unnecessary risks of liability.

The state’s population is 633,666, covering an area of 68,994 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 9.2. This state’s low population density
should not negate the necessity for the agency to have a comprehensive written policy.
The agency would lessen its liability risks and serve the public interest by adding the
missing safety components, both Administrative as well as Operational.

The written pursuit policy of State Forty-Three was found to be highly
comprehensive Operationally. The only element related to safety missing from the policy
was Heading-Off/Passing. As stated in analyses of other state pursuit policies it is the
primary duty of the police to safeguard the welfare of the general public. Inclusion of

any potentially dangerous pursuit tactics or driving maneuvers in a vehicular pursuit
Policy adds a certain amount of safety for the general public, and also protects the officer,
SUSpect, and agency.

The state’s population is 11,256,654, covering an area of 40,953 square miles,

summing to a per person square mile average of 274.9. With such a dense population it

132

is perhaps wise for this state to have developed such a comprehensive pursuit policy. A
policy devoted to safety serves the public welfare, as innocent bystanders are not
endangered by a potentially dangerous pursuit. A comprehensive policy also adds an
extra measure of safety for officers, suspects, and the agency as a whole.

The Operational elements pertaining to safety not included in the pursuit policy of
State Forty-Four were Pursuit Driving, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling,
Roadblocks, Speed, and Tire Deflation Devices. The missing Operational elements have
been demonstrated in court to act as important considerations to the safety of the officer,
suspect, and third party (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999; DeWald v. State of
Wyoming, 1986; Tucker v. The Town of Branford, 1998; State of Connecticut v.
flatnppp, 2000). In addition, potentially deadly pursuit tactics also raise 4‘“ and 14‘“
Amendment issues. This increases agency liability unnecessarily.

The state’s population is 3,358,044, covering an area of 68,679 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 48.9. The relatively low population
density of the state does not negate the necessity for the agency to have a comprehensive
written pursuit policy. Added measures of safety lessen a department’s liability risk and
increase the margin of safety for the pursuing officer, suspect, and general public.

The written pursuit policy of State Forty-Five was observed to be highly
inclusive. The only Operational element related to safety not contained in the policy was
Boxing-in. Although this element serves a safety-related purpose, the policy was still
very comprehensive, including elements pertaining to officer, suspect, and public safety.
The comprehensive nature of this policy not only protects the public, it protects the

agency and officer from unsubstantiated negligence and liability claims.

133

The state’s population is 733,133, covering an area of 75,896 square miles,
summing to a per person square mile average of 9.7. Despite the rural nature of the state
the written vehicular pursuit policy was very comprehensive covering nearly all aspects
of safety related to officer tactics and maneuvers.

The only Operational elements related to safety not included in the policy of State
Forty-Six were Pursuit Driving, Boxing-in, Heading-Off/Passengers, and Paralleling.
Although the policy contains all Operational elements but four, these elements pertain to
safety and the possibility of claims of officer or agency negligence and liability increase
as these factors are omitted in a policy (City of Dallas v. Garcia. 1998; Weaver v. The
State of California, 1998; Day v. State of Utah, 1999).

The state’s mainly rural population is 5,250,446, covering an area of 54,3 14
square miles, summing to a per person square mile average of 96.7. The policy of this
state was found to be reasonably comprehensive although the omission of several
Operational elements pertaining directly to safety was a serious oversight for the agency
in question. Any element directly serving a safety function necessarily should be

included in any comprehensive policy.

Conclusion
Upon completion of the state-by-state analysis of the various pursuit policies, it
became obvious that many state agencies need to devote more resources in their policies
to measures of safety. Many pursuit policies were found to be quite comprehensive, with
a great deal of Administrative emphasis placed upon safety considerations, but ultimately

the Operational safety elements were discovered to be lacking in most policies. While

134

the Administrative safety elements might assist in protecting an agency from liability
risks, it is, nonetheless, the Operational elements pertaining to safety that pose the
greatest amount of danger to the public, officer, and suspect. Potentially deadly forcible
stop techniques should always be included in all pursuit policies. It is the duty of the

police to safeguard the well being of the public, not endanger it needlessly.

135

Chapter 6
Regional Results
Regional Distribution
In an effort to discern the completeness of State Police and State Highway Patrol
agencies vehicular pursuit policies across a broader criteria, the states were analyzed
according to a regional distribution. The United States was divided into Northeast,
South, Mid-West, Mountain, and Pacific regions according to the Planet Earth World

Atlas by Macmillan (1997).

Northeast

The Northeast contained the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and West
Virginia. The analysis of the Northeast region includes only eleven states due to the fact
that the State of Pennsylvania is unable, by law, to divulge their pursuit policy publicly,
and New York did not participate in the project. The Northeast state policies included
67.91% of the Administrative elements and 65.37% of the Operational elements. These
states failed to include 32.09% of the Administrative elements and 34.63% of the
Operational elements in their vehicular pursuit policies.

The state vehicular policies in the Northeast failed to include many Operational
pursuit tactics in which a pursuing officer might engage. The number, and percent, of
agencies including the various Administrative and Operational elements can be seen in

Table 23.

136

Table 23

Number and percent of agencies in the Northeast reg'on including each Administrative

and Operational element.

Administrative Element # Include & % Include

1. Mission

Statement/P - ose

2. Safe Caveat 11 100%

3. Discontinuance of
Pursuit
4. Noncompliance

5. Definitions

6. Authority to Pursue

7. Statuto Dutles
8. Case Law References
9. Pursuit Restrictions

10. Seriousness of
Offense

9 (81.82%)

9 (81.82%)
4 (36.36%)

8 (72.73%)

4. Provrsrons for Lights

and Sirens
5. Tactical
Considerations

0 eratronal Element

1. Initiate Pursuit

2. Notif Dis atcher

3. Specifics of Pursuit

8 (72.73%) 6. Jurisdictional
Considerations

10 (90.91%)

 

 

 

% Include
10 (90.91%)

10 90.91%
10(90.91%)

11 (100%)
9 (81.82%)
9 (81.82%)

11 100%

 

11. Role of Dispatch

 

 

12. Requirement of
Su-ervisor to Monitor

 

 

13. Role of Supervisor

  

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

18. Tire Deflation
Devices

 

6 (54.55%)

 

 

19. Off Road Pursuit

 

 

0 (0%)

 

 

20. Termination of
Pursuit

10 (90.91%)

 

1 9.09%
11(100%) 9. Intentional Collisions
10(90.91%) 10. Shooting froma 6(54.55%)
Vehicle
I 9(81.82%) 11. Unmarked I 10(90.91%)
Car/Motorcycle
I 9(81.82%) I 12. Boxing-in I 4(36.36%)
I 10(90.91%) I 13. Heading- I 3(27.27%)
Off/Passing
I 2(18.18%) I 14. Paralleling I 4(36.36%)
I 1(9.09%) I 15. Roadblocks I 10(90.91%)
I 10(90.91%) I 16. speed I 4(36.36%)
I 5(45.45%) I 17. Passemfl 6(54.55%)
I
l

I 21. Aerial Assistance

4 (36.36%) I

 

Many potentially dangerous Operational elements related to pursuit techniques

and maneuvers failed to be included in the state agency policies. Six state policies

(54.55%) failed to include Intentional Collisions, 5 (45.45%) did not include Shooting

from a Vehicle, 7 (63.64%) failed to mention Boxing’inr 8 02-73%) did “0‘ mm"

137

Heading-Off/Passing, and 7 (63.64%) did not include Paralleling. In addition, 1 (9.09%)
failed to include Roadblocks, 7 (63.64%) did not include Speed, and 5 (45 .45%) failed to
mention Tire Deflation Devices. However, every state policy contained the element of
Pursuit Driving, 9 (81.82%) contained Tactical Considerations, and 10 (90.91%) included
Specific of Pursuit Conditions. These elements can also contribute to the overall
dangerousness of a pursuit and should be included in all vehicular pursuit policies.

While it may be true that not every pursuit results in the use of one of these tactics
they, nonetheless, can prove dangerous not only to the suspect but to the pursuing officer
as well as any hapless third party caught in the midst of an ongoing pursuit. An agency
wanting to limit their exposure to claims of liability and negligence would be well
advised to include each of these elements in their vehicular pursuit policy. In addition,
any pursuit technique or maneuver that could be defined as a use of deadly force raises
numerous 4‘“ and 14‘“ Amendment issues for the agency as well as the officer.

The state policies of the Northeast region were well equipped to deal with nearly
any and all Administrative elements that should be included in a comprehensive policy.
There was one blatant omission, however. A total of nine (81.82%) states failed to
include any aspect of Training in their vehicular pursuit policy. This factor alone has

been used in court in allegations of officer negligence and liability (Sciuto v. State of

 

Connecticut, 1999). Including this element in the written pursuit policy allows officers to

 

realize the importance the agency places on training. It also serves to lessen the

department’s and officer’s liability risks.

Due to the fact that the lack of Operational elements in a vehicular pursuit policy

can, potentially, result in more negative outcomes in a pursuit and has been used 1n court

I38

 

in cases of departmental negligence and liability they are a vital necessity for any
comprehensive policy. While the Northeast region is not the largest in area it does have
the largest per person square mile average. The entire Northeast region has an overall
population of 31,072,723, covers an area of 135,870 square miles, with 438.39 people per
square mile. Therefore, with such a large population in a relatively small square mile
area the necessity for agencies to have comprehensive policies is vitally important. In
addition, due to the fact that the lack of Operational elements can prove tragic in the
course of a vehicular pursuit the importance for tactical factors to be included in policies

cannot be understated.

Spam

The South region contained the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
The states comprising the South region included 63.64% of the Administrative elements
and 63.20% of the Operational elements in their vehicular pursuit policies. These states
failed to include 36.36% of the Administrative and 36.80% of the Operational elements
in the pursuit policies examined. The number and percent of inclusion of each

Administrative and Operational element can be observed in Table 24.

139

Table 24

Number andpercent ofggencies in the South region including each Administrative and

Operational element.

 

Administrative Element

# Include & % Include

Operational Element

% Include

 

1. Mission

Statement/Purpose

9 (81.82%)

1. Initiate Pursuit

9 (81.82%)

 

2. Safeiy Caveat

11(100%)

2. Notify Dispatcher

10 (90.91%)

 

3. Discontinuance of
Pursuit

11(100%)

3. Specifics of Pursuit

9 (81.82%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Noncompliance 4 (36.36%) 4. Provisions for Lights 11 (100%)
and Sirens

5. Definitions 10 (90.91%) 5. Tactical 10 (90.91%)
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue 7 (63.64%) 6. Jurisdictional 10 (90.91%)
Considerations

7. Statutogl Duties 9 L81.821%) 7. Pursuit Drivipg 9 @1.82%)

8. Case Law References 0 i0%) 8. Caravaning 10 (90.91%L

9. Pursuit Restrictions 10 (90.91%) 9. Intentional Collisions 5 @4596)

10. Seriousness of 10 (90.91%) 10. Shooting from a 8 (72.73%)

Offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch 8 (72.73%) 11. Unmarked 10 (90.91%)
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of 7 (63.64%) 12. Boxing-in 3 (27.27%)

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor 8 (72.73%) 13. Heading- 1 (9.09%)
Off/PassingL

l4. Traipipg 3 Q7.27%) 14. Parallelirg 2 (18.18%)

15. Supervisor at 2 ( 18.18%) 15. Roadblocks 7 (63.64%)

Termination Point

16. Report Writipg_ 8172.73%) 16. Speed 4_(36.36%)

l7. Debricfing 2 (18.18%) [7. Passengers 7 (63.64%)
18. Tire Deflation 7 (63.64 %)
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit 0 @%)
20. Termination of 11 (100%)
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance 3 (27.27%L

 

Operationally there were several important omissions in the pursuit policies of the

states in the South region. It was observed that six (54.55%) of the ten states in the South

region failed to include Intentional Collisions in their vehicular pursuit policies.

Additionally, tactical maneuvers such as Boxing-in, Heading-off/Passing, and Paralleling

were also omitted from many states’ policies. Of the states in the South region eight

 

(72.73%) failed to include Boxing-in, ten (90.91 %) failed to include Heading-offlPassing,
and nine (81 .82%) failed to include Paralleling in their vehicular pursuit policies. In
addition four (36.36%) of the states’ policies failed to include Roadblocks in their pursuit
policies, and four (36.36%) states did not mention Tire Deflation Devices. Finally, only
four (36.36%) policies mentioned the element of Speed. As stressed in the state-by—state
analyses any elements related to the overall safety of a vehicular pursuit should be
included in the written policy. Potentially dangerous forcible stop techniques or driving
maneuvers that could endanger the general public also open the officer and department to
increased negligence and liability risks (Tag/is v. The City of Mesquite, 1992; Day);

State of Utah, 1999; Tuplaer v. The Town of Egrnford, 1998; Weaver v. The Staie of

 

California, 1998).

One prominent Administrative omission in the vehicular pursuit policies of the
states in the South region concerned that of Training. Eight (72.73%) of the states in the
South region failed to include any mention of Training in their vehicular pursuit policies.
However, it was observed that Ten states Within the South region included the
Administrative element of Seriousness of Offense (90.91%) in the vehicular pursuit
policies. These two Administrative factors have been discovered to figure prominently in
court cases regarding claims of officer liability and negligence (Day v. Stat_e of Utgh,
1999; Thomaava City of Richmond, 1995; Sciuto v. State of Connecticut. 1999). If an
agency were to examine court documents for instances of suits dealing with training and
the nature of the offense instigating a pursuit they would come to recognize the
importance of these two factors and the necessity of including them both in a vehicular

pursuit policy.

141

 

While not the largest region in the United States, the South region, nevertheless,
covers 674,782 square miles, with a total population of 75,435,026, amounting to 125.54
people per square mile. With such a sizable population and area the law enforcement
agencies in the South region must find it within themselves to include potentially
dangerous pursuit tactics such as Intentional Collisions, Boxing—in, Heading-off/Passing,
Paralleling, and Roadblocks in their vehicular pursuit policies. As stated previously these
elements have been shown to be important factors in legal suits brought against agencies
in claims of liability and negligence. In addition, these tactics also pose a danger to those
officers conducting the pursuits, the suspect, and, perhaps, third parties caught in the

midst of an ongoing pursuit.

Mid-West

The Mid-West region contained the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, and Wisconsin. The Mid-West region policies contained 68.33% of the
Administrative elements and 72.53% of the Operational elements in their vehicular
pursuit policies. The Mid-West states’ policies failed to include 31.67% of the
Administrative elements and 27.47% of the Operational elements in their vehicular
pursuit policies. The number and percent of inclusion of each Administrative and

Operational element for the region can be seen in Table 25.

142

Table 25

 

Number and percent of agencies in the Mid-West region including each Administrative

and Operational element.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element # Include & % Include Operational Element % Include
1. Mission 12 (92.31%) 1. Initiate Pursuit 13 (100%)
Statement/Puipose
2. Safety Caveat 13 (100%) 2. Notify Dispatcher 13 Q00°/o)
3. Discontinuance of 11 (84.62%) 3. Specifics of Pursuit 13 (100%)
Pursuit
4. Noncompliance 4 (30.77%) 4. Provisions for Lights 13 (100%) I
and Sirens
5. Definitions 11 (84.62%) 5. Tactical 13 (100%) I
Considerations I
6. Authority to Pursue 7 (53.85%) 6. Jurisdictional I 10 (76.92%) I
Considerations
7. Statutoiy Duties 9 i69.23%) 7. Pursuit Driving 1 10 06.92%) 1
8. Case Law References 1 (7.69%) 8. Caravanng E 13 (100%) I
9. Pursuit Restrictions 12 Q2.31‘@ 9. Intentional Collisions? 13 (100%) j
10. Seriousness of 13 (100%) 10. Shooting from a I 9 (69.23%)
Offense I Vehicle I
11. Role of Dispatch 11 (84.62%) 11. Unmarked 1 10 (76.92%) W
Car/Motorcycle
12. Requirement of 11 (84.62%) 12. Boxing-in I 3 (23.08%)
Supervisor to Monitor I W
13. Role of Supervisor 11 (84.62%) I13. Heading- 5 (38.46%)
Off/PassinL TI
14. Trainipg 4 90.77%) I 14. Paralleling 205.38%) j
15. Supervisor at 6 (46.15%) 15. Roadblocks 11 (84.62%)
Termination Point \
16. Report Writipg 12 Q2.3l%) I 16. Speed 8 @1.54%) 1
17. Debricprig 2 @3804.) i17. Passepgers 8 (61.54%) OI

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
l
i
I
\
J
I
l

I 18. Tire Deflation 10 (76.92%) I

Devices

I 19. on Road Pursuit 1 (7.69%) W

I 20. Termination of 13 (100%) T
Pursuit

[21. Aerial Assistance 7 (53.85%) I

 

It was discovered that the Mid-West state policies failed to include many

potentially dangerous pursuit tactics in which a pursuing officer might engage. Boxing-

in was omitted in ten (76.92%) of the policies, Heading-off/Passing was not included in

eight (61.54%) policies, Paralleling failed to be included in eleven (84-62°/°)130110138s and

Roadblocks was not included in two (1 5.38%) policy. In addition, Shooting from a

143

Vehicle was not included in four (30.77%) policies while Speed failed to be mentioned in

five (38.46%).

The vehicular pursuit policies of State agencies in the Mid-West region included
most of the Administrative factors in their policies. The most notable omission was
Noncompliance which was not included in nine (69.23%) policies and Training which
was missing from nine (69.23%) policies. As stated previously the elements of
Noncompliance and Training have been utilized in court in efforts to bring claims of
liability and negligence against law enforcement agencies (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut,
1999). Every state agency (100%) included the factor of Seriousness of Offense in their
vehicular pursuit policy. This element has also been used in court in cases alleging police
pursuit misconduct (Weaver v. The State of California, 1998; DeWald v. State of
Wyoming; Sciuto v. State of Connecticut. 1999; Thomas v. City of Richmond, 1995).

Although the Mid-West region is not the most populous region in the analysis it,
nonetheless, is home to 61,824,820 people covering 740,582 square miles with 98.48
people per square mile. Therefore, it is a necessity for the state agencies in this region to
include all potentially hazardous pursuit tactics in their vehicular pursuit policy. This not
only serves to protect the agency and officer from unsubstantiated claims of negligence

and liability, it also protects the public and suspect, to a certain degree, against needless

danger.

144

 

1519131129
The Mountain region contained the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The analysis of the Mountain region
contains seven states due to the fact that the policy of Arizona was not received. The
states comprising the Mountain region included 63.03% of the Administrative elements
and 61.22% of the Operational elements. Conversely, the states of this region failed to
include 36.97% of the Administrative elements and 38.78% of the Operational elements.

The number and percent of inclusion of each Administrative and Operational element can

be seen in Table 26.

Table 26

Number and pprcent of agencies in the Mountain region includingeach Administrative

and Opegiiopal element.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element # Include & % Include Operational Element % Include

1. Mission 6 (85.71%) 1. Initiate Pursuit 6 (85.71%)

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat 7 Q00%) 2. Notify Dispatcher 7 (100%)

3. Discontinuance of 6 (85.71%) 3. Specifics of Pursuit 5 (71.43%)

Pursuit

4. Noncompliance 3 (42.86%) 4. Provisions for Lights 6 (85.71%)

and Sirens
5. Definitions 6 (85.71%) 5. Tactical 4 (57.14%)
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue 2 (28.57%) 6. Jurisdictional 6 (85.71%)
__ Considerations

7. Statutory Duties 3 (42.8693 7. Pursuit Driving 5 (71.43%)

8. Case Law References 0 Q%) 8. Caravanrgg 7 (100%)

9. Pursuit Restrictions 7 (100%) 9. Intentional Collisions 5 (71.43%)

10. Seriousness of 6 (85.71%) 10. Shooting from a 4 (57.14%)
LOffense _ Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch 5 (71.43%) 11. Unmarked 4 (57.14%)
g Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of 5 (71.43%) 12. Boxing-in 1 (14.29%)

S ervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor 6 (85.71%) 13. Heading- 2 (28.57%)
__ Off/Passing

14. Training 2 (28.57%) 14. ParallelinL 2 (28.57%)

 

145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. Supervisor at 3 (42.86%) 15. Roadblocks I 5 (71.43%) J
Termination Point
16. Report Writimg 5 (71.43%y 16. Speed I 2 (28.57%) I
17. Debriefmg 3 (42.86%) 17. Paspppgers I 4 i57.14%) I
18. Tire Deflation 5 (71.43%) J
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit 0 (0%) J
20. Termination of 7 (100%) I
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance 3 Q1286%) I

 

 

 

 

One unsettling fact concerning the comprehensiveness of vehicular pursuit
policies of the Mountain states was the lack of specificity in identifying potentially
dangerous tactics in which a pursuing officer can engage. The Operational factor
Intentional Collisions was not included in two state policies (28.57)%. The factor of
Boxing-in was not included in six state policies (85 .7 1%), Heading-off/Passing was not
included in five policies (71.43%), Paralleling failed to be included in five state policies
(71 .43%), and the factor of Speed failed to be included in five state policies (71.43%).
Finally, the factor of Roadblocks was not included in two policies (28.57%), with
Shooting from Vehicle not mentioned in three policies (42.86%).

One possible explanation for the lack of specificity when dealing with pursuit
tactics such as Intentional Collisions, Boxing-in, Heading-offlPassing, Paralleling, Speed,
and Roadblocks might be attributed to the lack of population density. The Mountain
region covers a 742,480 square mile area with a total population of 12,349,147, and a per
person square mile density of only 17.41 people (Macmillan, 1997). The Mountain
region is second only to the Pacific region in square mile area but possesses the smallest
population density of any other region. The lack of specificity might not be necessary

when dealing with such an enormous area with a low population density.

146

When considering Administrative elements in the vehicular pursuit policies in the
Mountain region the factor of Training was missing in five state policies accounting for
71.43%. Noncompliance was not included in four state policies (57.14%). The elements
of Training and Noncompliance are likely the only Administrative factors that might
prove to be a source of exposure to liability and negligence claims in court. A lack of
training and the failure of an officer to understand the consequences of a failure to follow
departmental policy could prove to expose a department to claims of liability and

negligence, whether substantiated or not (Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999).

 

However, simply because the area has such a low p0pulation density the necessity
for a comprehensive pursuit policy cannot be understated. Tactical factors such as
Shooting from a Vehicle, Intentional Collisions, Boxing-in, Heading-off/Passing,
Paralleling, Speed, and Roadblocks can certainly prove to be causes of action in court
alleging officer negligence and departmental liability (mayer v. The State of Qaiiforpia,
1998; Stata of Connecticut v. Harmon, 2000; Mgr v. The Town of Branford. 1998).
Hence, due to the fact that these five Operational factors expose an agency to legal risks

they should be included in any comprehensive vehicular pursuit policy.

$9;le

The Pacific region contained the states of California, Hawai’i, Oregon,
Washington, and Alaska. The states of the Pacific region included 55.29% of the
Administrative elements and 53.33% of the Operational elements in their vehicular

pursuit policies. These states failed to include 44.71% of the Administrative elements

147

and 46.67% of the Operational factors in their policies. The number and percent of

inclusion of the Administrative and Operational elements can be observed in Table 27.

Table 27

Number and percent of agencies in the liacific region including each Administrative and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.QneLafiLOnaLeLetneIiL
Administrative Element # Include & % Include Operational Element % Include
1. Mission 2 (40%) 1. Initiate Pursuit 3 (60%)
Statement/Pugmse
2. Safety Caveat 5 i1 00%) 2. Notify Dispatcher 3 @096)
3. Discontinuance of 4 (80%) 3. Specifics of Pursuit 2 (40%)
Pursuit
4. Noncompliance l (20%) 4. Provisions for Lights 3 (60%)
and Sirens
5. Definitions 5 (100%) 5. Tactical 4 (80%)
Considerations
6. Authority to Pursue 2 (40%) 6. Jurisdictional 4 (80%)
Considerations
7. Statutorijuties 2 (40%) 7. Pursuit Drivigg 5 (100%)
8. Case Law References 0i0%) 8. Caravaning 5 (100%)
9. Pursuit Restrictions 5 Q00%) 9. Intentional Collisions 2 (40%)
10. Seriousness of 1 (20%) 10. Shooting from a 2 (40%)
Offense Vehicle
1 1. Role of Dispatch 4 (80%) 11. Unmarked 3 (60%)
Car/Motorcfle
12. Requirement of 3 (60%) 12. Boxing-in l (20%)
Supervisor to Monitor
13. Role of Supervisor 4 (80%) 13. Heading- 1 (20%)
Off/Passirg
14. Trainin 2 (40%L 14. Paralleling 2 (40%)
15. Supervisor at 1 (20%) 15. Roadblocks 3 (60%)
Termination Point
16. Report Writing 4 L80°/3L 16. Sged 2 (40%)
17. Debriefmg 2 £0040 l7. Passengs 1 (20%)
18. Tire Deflation 2 (40%)
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit 0 (0%)
20. Termination of 5 (100%)
L Pursuit
L_ 21. Aerial Assistance 3 i60%)

 

 

148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was observed that the Pacific state policies also failed to include many
potentially dangerous pursuit tactics in which a pursuing officer might engage. Boxing-
in was omitted in four (80%) of the policies, Heading-off/Passing was not included in
four (80%) policies, Paralleling failed to be included in three (60%) of the policies, and
Roadblocks was not included in two (40%) policies. In addition, Shooting from a
Vehicle was not included in three (60%) policies while Intentional Collisions failed to be
mentioned in three (60%) of the policies. These tactics can pose a considerable threat of
danger to officers, suspects, and the general public. The inability of an officer to
effectively and safely terminate a pursuit utilizing a tactic such as these can expose an
agency to severe risks of liability and place the public in unnecessary danger.

Administratively the Pacific region fared rather well. It is important to note that
Seriousness of Offense was missing from four (80%) policies while Training failed to be
included in three (60%) policies. These two elements have been utilized in courts in
efforts to substantiate claims of negligence and liability against officers and departments
(Weaver v. The State of California, 1998, DeWald, v. The State of Wiyomigg. 1986;
Sciuto v. State of Connecticut, 1999; Thomas v. Cipa of Richmond, 1995).

While the percentages for the Pacific region can appear deceptively large due to
the small number of states included in the region, the elements missing from the
vehicular pursuit policies are, nonetheless, vital to the safety of the pursuing officer,
suspect, and third parties. The states comprising the Pacific region are varied, with
differing land areas and population densities. Alaska, an enormous state covering
570,374 square miles has a population of only 619,500 with 1.1 people per square mile

area. The need for an extremely comprehensive vehicular pursuit policy is not as

149

 

 

 

L--.

pressing as the conditions existing in the State of California. That state covers 155,973
square miles with a population of 33,145,211 and 212.5 people per square mile. Hence,
the conditions of a pursuit taking place in California are much different than those
existing in Alaska. It is much more important for Califomia’s vehicular pursuit policy to
be comprehensive, including all potentially hazardous driving and pursuit termination
tactics an officer can utilize.

The conditions in the island state of Hawai’i are similar to those in California.
Hawai’i has a population of 1,185,497 living in a 6423 square mile are amounting to
184.6 people per square mile. The congested conditions in Hawai’i could create
additional danger for an officer, suspect, or third party involved in a pursuit. Hence, the

increased need for intensive and comprehensive vehicular pursuit policies.

Regionafiagty

Upon completion of the regional analysis there was no doubt which region of the
United States is the safest with respect to vehicular pursuit policies. The Mid-West
region contained 68.33% of the Administrative elements and 72.5 3% of the Operational
elements. This region demonstrated the necessity for a good integration of the
Administrative elements with the pursuit tactics and forcible stop maneuvers detailed in
the Operational elements.

The next safest region was the Northeast, with policies including 67.91% of the
Administrative elements and 65.37% of the Operational elements. While the majority of
the state pursuit policies included Administrative elements related to liability and

Operational elements pertaining to safety, there was a distinct tendency for the agencies

150

to rely heavily on the Administrative components of the policies. In many instances
important Operational elements involving the use of deadly force were overshadowed by
Administrative elements; Thus, Operational elements related to the use of deadly force
failed to be included in a written pursuit policy but lesser Administrative elements were
included.

The South region was considered the next safest region. Pursuit policies in this
region contained 63.64% of the Administrative elements and 63.20% of the Operational
elements. This region also demonstrated a good integration of Administrative and
Operational elements. However, although Operational elements were not overshadowed
by Administrative considerations of an agency, many potentially dangerous forcible stop
techniques and pursuit tactics failed to be included in many vehicular pursuit policies of
agencies in the region.

Despite the presence of the state with the most comprehensive pursuit policy,
State Eleven, the Mountain region was found to be only the fourth safest region with
respect to vehicular pursuit policies. The Mountain region contained 63.03% of the
Administrative elements and 61.22% of the Operational elements. The agencies of the
region failed to include in their written vehicular pursuit policies many important
Administrative and Operational elements pertaining to safety and liability. Potentially
dangerous Operational tactics failed to be included in the policies of the region as many
Administrative elements which could serve to increase the dangerousness of a pursuit.

Finally, the Pacific region was considered the least safest region in light of the
lack of inclusion of many elements related to the safety of the overall pursuit. The

Pacific region contained 55.29% of the Administrative elements and 53.33% of the

151

Operational elements. The vehicular pursuit policies of the region failed to include in the
written pursuit policies many Administrative elements related to liability and safety risks
for the officer as well as the department as a whole. In addition, numerous Operational
elements pertaining to the overall safety of the pursuit itself, such as forcible stop

techniques and driving tactics, failed to be included in the written pursuit policies.

Factor Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis was undertaken for the Administrative and
Operational elements. It was decided to separate the two types of elements to devise two
distinct factor analytic models due to the differing roles the two classification of elements
play in a written vehicular pursuit policy. Administrative elements pertain to
departmental bureaucratic operations, While Operational elements relate to officer
conduct during the course of a vehicular pursuit. The two elements serve differing
purposes, therefore two factor models was deemed the most appropriate strategy.

In the factor analysis of the Administrative elements, six factors were extracted in
a Varimax Rotation utilizing 3 Kaiser Normalization. Table 28 demonstrates the factor

loadings for the Administrative elements.

Table 28

Factor loadings for Administrative elements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Component I
fluent Roles Restrictions Mission Compliance L_egal I Traini'n
1. Mission - - .802 - - I -
figment/Purpose . fl
3. Discontinuance of - - - 609 - -
Latent I i I 7

 

 

 

 

152

 

Noncompliance - - - .754 - -

 

Definitions .607 - - - - -

 

Authoriiy to Pursue - - - - .714 -

 

99‘1”?

Statutog Duties - .486 - - - -

 

8. Case Law - - - - .759 -
References

 

9. Pursuit Restrictions - .736 - - - -

 

10. Seriousness of - - .617 - - -
Offense

 

11. Role of Dispatch .797 - - - - -

 

12. Requirement of .531 - .. - - -
Sumrvisor to Monitor

 

13. Role of Supervisor .648 - - - - .

 

14. Trainirig - - - - - .883

 

15. Supervisor at .150 - - - - -
Termination Point

 

16. Report .802 - - - - -
Refinements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l7. Debriefmg .532 - - - - -

 

It can be seen in this table that the element Safety Caveat is not included in the
factor model. This element had zero variance, and, therefore, would not fit into any
factor analytic model. Due to its zero variance it was decided to remove the element
from the larger model and create a separate component entitled ‘Safety’ specifically for
this single element.

The factor loadings for Component 1 were highest on elements Definitions, Role
of Dispatch, Requirement of Supervisor to Monitor, Role of Supervisor, Supervisor at
Termination Point, Report Requirements, and Debriefing. This Component was referred
to as Roles due to the characteristics of each element loading under this component.
Each element loading under Component 1 had some reference to the role the person in
question was to play according to departmental regulations.

The loadings under Component 2 were highest on elements Statutory Duties and

Pursuit Restrictions. This Component was referred to as Restrictions. Both elements

153

 

 

loading under this Component pertained in some fashion to pursuit restrictions, whether
these were legal or departmental in nature.

Loadings under Component 3 were highest on elements Mission Statement and
Seriousness of Offense. This Component was then referred to as Mission. The
designation was due to the fact that it is the mission of the police to apprehend suspects
for various offenses. The seriousness of an individual’s offense leads to the police
fulfilling their mission to initiate pursuit in efforts to apprehend the suspect.

Component 4 had the highest loadings for elements Discontinuance of Pursuit and
Noncompliance. This Component was then referred to under the name of Compliance
due to the Noncompliance element and to the need for the officer to adhere to policy
guidelines in the discontinuance of a pursuit.

The highest loadings for Component 5 were for elements Authority to Pursue and
Case Law References. This Component was then referred to as Legal due to the legal
nature of both elements.

Finally, the highest loading on Component 6 was for the element of Training.
Thus, this Component was designated Training.

Therefore, the Administrative elements can be grouped according to seven
categories: Roles, Restrictions, Mission, Compliance, Legal, Training, and Safety. The
highest as well as the majority of loadings were on the factor of Roles.

While exploratory factor analysis cannot determine precisely which elements are
the most important for inclusion in a written vehicular pursuit policy, some deduction
combined with the information provided by the mathematical mock-up can offer

guidance in determining which elements dominate. Administratively the element of

154

 

 

safety was, by far, the most included of any element. This element had zero variance in
the factor model. Thus, Safety should be preeminent in any written pursuit policy. This
element could be considered the most important Administrative element.

The factor of Training had the next highest loading at .883 and should be
considered the second most important Administrative element to include in a written
pursuit policy. The factor of Legal had the next highest factor loadings. The elements
loaded at .714 and .759, for a mean of .737. Therefore, this factor ranks third in
importance for inclusion in a written policy.

The fourth factor that should be contained in a written policy is the factor of
Mission. The elements loaded in this factor at .802 and .617 for a mean of .710. Thus,
the factor of Mission should be the next factor included in a written pursuit policy.

The fifth factor that should be included in a pursuit policy is Compliance. The
elements loaded on this factor at .609 and .754 for a mean of .682. Therefore,
Compliance should be the fifth factor that an agency should include in its written pursuit
pohcy.

The sixth factor that should be included in a pursuit policy is Restrictions. The
elements loaded on this factor at .486 and .736 for a mean of .611. Hence, the factor of
Restrictions should be the sixth factor to be included in a departmental pursuit policy.

The seventh and final factor that should be included in a written pursuit policy is
Roles. The elements loaded on this factor at .607, .797, .531, .648, .150, .802, and .532
for a mean of .581. Therefore, the factor of Roles should be the final factor contained in

any comprehensive written vehicular pursuit policy.

155

 

In the factor analysis of the Operational element seven factors were extracted

using a Varimax Rotation with Kaiser Normalization. Factor loadings for the

Operational elements can be observed in Table 29.

Table 29

Factor loadings for Operatiorial elements.

 

Component

 

Element

Liability

Initiate

Procedural

Tactical

Drivipg

Off Road

Carvanirg

 

1. Initiate
Pursuit

.745

 

2. Notify
Dispatcher

.722

 

3. Specifics of
Pursuit

Conditions

.781

 

4. Provisions for
Lights & Sirens

.802

 

5. Tactical
Considerations

 

6. Jurisdictional
Considerations

 

7. Pursuit
Driving

 

8. Caravaning

 

9. Intentional
Collisions

 

10. Shooting
from Vehicle

 

1 l. Unmarked
Car/Motorcycle

 

12. Boxing-in

 

13. Heading-
Off/Passing

.762

 

14. Paralleling

.699

 

15. Roadblocks

 

16. Speed

.676

 

 

17. Passengers

.406

 

18. Tire
Deflation
Devices

.678

 

 

19. Off Road
Pursuit

.457

 

20. Termination
of Persuit

 

 

.849

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21. Aerial

 

 

 

 

 

 

.749

 

156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Assistance [ I i l I L 1

Factor loadings for Component 1 were highest for Intentional Collisions,
Heading-Off/Passing, Paralleling, and Speed. Due to the inherent dangerousness of these
maneuvers and techniques this factor was hereto referred to as Liability.

Component 2 had the highest loadings on Initiate Pursuit, Specifics of Pursuit
Conditions, Jurisdictional Considerations, and Shooting from a Vehicle. This factor was
labeled Initiate due to the fact that the elements pertained to conditions which could
affect the initiation of a pursuit.

The highest loadings for Component 3 were on Notify Dispatcher, Provisions for
Lights & Sirens, and Roadblocks. This factor was denoted as Procedural due to the need
for the pursuing officer to adhere to specific procedural guidelines for each of the
elements loading under this Component.

Component 4 had the highest loadings for Tactical Considerations, Unmarked
Car/Motorcycle, and Termination of Pursuit. This Component was designated Tactical
due to the nature of the elements. Each of the elements loading under this Component
was associated with various tactical considerations arising during the course of a
vehicular pursuit.

The highest loadings on Component 5 were on Pursuit Driving, Boxing-in,
Passengers, and Tire Deflation Devices. This Component was referred to as Driving due
to the fact that each element pertained in some fashion to the officer’s driving during the

course of the pursuit.

157

 

 

 

Component 6 had the highest loadings on Off Road Pursuit and Aerial Assistance.
This Component was labeled Off Road due to the fact that the elements loading on this
component related to the pursuit leaving a main roadway.

Finally, the highest loadings for Component 7 were on Caravaning. Therefore,
this factor was referred to as Caravaning.

Thus, the Operational elements can be grouped into seven categories as well:
Liability, Initiate, Procedural, Tactical, Driving, Off Road, and Caravaning.

Operationally, the factor of Caravaning loaded at .909. Therefore, this element
should take precedent when considering which factor to initially included in a pursuit
policy. Initiate had loadings of .745, .781, .543, and .686 for a mean of .689. Therefore,
Initiate should be the second factor to be included in a written pursuit policy.

The Procedural factor had loadings of .722, .802, and .513 for a mean of .679.
This factor should be the third factor considered for inclusion in a written pursuit policy.
Liability had loadings of .571, .762, .699, and .676 for a mean of .677. Therefore, the
factor of Liability should be the fourth factor considered for inclusion in a written pursuit
pohcy.

The factor of Tactical had loadings of .490, .607, and .849 for a mean of .649.
Thus, the Tactical factor should be the fifth factor included in a pursuit policy. Off Road
had loadings of .457 and .749 for a mean of .603. This factor should be the sixth factor to
be included in a pursuit policy. Finally, the factor of Driving should be the seventh factor
to be included in a written vehicular pursuit policy with loadings of .762, .426, .406, and

.678 for a mean of .568.

158

 

Table 30 provides the Administrative factors with their respective loadings and
which factor is considered more important for inclusion in a written vehicular pursuit

policy.

Table 30
Administrative izrptor relevance to written pursuit policy.
Factor

Restrictions
.486
.736

Mission
.714 .802
.759 .617

 

Table 31 provides the Operational factors with their respective loadings and
which factor is considered most important for inclusion in a written vehicular pursuit

policy.

Table 31

Operational factor relevarice to writtegursuit polipy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor
Caravanin Initiate Procedural Liability Tactical Off Road Driving
Loadings .909 .745 .722 .571 .490 .457 .762
.781 .802 .762 .607 .749 .426
.543 .513 .699 .849 .406
.686 .676 .678
flan .909 .689 .679 .677 .649 .603 .568

 

 

 

159

 

Le 'slative Anal sis

In an effort to lessen the exposure of law enforcement organizations several states
have devised the strategy of implementing legal standards to be included 11 a vehicular
pursuit policy. If a law enforcement agency is to retain statutory immunity in a court of
law in suits alleging liability or officer negligence certain, specified elements must be
included in the vehicular pursuit policy. Recently this trend has been expanding
nationwide as state legislatures realize the monetary gain inherent in limiting police
liability. Apart from monetary considerations the increased safety factor from a more
comprehensive policy is also a public relations boon for both the agency as well as the
legislators themselves.

Currently the states of California, Minnesota, and Connecticut have implemented
legal standards dictating essential elements to be included in the law enforcement
organization in their respective states. In 1985 the State of New Jersey created the New
Jersey Police Vehicular Pursuit Policy to be used as a state-wide standard for all
departments within the state. This standard was revised in January, 1993 and again in
September, 1999 but the state legislature has yet to specify the necessity that this standard
be implemented in an actual law. It is important to note that the definition devised by the
New Jersey Task Force is used by the majority of state agencies in defining a police
pursuit.

In 1997 the State of Connecticut enacted House Bill No. 5186, An Act
Concerning Legislative Task Forces. This bill established a task force, similar in duty, to
that of New Jersey. This task force consisted of two members appointed by the Speaker

of the House, two appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, one appointed by

160

the majority leader of the House, one appointed by the majority leader of the senate, two
appointed by the minority leader of the House, and two appointed by the minority leader
of the Senate. The task force was assigned the duty to “study the feasibility of a
standardized, unified police pursuit policy within the state” (p. l). The report from the
task force was to be submitted no later than January 1, 1998 to the joint standing
committee of the General Assembly. Again, the bill stated the importance of safety in the
task forces report and the possibility of a statewide, uniform pursuit policy.

The State of Minnesota in Minnesota Statute § 609.487 (1999) defined legally the
variety of terms and conditions existing within the scope of a police vehicular pursuit.
This statute brought legal denotation to terms such as ‘peace office’, ‘motor vehicle’,
‘feeling an officer’, ‘fleeing an officer’, ‘death’, and ‘bodily injury’ among others. In
February, 1999 the Minnesota House of Representatives introduced a bill requiring the
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board to adopt “a statewide model policy
governing the conduct of police pursuits of fleeing suspects and requires state and
municipal law enforcement agencies to adopt local police pursuit policies in conformity
with the state policy” (Minnesota House of Representatives File # HP. 381, 1999, p. 1).
This bill also created two new programs for distributing tire deflation devices and driving
simulators, along with monetary appropriations to be used for these programs.

Later in that same year the Minnesota House of Representatives placed into law
Minnesota Statute § 626.8458 (1999) requiring that, “By July 1, 1999, the board shall
adOpt a new or revised model policy governing the conduct of peace officers who are in
pursuit of a vehicle being operated in violation of section 609.487” (p. 1). The bill stated

that an agency’s pursuit policy must include a statement describing the philosophy of the

161

model policy: namely that the safety of all persons involved in or by a police pursuit is of
primary importance. In addition, the policy needed to “balance the risks of the pursuit to
the public and peace officers with the consequences of failing to pursue” (p. 1).

The Minnesota statute detailed the necessity of including potentially hazardous
pursuit tactics, the need to notify dispatch, responsibilities of the supervising officer,
pursuing officer, and back-up officers. Jurisdictional considerations, report writing, and
training were also specified in this statute.

In 1999, the State of California also took steps in placing into law a model policy
for use in vehicular pursuits. California Penal Code § 13519.8 (2000) established
guidelines for that state’s model pursuit policy. The bill associated with this statute
stated that, “The Commission shall implement, on or before Novemberl , 1994, a course
or courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in the handling of
high-speed vehicle pursuits and shall also develop uniform, minimum guidelines for
ad0ption by California law enforcement agencies for response to high—speed vehicle
pursuits” (p. 1).

Similar to the Minnesota statute, the California Code stated that the guidelines to
be established should include numerous factors inherent in a police vehicular pursuit
among which were, initiation of the pursuit, driving tactics, speed limits, blocking,
ramming, roadblocks, communications, air support, termination of pursuits, and
environmental conditions. Also included in this model policy was the necessity for
adequate training in the proper conduct of a vehicular pursuit. In addition, a safety caveat

was included stating, “. . .the need to balance the known offense and the need for

162

immediate capture against the risks to officers and other citizens of a hi gh-speed pursuit”

(p. 1).

Conclusion

This chapter detailed the comprehensiveness of vehicular pursuit policies based
on a regional comparison of the United States. It was determined the Mid-West region to
be the safest in the nation followed by the Northeast, the South, the Mountain, and the
Pacific region. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the element of Safety was
preeminent in any written policy and thus, the most important Administrative factor to be
included in a written pursuit policy. The factor of Training, Legal, Mission, Compliance,
Restrictions, and Roles, in this respective order, were the next most important factors to
be included in a written policy. Operationally, the factors of Carvaning, Procedural,
Liability, Tactical, Off Road, and Driving, in this order, were identified as the most
important factors to be included in a written policy. A legislative analysis found an
enduring trend by state legislatures of establishing bills and laws related to vehicular
pursuit policies. A growing number of states continue to identify various details to be
included in a written vehicular pursuit policy if law enforcement agencies wish to
diminish their liability risks.

Many states have developed very comprehensive policies containing references to
safety and departmental liability concerns. However, far too many agencies are in want
of more inclusive written pursuit policies. Many agency’s written pursuit policies are in
need of a more focused approach in detailing elements, both Administrative as well as

Operational, related to the overall safety of the pursuit itself. Elements related to liability

163

 

and safety serve to lessen the risks of legal suits for a department while simultaneously

lessening the risks of unnecessary endangerment of the general public.

164

Chapter 7
Conclusion

As is evident by viewing any weeknight television news program, police
vehicular pursuits continue to pose dilemmas for police agencies, political figureheads,
civil rights organizations, and the public in general. Police are placed, time and time
again in the awkward and unique position of endeavoring to apprehend a law violator or a
known fugitive without placing in peril the lives of innocent members of the general
public. A reckless, dangerous, or negligent pursuit can place innocent civilians in danger.
However, a failure to successfully apprehend a suspect ultimately means that the general
public is still placed in harms way due to the at-large nature of the suspect. Therein lies
the crux of the problem, the catch 22. The fundamental argument remains that the duty
of the police is to protect, not harm.

The myriad of issues surrounding police pursuits is replete with concerns
regarding liability, negligence, force, reporting, and community relations. As litigation
continues to grow the Constitutional issues raised by 4‘“ and 14‘“ Amendment
considerations also plague many law enforcement agencies. Apart from considerations
pertaining to departmental liability there also exists the very real issue of monetary
compensations concerning pursuits. Litigation resulting from tragic outcomes of
vehicular pursuits can easily grow into the millions of dollars annually. Taxpayers and
police agencies suffer equally when a pursuit goes awry and a claim of negligence or
liability is substantiated. Thus, it is vital for a law enforcement agency to have in effect a

viable, trainable vehicular pursuit policy to serve as a guide for officer discretion while in

165

 

 

the field. A comprehensive policy acts as a guide for officer discretion so as to choose
the mindful course of action while conducting a pursuit.

In any decision to engage in a vehicular pursuit, the need to apprehend the suspect
must be weighed against the need to avoid endangering civilians or other parties not
directly involved in the ongoing pursuit. Generally, the greater the potential risk to the
general public, the officer, or the suspect, the less justified the pursuit. While it is
impractical, and perhaps illogical, to formulate precise, objective rules to cover the many
complexities of a pursuit it is, nonetheless, vital for an agency to develop a
comprehensive policy governing the conduct of officers while in the midst of a vehicular
pursuit.

As per policy development, any law enforcement agency should have in effect a
vehicular pursuit policy inclusive of any elements pertaining to deadly force or
potentially hazardous forcible stop techniques. The omission of even a single element
pertaining to the safety of the pursuing officer, suspect, pedestrians, or innocent third
parties has far reaching 4‘“ and 14‘“ Amendment consequences. Deadly force and
negligence suits can have devastating financial repercussions for law enforcement
agencies, not to mention the personal and career toll placed upon an officer or victim of a
pursuit gone awry.

As this research has posited, all comprehensive vehicular pursuit policies, by
necessity, should contain references to shooting from a vehicle, hazardous forcible st0p
techniques, caravaning, pursuit driving, specifics of pursuit conditions, intentional
collisions, roadblocks, speed, tire deflation devices, and tactical considerations. A failure

to include potentially hazardous elements into a pursuit policy serves to increase the

166

 

 

dangerousness factor inherent in any pursuit and raises the stakes on the gamble with
human life, property, and the possibility of negligence and liability claims.

Some of the earliest research into police vehicular pursuits was often sensational
lacking the strict scientific methodological guidelines that direct current scholarly
endeavors. One of the earliest research projects into the field of vehicular pursuits was
the Physicians for Automotive Safety (1968). Unfortunately, this study was utilized more
in courts of law by unscrupulous attorneys seeking monetary rewards for their clients
than by scholars seeking a serious study of the police role in society. Many years, and
research projects later, modern scholars would begin to appreciate and understand the
importance of police pursuits in the larger realm of law enforcement and policing.

While many arguments espoused by proponents and opponents of vehicular
pursuits remain emotionally charged, many scholars and legislators have acknowledged
the importance of this specific law enforcement function. Despite evidence to the
contrary there still exist those scholars and community leaders who maintain that police
pursuits pose too many inherent risks to the general public and innocent bystanders.
Were it not for police pursuits many suspects would be let loose on an unsuspecting
public. In a 1993 study by Payne of police pursuits in the State of Michigan, it was
reported that the majority of pursuits were initiated for speeding (30.5%) followed by
other traffic violations (24.9%) and suspected felony crimes (24.3%). Upon
apprehension of the suspect Payne found that 34.5% of the pursuits resulted in an arrest
involving a felony, 33.1% involved a charge of fleeing and eluding with 14.4% involving

drunk driving charges.

167

 

In an earlier study by Alpert and Dunham (1988) of pursuits by the Metro Dade
Police Department and the Miami Police Department it was discovered that out of a total
952 pursuits 47% (n = 305) of apprehended suspects were arrested for traffic violations
and 48% (n = 314) were arrested for felonies. Were it not for the practice of police
vehicular pursuits dangerous felons would be flee to run amok in society. Charles,
Falcone, and Wells (1992a) obtained results in their study of pursuits that 95.9% of all
officers interviewed voiced approval for pursuits. They also found that 76.3% of officers
indicated that they believed that the danger to the public would increase and 85.4%
maintained that crime in general would increase (Charles et al., 1992a). Finally, Britz
and Payne (1994) observed that, “An overwhelming majority of respondents (96%)
supported the notion that more offenders would attempt to elude police of such a policy
were implemented” (p. 117). Thus, it would seem, as far as the officers themselves are

concerned the law enforcement tactic of vehicular pursuits is highly supported.

Regional Variations

Some theorists have espoused the idea of a nation wide pursuit policy. Although
the chances of this actually occurring in the near future are remote, it is, nonetheless, a
tOpic worthy of consideration.

Due to the vast expanse of the United States the effort to standardize vehicular
pursuit policies is ultimately doomed to failure. It is an unnecessary exercise. The
United States is a country of differing geography, population densities, ethnicity’s, and
culture. What is appropriate for one state could prove to be highly inappropriate for

another. For example, what would be successful and appropriate in the megalopolis of

168

 

the eastern seaboard would not be necessary or even desirable in a large, sparsely
populated western state.

A densely populated region covering a small geographic area is in need of a
highly articulated pursuit policy detailing various potentially hazardous pursuit tactics. In
efforts to apprehend fleeing suspects while maintaining safety for the general public a
detailed, comprehensive policy is a must. Although the policy serves merely as a guide
to officer discretion it, nevertheless, offers some protection against foolhardy tactics and
aids the officer in choosing a safe, effective course of action.

Conversely, in a sparely populated region covering a large square mile area an
intensively detailed policy is, in all likelihood not necessary. While the policy should be
comprehensive enough to allow for dangerous tactics and maneuvers, it is not necessary
or desirable for an organization to create a pursuit policy that is so profoundly detailed
that it tries to cover every possible scenario an officer could experience. This simply
creates added anxiety on the part of the officer as unessential information is placed into
memory.

The culture of a specific area is also a factor that must be considered when
broaching the topic of vehicular pursuit policies. The culture of the eastern portion of the
United States is one of long—standing accommodation to matters pertaining to law and
public administration (Johnson, Aldrich, Miller, Ostrom, & Rhode, 1990). This is where
American government was born. Citizens and law enforcement officials are accustomed
to the requirements of bureaucracies and administration. As stated previously it is in this
relatively small geographic area with a dense p0pulation that an intensively detailed

pursuit policy would be most appropriate. As the population density increased so, too,

169

would the opportunity for danger to arise during the course of a vehicular pursuit. A
more comprehensive pursuit policy could bring an added measure of safety to an already
dangerous situation.

However, in a region such as the south or the west 3 highly detailed pursuit policy
could well be met with suspicion and cynicism. The people of both regions are primarily
of Celtic ancestry with a long tradition of rugged individualism and family honor (Allen,
197 3). To bring into question a persons ability to successfully to do their job or to doubt
a persons honesty or integrity is an affront not to be taken lightly. These two areas of the
country also have a law and order mentality that places a great deal of importance in
apprehending any law violator. A finely detailed pursuit policy is neither appropriate nor
desirable in such an environment as is found in the west or the south.

Nevertheless, a comprehensive vehicular pursuit policy is a must for any and all
law enforcement agencies. However, the form this policy is to take can vary
considerably from department to department. If the policy contains all of the relevant
safeguards pertaining to hi gh-speed driving and dangerous tactics such as ramming,
roadblocks, shooting, or boxing-in it would probably suffice for that area. As in any
other area, the policy serves to guide officer discretion and protects the agency and

officer from unsubstantiated claims of liability and negligence.

Legislative

As the trend of statewide pursuit policies continues to be accepted the importance
of safety is never so evident. Each state bill or law states the necessity for a pursuing

officer to balance the importance of apprehending the suspect against the risks to the

170

 

public, themselves, and the suspect. As the statewide policies are designed to limit a
department’s exposure to claims of liability and negligence an emphasis on safety is
logical. If the risks to the public or the officer outweigh the necessity to apprehend the
suspect then continuing with the pursuit is not justified and further pursuit action should
be terminated.

Currently, the statewide policies that are in effect are still too young to have been
tested in the long-term benefit of establishing a uniform policy within a state. If the
benefits of statewide pursuit policies are to be reaped an extensive analysis of the
occurrence of accidents, injuries, fatalities, and property damage must be completed.
Only upon a determination of whether the risks posed by police vehicular pursuits can be
ascertained will the true effectiveness of statewide pursuit policies be understood. If
statewide policies decrease exposure to liability and negligence for a department in
conjunction with improved safety considerations for the officer, suspect, and general
public, there is little doubt that more policy makers, legislators, and department

commanders will begin to implement their own uniform, statewide policies.

171

1.

APPENDIX A

Definitions of Administrative and Operational Elements

Administrative Elements

Mission Statement/Purpose: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy contain a

statement or paragraph specifying the mission of the department or the purpose of the
pursuit policy?

Safety Caveat: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy contain a statement

concerning the need for the safety of the general public, not directly involved in the
pursuit, and the officer initiating the pursuit?

Discontinuance of Pursuit: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy contain a

statement concerning the need to terminate a pursuit when unnecessarily dangerous
conditions arise?

Noncompliance: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy specify the necessity for
officers to follow department regulations concerning pursuit conduct?

Definitions: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy contain definitions of variables
and circumstances inherent in pursuits?

Authority to Pursue: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide the officer with
the authority and provisions to initiate a pursuit?

Statutory Duties: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide reference to legal
standards of the state within which the officer is conducting the pursuit?

Case Law References: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy contain reference to

nation-wide legal standards developed through case law research pertaining to
pursuits?

Pursuit Restrictions: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide constraints
placed upon a pursuing officer in an ongoing pursuit?

10. Seriousness of Offense: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide a statement

concerning offenses for which it is appropriate or inappropriate to initiate a pursuit?

11. Role of Dispatch: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy contain reference to the

appropriate role of the dispatch officer in a pursuit?

172

12. Requirement of Supervisor to Monitor: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy

provide a statement concerning the necessity for a supervisor to continually monitor a
pursuit?

13. Role of Supervisor: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy contain reference to the
appropriate role of the supervisor in a pursuit?

14. Training: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy specify the need and timing of
supplemental training for officers in departmental policy and pursuit conduct?

15. Supervisor at Termination Point: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy specify the
need for a supervisor to attend the termination of a pursuit?

16. Report Writing: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy specify which reports are
necessary at the completion of a pursuit?

l7. Debriefing: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide for a post-pursuit

meeting between the pursuing officer and the supervisor or superior officers to
discuss the pursuit outcome?

Operational Elements

1. Initiate Pursuit: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide the officer with

necessary information of when it is appropriate, or inappropriate, to begin to pursue a
law violator?

Notify Dispatch: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy reference the need for the
pursuing officer to notify dispatch, providing the dispatch operator with detailed

information regarding the conditions of the pursuit, when initiating a pursuit and
while in the midst of an ongoing pursuit?

3. Specific of Pursuit Conditions: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy include
reference to environmental factors surrounding a pursuit, such as weather, road
conditions, traffic, nature of pursuit area, and time of day?

4. Provisions for Lights and Sirens: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide

reference to the need and obligation of the pursuing officer to utilized overhead lights
and sirens while in the course of a pursuit?

5. Tactical Considerations: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide reference
for various tactical options which the pursuing officer might utilize?

6. Jurisdictional Considerations: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide
considerations for jurisdictions through which a pursuit might travel?

173

 

7. Pursuit Driving: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide a statement

concerning various driving techniques, speeds, or considerations for the pursuing
officer?

8. Caravaning: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide constraints on the
number of patrol cars that can enter into a pursuit?

9. Intentional Collisions: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide a statement
concerning the use of the use of the patrol car to ram the suspect’s vehicle in a
pursuit?

10. Shooting from a Vehicle: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy specify the use of
firearms during a pursuit?

ll. Unmarked Car/Motorcycle: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide
constraints for unmarked police vehicles or motorcycles entering into a pursuit?

12. Boxing-in: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy reference the use of patrol cars
to surround the suspect’s vehicle to make a forcible stop in a pursuit?

13.

Heading-Off/Passing: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy reference patrol cars

passing a suspect’s vehicle or trying to forcibly stop a suspect’s vehicle through the
heading-off technique in a pursuit?

14. Paralleling: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide a statement pertaining

to patrol cars traveling alongside the suspect’s vehicle prior to trying to make a
forcible stop during a pursuit?

15. Roadblocks: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy reference the proper and safe
use of roadblocks in a pursuit?

16. Speed: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy contain a statement regarding
maximum speeds allowable during a pursuit or conditions where high speeds might
prove more dangerous for the officer or general public in a pursuit?

l7. Passengers: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide constraints or
allowances for passengers riding in a patrol car during a pursuit?

18. Tire Deflation Devices: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy reference the proper
and safe usage of tire deflation devices used during a pursuit?

19. Off Road Pursuit: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy

20. Termination of Pursuit: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide
considerations for the conclusion of a pursuit or apprehensron of the suspect?

174

 

21. Aerial Assistance: Does the written vehicular pursuit policy provide reference to the
use of aircraft that might be utilized in a pursuit?

175

 

APPENDIX B

Standard Policy
Established (Effected) January 2001

General Order 1-0001 Vehicular Pursuits

I.

II.

Purpose

A. The purpose of this General Order is to secure a balance between the protection of the lives
and safety of the public, members and other police officers, and law enforcement’s duty to
enforce the law and apprehend violators. Since there are numerous situations which arise in
law enforcement that are unique, it is impossible for this policy to anticipate all possible
circumstances. Therefore, this policy is intended to guide a member’s discretion in matters of

vehicular pursuit.

B. Deciding whether to pursue a motor vehicle is among the most critical decisions made by
members. It is a decision which must be made quickly and under difficult, often
unpredictable circumstances. In recognition of the potential risk to public safety created by
vehicular pursuits, no member or supervisor shall be criticized or disciplined for a decision
not to engage in a vehicular pursuit or to terminate an ongoing vehicular pursuit based on the
risk involved, even in circumstances where this policy would permit the commencement or
continuation of the pursuit. Likewise, members who conduct pursuits consistent with this
policy will be strongly supported by the Division in any subsequent review of such actions.

C. A Motor Vehicle Accident and Vehicular Pursuit Review Board has been established to
review and analyze all vehicular pursuit incidents involving transportation assigned to the

Division of State Police.

Definitions

A. Pursuit: An event involving one or more law enforcement officers attempting to apprehend a
suspect operating a motor vehicle while the suspect is trying to avoid arrest by using high-
speed driving or other evasive tactics, such as driving off a highway, turning suddenly or
driving in a legal manner but willfully failing to yield to the officer’s signal to stop.

B. Pursuit driving: Pursuit driving is an active attempt by a member operating a motor vehicle to
apprehend one or more occupants of another moving vehicle(s) when the member reasonably
believes that the driver(s) of the fleeing vehicle(s) is aware of the member’s attempt to stop
the vehicle(s) and is resisting apprehension by increasing vehicle speed, ignoring the member
or otherwise attempting to elude the officer. Members will use emergency warning lights,

headlights and audible devices during pursuit driving.

C. Emergency call: An emergency call is any incident which requires either of the following

types of response;

1. Emergency response: An emergency response is indicated whenever the physical safety
or well being of any person reasonably appears to be in jeopardy; a life or death situation.

176

 

High priority or urgent response: A high priority or urgent response is indicated when the
presence of a trooper reasonably appears to be required immediately or as soon as
possible;

a. To protect the life or safety of any person; or

b. When death or personal injury is likely to occur if such assistance is withheld or
delayed; or

c. When a felony or other serious crime is, or may be, in progress; or

d. When an assignment occurs which is potentially dangerous to any police officer; or

e. As directed by a supervisor or commander.

D. Emergency vehicle: An emergency vehicle, as defined by Sec. 14-283, C.G.S., Rights of
emergency vehicles, is any ambulance or any medical service organization vehicle responding
to an emergency call, any vehicle used by a fire department or any officer of a fire department
while on the way to a fire or while responding to an emergency call, but not while returning
from a fire or emergency call, or any state or local police vehicle operated by a police officer
answering an emergency call or in pursuit of fleeing law violators.

E. Pursuit vehicle

1.

Primary unit: The police vehicle that initiates a stop of a motor vehicle or any unit that
assumes control of a pursuit as the lead vehicle (the first police vehicle immediately
behind the fleeing suspect). For the purpose of completing reports the troop car initiating
the stop will be considered primary.

Secondary unit: Any police vehicle which becomes involved as a backup to the primary
unit. It must follow the primary unit at a safe distance.

F. Legal intervention/Forcible stops: A general term meaning the termination of a pursuit
through the use of physical force or presence. Includes channelization, roadblocks, ramming,
the hollow spike strip, boxing-in, or the use of firearms.

l.

2.

Channelization; A technique similar to a roadblock where objects are placed in the
anticipated path of a pursued vehicle which tend to alter its direction. Examples of usable
objects include barricades, flarepots, pylons, and vehicles.

Roadblocks: A restriction or obstruction used or intended for the purpose of preventing
free passage of motor vehicles on a roadway. A supervisor must authorize a roadblock.

a. Avenue of escape: A gap in a roadblock which allows the violator(s) to decrease
vehicle speed and permits the violator(s) to safely bypass the roadblock.

b. Blocking vehicle: A motor vehicle, often a law enforcement vehicle, which is placed
perpendicular to a roadway or angled in such a way as to create a roadblock

Ramming: The deliberate act of impacting a violator’s vehicle with another vehicle to
functionally damage or otherwise force the violator’s vehicle to stop. The Pursuit
Immobilization Technique (PIT) is a form of ramming and if utilized should be identified

as such.

Hollow Spike Strip: A device designed to be physically placed across the roadway
directly in the path of a fleeing vehicle. As the vehicle passes over the strip, the hollow
spikes pierce through the tires, pull out of the strip and cause the tires to deflate through

the hollow spikes.

177

III.

 

Boxing-in: A technique designed to stop a violator’s vehicle by surrounding it with law
enforcement vehicles and then slowing all vehicles to a stop.

Use of firearms: The act of discharging a firearm at a vehicle for defense or
apprehension.

G. Divided highway: A road which includes a physical barrier between traffic traveling in
Opposite directions.

H. Heading off: An attempt to terminate a pursuit by pulling ahead of, behind or toward a
violator’s moving vehicle to force it tot he side of the road or to otherwise come to a stop.

I. Paralleling

I.

Street paralleling: Driving a police vehicle on a street parallel to a street on which a
pursuit is occurring.

Vehicle paralleling: A deliberate offensive tactic by one or more operating vehicles to
drive alongside the pursued vehicle while it is in motion. This type of paralleling is not

authorized.

J. Supervisor: A member who, by virtue of rank or assignment, is responsible for the direction
or supervision of the activities of other members.

K. Clear and unreasonable danger: In regard to emergency response or pursuit driving, a clear
and unreasonable danger exists whenever;

1.

Vehicle speeds are dangerously excessive or the speed of the department vehicle
dangerously exceeds the speed of any overtaken vehicle; or

Vehicle or pedestrian traffic requires dangerous maneuvering which exceeds the
performance capabilities of the department vehicle or its operator.

Decision the Pursue

A. Deciding whether or not to pursue

I.

A member has the authority, at all times, to attempt the stop of any person suspected of
having committed any criminal offense or traffic violation. It is clear that while it is the
member who initiates the stop, it is the violator who initiates the pursuit. The member’s
decision to pursue should always be undertaken with an awareness of the danger of risk
to which the member exposes themselves and others. The member must weigh the need
for immediate apprehension against the risk created by the pursuit.

B. Authorization to pursue

l.

A member may only pursue when one or both of the following conditions exist.

a. The member reasonably believes that the violator has committed an offense of the
first or second degree, or an offense enumerated in Annex A of this order.

b. The member reasonably believes that the violator poses an immediate threat to the

safety of the public, other police officers, or themselves.

In the event that one of the authorization requirements is satisfied, a pursuit should not be
automatically undertaken. A member must still consider the following factors:

178

a.

Whether the identity of the violator is known to the point where later apprehension is
possible.

Likelihood of successful apprehension.

Degree of risk created by pursuit

(1). Volume, type, speed and direction of vehicular traffic.

(2). Nature of the area: residential, commercial, school zone, open highway, etc.
(3). Population density and volume of pedestrian traffic.

(4). Environmental factors such as weather and darkness.

(5). Road conditions: construction, poor repair, extreme curves, etc.

The officer’s own

(1). Experience and driving skills
(2). Familiarity with the area
(3). Condition of police vehicle

3. Terminating the pursuit

a.

The member shall terminate the pursuit if any of the following conditions exist;

( l ). They are instructed to do so by a supervisor.

(2). The member believes that the danger to the pursuing officer(s) or the public
outweighs the necessity for immediate apprehension of the violator.

(3). The violator's identity is established to the point where later apprehension may
be accomplished and where there is no immediate threat to the safety of the
public or police officer(s).

(4). The pursued vehicle’s location is no longer known or the distance between the
pursuing vehicles and the violator’s vehicle becomes so great that further pursuit
is firtile.

(5). There is a person injured during the pursuit and there are no police or medical
personnel able to render assistance.

(6). There is a clear and unreasonable danger to the member, violator(s), or public.
A clear and unreasonable danger exists when the pursuit requires that the
vehicle(s) be driven at excessive speeds or in any other manner which exceeds
the performance capabilities of the pursuing vehicle(s).

(7). The member becomes aware of any unanticipated condition, event or
circumstance which substantially increases the risk to public safety inherent in

the pursuit.

Reinstating the pursuit: The reinstatement of any previously terminated pursuit shall only
be undertaken if consistent with the authorization criteria for originally initiating a

pursuit.

a.

b.

Use of firearms to terminate pursuit

If a violator is shot while driving the unpiloted vehicle may become an uncontrolled
hazard.

If the violator is not alone, passengers for whom deadly force is inappropriate are at
great risk.

179

c. Shooting at a moving vehicle: Shooting at a moving vehicle is generally ineffective
and involved hazards are always great. A decision to shoot at a moving vehicle must
be based upon the most compelling circumstances and will be subjected to a careful
department review. Troopers shall be guided by the following considerations;

(1). Generally, a trooper will not fire at a moving vehicle; but

(2). If fired upon, the trooper may return fire;

(3). Firing to disable a moving vehicle shall be a last resort measure only when
failure to do so with a high degree of probability will result in serious injuries or
death to the trooper or innocent persons; and

(4). The trooper must take into account;

(a). Incident location;
(b). Presence of other vehicles or pedestrians; and
(c). The degree of hazard presented to innocent persons.

6. Speed considerations: Every patrol vehicle has a maximum speed at which it may be
operated safely and some factors limiting safe speed are;

a. Vehicle limitation factors:

(1). Type and condition of vehicle tires and ambient temperatures;

(2). Vehicle brakes as related to the known characteristics of fading or becoming
less effective under severe use; and

(3). Limitations on the capabilities of the police vehicle suspension system to
support the vehicle at maximum side thrust.

b. Operator limitation factors: There are limits to a trooper’s ability to safely operate a
department vehicle on a given roadway, such as:

(1). Level of training, experience or skill in the operation of a vehicle at high speeds;
(2). Familiarity with the roadway;

(3). Familiarity with handling characteristics of the particular vehicle driven;

(4). Familiarity with objects or obstacles in or on the roadway or the potential for
such to be present.

c. Roadway limitation factors: Each roadway has a maximum safe speed at which a
particular vehicle and driver can travel safely due to;

( 1). Presence of curves and grades;

(2). Type and condition of the road surface;

(3). Presence of oil, water, snow, ice, sand, loose gravel and other substances on the
road surface;

(4). Location of intersections or entrances at or from which other vehicles could
obstruct travel;

(5). Use of the roadway by other vehicles or pedestrians; and

(6). Existing visibility or road lighting conditions.

7. A safe speed range may not always be determinable: A range of absolutely safe speeds is not
always determinable because where many speed limitation factors are present, a particular
rate of speed may be excessive, regardless of the speedometer reading.

8. Factoring in the unknown or the unforseeable: Each vehicle operator must be mindful of

dangers that can be presented by unknown or unforseeable conditions, as danger obviously
increases without knowledge of hazardous conditions which may be present.

180

IV.

Statutory Considerations

A.

Motor vehicles in the custody and use of officers in the performance of their duties shall be
exempt from any traffic regulations of any town, city, or borough, so far as such exemption is
necessary for the effective enforcement of any provisions of the statutes.

The operator of an emergency vehicle may park or stand the vehicle irrespective of any
provisions of the established motor vehicle code.

The operator of an emergency vehicle may disregard statutes, ordinances or regulations
governing direction or, movement or turning in specific directions.

Although this statute exempts a police officer operating a police vehicle from compliance
with motor vehicle laws relating to traffic signals and stop signs, under most duty related
situations, it should not be relied upon to shield a police officer from incurring criminal or
civil liability due to the negligent Operation or misuse of the police vehicle.

Role and responsibility of primary pursuit unit

A. In addition to all other pertinent directives of this manual, troopers in pursuit shall;

1. Overtake the violator’s vehicle to safely effect a traffic stop: There will be times when a
suspect or traffic violator is operating his vehicle too fast or too erratically to employ a
gradual and surreptitious approach, but whenever possible;

a. Pass vehicles carefully: exercise caution when overtaking any vehicle, especially
when passing to the right since the motorist may change lanes abruptly or stop
without warning.

b. Obtain and call in the vehicle registration number: Before signaling the violator to
stop, position your vehicle behind the violator so that you can both read the
registration number and describe the vehicle and call it in.

c. Try not to signal your intentions prematurely: Do not telegraph an intent to stop too
early by activating lights and siren prematurely with a significant distance between
you and the violator as this may encourage the violator to attempt an escape before
you can identify him.

(1. Use emergency lights and siren as required: When a violator has too much of a lead
or is moving too fast, you may only have the option of pursuing immediately using
your lights and siren or of not attempting to make the traffic stop at all and not
pursue.

e. Notify the troop of the pursuit as early as possible: If the violator appears to be
attempting to evade apprehension afier being signaled to stop, immediately alert the
troop which has operational control over the area that pursuit has begun.

2. Provide information to troop dispatch at the start of the pursuit: Once the pursuit has been
initiated, the primary unit must notify communications and a supervising member,
providing as much of the following information as is known;

a. Reason for the pursuit

b. Direction of travel, designation and location of roadway

I81

c. Identification of the violator’s vehicle: year, make, model, color, vehicle regisuation

number and other identifying characteristics.
(1. Number of occupants

e. The speed of the pursued vehicle

B. Vehicular pursuit restrictions

1.

No pursuit will be conducted in a direction Opposite to the flow of traffic on a divided
highway or in a police vehicle in which an individual who is not a law enforcement
officer is either the driver or passenger.

No more than two police vehicles (primary unit and secondary unit) shall become
actively involved in a pursuit unless otherwise specifically directed by a supervisor.

An unmarked police vehicle will not participate in a vehicular pursuit unless it is
equipped with an emergency light and an audible device. The unmarked car shall
relinquish primary unit status immediately upon the participation of a marked vehicle.
This does not preclude the use of unmarked vehicles to effect a stop.

Upon approaching an intersection connolled by traffic signals or signs, or any other
location at which there is a substantially increased likelihood of collision, the operator of
any pursuit vehicle shall, prior to entering the intersection, reduce the vehicle’s speed and
control the vehicle so as to avoid collision with another vehicle or a pedestrian. The
member shall observe that the way is clear before cautiously proceeding through the
intersection.

Members involved in a pursuit will not engage in vehicle paralleling unless instructed to
do so by a supervisor.

There shall be no street paralleling along the route unless the pursuit passes through a
patrol" assigned area. A patrol that is parallel-street-pursuing shall not join or interfere
with a pursuit, and shall stop all pursuit-related activity at the boundary of its assigned
area unless instructed by a supervisor to continue.

Boxing-in or heading—off a violator‘s moving vehicle is permitted only under
extraordinary circumstances. These tactics substantially increase the risk inherent in the
pursuit and shall only be employed at low speeds with the approval of a supervisor, or in
response to an imminent threat to the safety of the public or a police officer.

Roadblocks must only be employed as a last resort in circumstances where deadly force
would otherwise be justified in accordance with the following departmental guidelines:

a. The use of a roadblock must be authorized by a supervisor.

b. At no time will a roadblock be established until all pursuing police vehicles are made
aware of the roadblock and its location and have acknowledged this awareness.

c. Once a roadblock has been established and a vehicle or barricade has been positioned
in the roadway, the following conditions must exist:

( l). Adequate distance to see the roadblock

(2). An avenue of escape
(3). No one in the blocking vehicle(s)

182

VI.

NOTE: Care should be taken for the safety of other vehicles and occupants stopped
at the roadblock.

9. Members involved in a pursuit shall not fire any weapon from or at a moving vehicle, nor
engage in any vehicle contact action except as a last resort to prevent imminent death or
serious injury to the member or another person where deadly force would otherwise be

justified.

Members who become actively involved in a pursuit may not also assume the role of the
supervisor, but shall defer this responsibility to a member as defined in Role of

Supervisor, Sec. VI.

10.

C. Be aware of operational control considerations: Although the pursuing trooper has original
operational control of the pursuit, this only pertains to the immediate field of operations which
is at all times subordinate to the commands of the commander, duty supervisor, or the desk

officer.
D. Maintain safe distances between vehicles.

E. Always consider voluntarily terminating pursuit: The decision to begin to pursue or to
continue to pursue is always reversible and the involved trooper and supervisor must

constantly question if the need for an immediate apprehension justifies beginning or
continuing a pursuit.

1. Notify the troop that you stopped pursuit immediately: Notify the troop of your
termination of a pursuit as soon as possible so that all other mobile units may be alerted

by the desk officer to resume normal operation of departmental vehicles thereby reducing

risk to all persons.

2. Alert motorists around you by taking conscious action: Each pursuit unit shall pull to the
right side of the road and stop if it is safe to do so or resume normal driving activities,

deactivating the siren and at least all forward emergency lights.

a. Such action alerts nearby motorists that you are no longer engaged in pursuit.

b. If the violator observes your actions, he is likely to know that you are no longer
pursuing and may discontinue risky behavior thereby posing less of a threat to public
safety. (See Mason v. Bitton, 85 Wash. 2d 321, 534 P.2d 1360 (1975) lack ofdue

care).

F. Mandatory termination of pursuit: Pursuit shall end whenever any one of the following
conditions or events exists or occurs as listed below:

I. Instructed to do so by the commander, field supervisor or desk officer;

2. Risks outweigh the need for an immediate apprehension;
3. The violator’s identity is adequately established;

4. Certain unanticipated conditions, events or circumstances occur;

5. During pursuit of a reckless traffic evader under certain conditions

Backup unit role and responsibilities

183

Notify the troop of your arrival: Advise the troop of your identification number upon joining

the pursuit.

Pursuits shall normally be limited to two departmental vehicles; the primary pursuit unit and
the secondary pursuit unit. However, the number of vehicles engaged in the pursuit may be
adjusted to fit the situation (i.e. armed fugitives, etc.) with supervisory approval. The
supervisor shall consider the potential effect of involved allied agency units in determining

the number of departmental vehicles participating.

Additional units may be authorized by a supervisor or commander: Additional backup

1.
units will be determined by:

a. Nature and severity of the offense;

b. Presence of multiple suspects or vehicles;
c. When facts warrant the risk created by involvement of additional pursuit vehicles.

A marked patrol vehicle, other than a motorcycle, should take over a pursuit from an
unmarked vehicle or a Specially Marked Patrol Vehicle (SMPV). When practical, a marked
patrol vehicle with overhead emergency lights shall take over a pursuit from a patrol vehicle
equipped with only a red spotlight or red spotlight/center mounted red light combination. A
marked patrol vehicle or a SMPV should take over a pursuit from a motorcycle unless the
circumstances are such that a motorcycle is the safest means of continuing a pursuit (i.e.

heavy traffic).

. Maximum use of any available law enforcement aircraft should be made as quickly as
possible. When the aircrafi is employed it will be in addition to any authorized ground units.

Be prepared to assume primary pursuit unit duties: If the primary unit is disabled or is
involved in an accident during the course of the pursuit.

The troop will advise the troop supervisor that a new backup unit is required and the next

a.
unit to join in pursuit will call in as a backup unit.

Departmental aircrafi

1. Whenever departmental aircraft establishes visual contact with a pursued vehicle, all
ground units shall be so notified by the desk officer.

2. The aircrafi pilot shall direct the movement of pursuit units and other assistance pursuant
to the authority of the commander or supervisor.

3. If departmental aircrafi are not available, other law enforcement aircrafi may be

requested. Only one aircraft should be utilized at any one time.

4. No other aircrafi shall join the pursuit unless directly requested by the pilot of the
primary aircrafi. If additional aircrafi are requested or the primary role is relinquished to
another aircrafi, confirmation of the acceptance of that mission shall be obtained and
acknowledged by the pilot of the primary aircraft. Once the role of primary aircraft is
assumed by another, that aircrafi shall remain in that capacity until that pilot
discontinues, relinquishes the role, or the pursuit is terminated. If the pilot of any
involved aircraft chooses for any reason to discontinue involvement in the pursuit the
primary ground unit and all other aircrafi shall be notified and acknowledgment of such

action received.

5. Duties of aircraft flight crew

184

 

 

 

 

Keep vehicle/suspect(s) under surveillance until termination of pursuit.

a.

b. Advise pursuit units of traffic, road conditions, hazards and other items which may
affect officer/public safety.

c. As soon as possible, advise the primary unit and supervisor of the number of law
enforcement units involved in the pursuit.

d. Assist the communications center with coordinating the pursuit with other areas,
communications centers, and allied agencies.

e. Use a searchlight(s) to illuminate the suspect vehicle unless directed otherwise by
ground units.

f. Transport personnel, spike strip or other required items when practical.

G. Inter-jurisdictional pursuits

1. Notice of pursuit by another agency or troop is not an open invitation to join in that
pursuit.

The desk officer or duty supervisor will determine if assistance is requested and troopers

shall not join the outside pursuit unless;

a. Directed by a supervisor or desk officer; or

b. The involved pursuit unit is unable to request assistance; or

c. The situation demands immediate assistance.

During interagency pursuits the pursuit policy of this department is controlling upon all
departmental officers.

4. Communication personnel shall;

8. Prior to alerting field units, obtain similar information provided for a local pursuit.

b. The desk officer shall not direct units to assist the pursuit without authorization
unless no supervisor or commander is on duty.

When alerted to assist an outside pursuit, the first unit to arrive will join as a backup unit.

Additional units must be authorized by a supervisor or commander.

7. The duty supervisor or troop commander may order notice directed to another agency or
troop that the pursuit is nearing their area. The desk officer should indicate whether the

notice is a request for assistance or a courtesy notification.

VII. Role and responsibility of supervisor

Upon being notified or becoming aware of the pursuit, the supervisor shall decide as quickly

A.
as possible whether or not the pursuit should continue.

If the pursuit appears to be justified, the supervisor shall assert control over it and may

1.
order other units into or out of the pursuit.

185

 

 

 

2. If the pursuit appears not to be justified or the risks known outweigh the need for an
immediate apprehension, the supervisor shall order termination of the pursuit

When assuming control over the pursuit, the duty supervisor should;

B.
1. Verify that no more than the required units are involved
2. Designate the number and identity of appropriate backup units
3. Assure that the proper radio frequency is being used
4. Alert adjacent troops or local police departments to the progress of the pursuit
5. Terminate the pursuit when appropriate or prudent
C. The supervisor shall permit a pursuit to continue only if one or both of the following

conditions exist:

There is a reasonable belief that the violator has committed an offense of the first or

1.
second degree, or an offense enumerated in Annex A of this order.

There is a reasonable belief that the violator(s) poses an immediate threat to the safety of

2.
the public or other police officers.

 

D. The supervisor shall order a pursuit terminated at any time if they conclude that the danger to
the pursuing member(s), other police officer(s) or the public outweighs the necessity for

immediate apprehension of the violator.

E. The supervisor shall order the pursuit terminated if the suspect’s identity is established to the
point where later apprehension may be accomplished and where there is no immediate threat
to public safety.

In recognition of the overall population density and volume of vehicular traffic, and the

F.
increased risk attendant to prolonged vehicular pursuits, a supervisor shall order the
termination of any pursuit of protracted duration unless the supervisor detemiines that further

pursuit is justified to respond to an immediate threat to public safety.

The supervisor shall ensure, for the duration of the pursuit, that this policy is followed by all

members.

H. Respond the the scene if required: If the pursuit ends in a traffic accident or results in death or
injuries, the supervisor of the troop area where the pursuit ends shall respond to the scene and
submit a report to the district commander detailing the circumstances of the incident as soon

as practical, through the chain of command.

I. Conduct after pursuit activities and determine the status of involved parties: At the end of
each pursuit, account for the status of each trooper involved or potentially involved in the
pursuit through the desk officer. Assign responsibilities for follow-up duties such as accident

investigation, status reports for injured persons, the writing of various reports, etc.

VIII. Tr00p commander role and responsibilities

186

 

 

A. Assume control over the pursuit: A troop commander may exert overall command and control
through the supervisor or desk officer or may take personal operational control of the pursuit
if they are physically present at the troop when a pursuit is ongoing.

B. Require a pursuit analysis and critique: Commanders shall ensure that an overall analysis and
a critique of each pursuit is performed by the supervisor and that the results of any incident

suitable for training purposes are distributed to troopers throughout the command as soon as
possible.

1X. Troop communication personnel role and responsibilities
A. Informing an on-duty field supervisor immediately when a pursuit is initiated.

B. Selection of appropriate radio channel

1. Avoid unnecessary use of codes and signals: Tr00p communication personnel shall direct
pursuit operations in plain language, avoiding the routine use of radio codes and signals,
to eliminate confusion for unassigned personnel who may be able to monitor the radio
and appropriately assist or avoid the pursuit.

C. The troop desk officer shall;

1. Advise all units whenever a pursuit begins;

2. Maintain and control radio communications;

3. Coordinate assistance at the direction of the duty supervisor or troop commander;
4. Monitor the pursuit until it concludes or crosses into another troop area.

D. Notify allied agencies if a potential involvement can be expected and specifying whether
assistance is requested or if the notification is for information only.

1. Relay pertinent information from allied agencies.
2. Provide necessary information to backup units.

3. Determine the availability of law enforcement aircrafi and notify the supervisor and/or
primary unit of the availability.

X. Reporting

A. Pursuit Incident Report Form: All members who operate police vehicles in a vehicular pursuit
shall complete a Pursuit Incident Report. Members who are passengers must complete a
Special Report on their involvement with the pursuit. Pursuits that do not result in an
apprehension, arrest, accident or other incident do not require any additional reports.

1. If a pursuit involved the personnel of only one Area, the Area commander shall assign
responsibility for the preparation of the required documentation.

2. If personnel of more than one Area within a Division are involved in a pursuit, the
involved Area commanders should mutually agree on the responsibility for preparing
required documentation. Division chiefs shall assign the responsibility in cases which
appear questionable to the involved Areas.

B. Role of the Supervisor Report

187

 

 

1.

 

The supervisor will briefly explain the basis for allowing the pursuit to continue as
outlined in Section VII. This shall be completed by the supervisor utilizing a Special
Report.

C. Station Commander’s Pursuit Review Report

I.

This report is completed by the station commander, utilizing a Special Report, after
determining whether or not a policy infraction or violation of this order occurred.

The station commander shall send a copy of the Pursuit Incident Report, Role of the
Supervisor Report and Station Commander’s Pursuit Review Report to their respective
troop headquarters.

D. Troop Commander’s Endorsement Report

1.

The troop commander shall list on a Speicla Report sufficient information to identify the
pursuit. The format shall be similar to that used in the Station Commander’s Pursuit
Review Report and contain the following information;

Trooper’s name and badge number
Date and time

Location of pursuit

Pursuit incident number

9.09:.»

The troop commander shall indicate whether or not a policy infraction or violation of this
order exists.

In order to appraise the member of the recommendations made as a result of the pursuit
investigation, and to afford the trooper the opportunity to submit a written request for an
appearance before the “Motor Vehicle Accident and Vehicle Pursuit Review Board“, the
troop commander will provide the member with a copy of the Role of the Supervisor
Report, Station Commander’s Pursuit Review Report and Troop Cornmander’s
Endorsement Report.

The troop traffic officer shall forward the Pursuit Incident Report, Role of the Supervisor
Report, Station Commander’s Pursuit Report and Troop Commander’s Endorsement
Report, via channels to the Traffic Bureau Chief, Field Operations Section, and Division
Headquarters.

A separate sequential file and log number to identify the report
a. Personnel will utilize a log number to identify the report
b. The log shall list the following information;

( l ). Pursuit incident number

(2). Trooper’s name(s) and badge number(s)

(3). Date and time of pursuit

(4). Location of pursuit
(5). Investigation/Operations Report

E. Pursuit Summary Report

1.

Station commanders will be responsible to consolidate their pursuit report information for
the calendar year onto the Pursuit Summary Report and forward it to their respective

188

 

 

troop headquarters. This report will be submitted no later than 14 days after the close of
the year.

2. Troop headquarters will consolidate the station information from the Pursuit Summary
reports onto another Pursuit Surmnary report and forward it, via channels, to the Traffic
Bureau Chief, Field Operations Section, and Division Headquarters. This report will be
submitted no later than 28 days afier the close of the year.

3. The Traffic Bureau Chief will consolidate the information received from each troop and
forward the results to the Attorney General no later than 42 days after the close of the
year.

XI. Training
A. Planning, Coordinating, and Training

1. Coordination with allied agencies shall be undertaken in each Area. Written guidelines
or a statement of understanding concerning any coordinated plans are highly desirable.
Those agencies not desiring to enter into mutual pursuit agreements shall be made aware
of the departmental pursuit policy.

2. In major metropolitan areas Divisions may elect to coordinate planning with allied
agencies.

3. Each Area should establish a pursuit training guide covering local terrain employees at
the rank of sergeant and below on a quarterly basis.

B. Quarterly review: The contents of this order shall be reviewed qith all uniformed employees
at the rank of sergeant and below on a quarterly basis.

C. All officers shall attend in-service vehicular pursuit training twice annually. This in-service
training shall be held simultaneously with use of force training which is provided in the
firearms requalification process.

1. Vehicular pursuit training shall consist of knowledge of applicable statutes,
familiarization with statewide police pursuit policy and departmental procedures, and
decision making skills.

2. An annual report shall be filed with the county prosecutor or, in the case of certain state
law enforcement agencies, with the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice. The
report will confirm in-service training of all officers in conjunction with semi-annual
firearm requalification and the use of force training.

189

 

APPENDIX C

Letter to Chief

Wendy L. Hicks
730 West Owen Hall
East Lansing, MI 48825

Minnesota State Patrol
Headquarters

444 Cedar St. STEIOO-A
St. Paul, MN 55101—2156

Dear Chief:

Please allow me to introduce myself: My name is Wendy L. Hicks and I am a
Ph.D. student in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Presently, I
am beginning the data collection portion of my dissertation. My graduate advisors are
Dr. Vincent Hoffman and Dr. Dennis M. Payne, former Lt. Colonel of the Michigan State
Police. I am sending you this letter to request a copy of your agency’s pursuit policy.

The present study is a detailed analysis of pursuit policies of each State Police and
State Highway Patrol agency in the United States. Each policy will be analyzed
according to established academic criteria as well as standards developed by the
researcher for comprehensiveness and inclusiveness.

Your participation and cooperation in the present research endeavor will provide
valuable data to aid in present as well as future examinations into the realm of police
pursuits. Police officers and their departments can aid researchers by supplying the
necessary data to assist in demonstrating that police pursuits are an indispensable and
valuable tool in efficient and effective crime fighting. Law enforcement agencies can
utilize the results from the present study for public policy development, to improve
police-community relations, to develop more effective training methods for its recruits,
and to help minimize departmental liability. If you wish, an executive summary of the
results will be sent to you at the completion of the study. Your assistance is greatly
appreciated. If you have any questions I can be reached at 517-353-3811 or
hi_ckswel @pilotmsuedu. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Wendy L. Hicks

190

 

APPENDIX D
Inclusion of Administrative and Operational elements on a state-by-state basis. Due to
agreements with the agencies participating in this study individual states are numerically

coded to assure confidentiality.

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State One.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. SafetLCaveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutm Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked NO
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
Off/Pasng

l4. Traingg YES 14. Parallel'flL NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report WritinL YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passengers NO
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices

._ 19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
h 21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

 

191

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Two.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purgase

2. SafetyCaveat YES 2. NotifyDispatch NO

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit NO

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncorrrpliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights NO
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties NO 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. CarvaninL YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of NO 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

l4. TraininL NO 14. Paralleljg YES

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks NO

Termination Point

16. Report WritingL YES 16. Speed NO

17. DebriefinL NO 17. Pasmers NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

192

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Three.

Administrative Element Included (firerational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifLDEpatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional NO
Considerations

7. Statutog Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. CarvanirL YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of NO 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked NO
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- YES
off/Passirg

l4. Traian NO 14. Parallefig YES

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefi_nL YES 17. Passegers NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

193

 

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Four.

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit NO

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch NO

3. Discontinuance of NO 3. Specifics of Pursuit NO

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical NO
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statufly Duties NO 7. Pursuit Drixfig YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. CarvaninL YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of NO 10. Shooting froma NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch NO 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in NO

Sycrvisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor NO 13. Reading NO
off/Passing

14. Training NO 14. Paralleligg NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks NO

Termination Point

16. Remt Writing_ NO 16. Speed NO

17. DebriefinL NO 1?. Passengers NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

194

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Five.

Administrative Element Included (metational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit NO

Statement/Pumose

2. Safefl Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit NO

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncorrrpliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties NO 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of NO 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

l4. TraininL YES 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefmg YES 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

195

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Six.

Administrative Element Included (firerational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncorrrpliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. StatutorLDuties NO 7. Pursuit Drivifi YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvanig YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from 3 YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motmcle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Su ervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

14. Training YES 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks NO

Termination Point

16. Report WE YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefmg YES 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

196

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Seven.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Sam Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties NO 7. Pursuit DrivipL YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Cawam'pL YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passng

l4. Trairgg NO 14. Paralleflrg YES

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Temiination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passepgers NO
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

197

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Eight.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

StatemenVngose

2. Safpty Caveat YES 2. Notify Digaatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights NO
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical NO
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. CarvaninL YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch NO 11. Unmarked NO
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Sppervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- YES
off/Passing

14. Traini_nL NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report WritinL YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passengers NO
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

198

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Nine.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purer

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifLDispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit NO

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical NO
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. StatutolDuties YES 7. Pursuit Drivingw YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. CarvaninL YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked NO
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passifl

l4. Tram NO 14. Parallelflg NO

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing NO 16. Speed NO

17. Debrieffig NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

199

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Ten.

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Puma

2. SafetLCaveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. StatutoryDuties NO 7. Pursuit Driving NO

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

14. Training NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Reg)“ Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefingp YES 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

200

 

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Eleven.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Drivirg YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motrmcle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- YES
off/Pass’mg

14. Traini‘ng YES 14. Paralleling YES

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debrieme YES 17. Passwrs YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

201

 

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Twelve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit NO

Statement/Pigpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of NO 3. Specifics of Pursuit NO

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncorrrpliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions NO 5. Tactical NO
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional NO
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties NO 7. Pursuit Driving NO

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaniri YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of NO 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch NO 11. Unmarked NO
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor NO 13. Heading— NO
off/Passing

l4. Traini:ng NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks NO

Termination Point

16. Report Writing NO 16. Speed NO

17. DebriefinjL NO 17. Passepgers NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

202

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Thirteen.

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit NO

Statement/Mose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. StatutomDuties YES 7. Pursuit Drivig NO

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

14. Training NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks NO

Tennination Point

16. Report Writing NO 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefgg NO 17. Passepggs NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

203

 

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Fourteen.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifyDispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit NO

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- YES
off/Passing

l4. Trairgg NO 14. Paralleling YES

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Repprt Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefmg YES 17. Passepgers NO
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

204

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Fifteen.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Pme

2. Safe_tyCaveat YES 2. Notify Disgtch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties NO 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. CarvanipL YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor NO 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

l4. Tram YES 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writipg YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

205

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Sixteen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Nrfify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

14. Training NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriflg NO 17. Passefiers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

206

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Seventeen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Pmose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutm Duties YES 7. Pursuit DrivinL YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Mmisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passm

l4. Trairnni NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefmg YES 17. Pasgpgers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
l9. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

207

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Eighteen.

Administrative Element Included metational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. SafetLCaveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. StamtoILDuties NO 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning_ YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions NO 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch NO 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
ofiYPassing

14. Training YES 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Wri‘ting NO 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefini NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

208

 

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Nineteen.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Smtemenmse

2. SafetLCaveat YES 2. NotifLDispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statuto_ry Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. CawaninL YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch NO 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor NO 13. Heading- NO
off/Passig

14. Tram NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks NO

Termination Point

16. Report Writi‘ng YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debrieffirng NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

209

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Twenty.

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/ngose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Drivingp YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvanigng YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passirg

14. Train'mj YES 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks NO

Termination Point

16. Report Writipg YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passgggrs YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

210

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Twenty-One.

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifLDippatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/PassinL

l4. Train'mL NO 14. ParallelinL YES

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debrieme NO 17. Pasmers NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

211

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Twenty-Two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES I. Initiate Pursuit NO

StatemenUPprpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifyDisfirtch NO

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit NO

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions NO 5. Tactical NO
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional NO
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit DriviflL NO

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning NO

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of NO 10. Shooting froma NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch NO 11. Unmarked NO
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor NO 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

14. Training NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks NO

Termination Point

16. Report Wrflg NO 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefgg NO 17. Passepgers NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

212

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Twenty-Three.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Mose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. StatutorLDuties YES 7. Pursuit Drivifi YES

8. Case Law References YES 8. Carvanifi YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing—

14. Training NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writini YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefing YES 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

213

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Twenty-Four.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Noptify Disgtch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. StatutolDuties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvanig_ YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

14. Training NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passggers NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

 

214

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Twenty-Five.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included
1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES
Statement/Purpose
2. SafetLCaveat YES 2. NotifLDispatch YES
3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES
Pursuit Conditions
4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens
5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations
6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations
7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES
8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning NO
9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO
10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma YES
offense Vehicle
11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle
12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO
S_upervisor to Monitor
13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing
14. Training YES 14. Paralleling NO
15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES
Termination Point
16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO
_ l7. Debriefmg YES 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

215

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Twenty-Six.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Prppose

2. Safiy Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional NO
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. CarvaninL YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Reading NO
off/Pasm

14. Trainin NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriflg NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

216

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Twenty-S even.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Pugpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NoflDlspatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions NO 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties NO 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch NO 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- YES
ofiYPassdpg

14. Training NO 14. Paralleling YES

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writiri YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefi‘ng NO 17. Passenge_rs NO
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

217

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Twenty-Eight.

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Pumose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifLDispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit DrivinL YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvggg YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

14. Training YES 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefflg YES 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

218

 

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Twenty-Nine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Difirtch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical NO
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Reading YES
offlPasmpg

14. Training NO 14. ParallelinL YES

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefmg YES 17. Passengers NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

219

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Thirty.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifLDppatch YES

3. Discontinuance of NO 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutgry Duties YES 7. Pursuit Drivipg YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

S_upervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Pasgg

14. Training NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefirg YES 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

220

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Thirty-One.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notfiy Dispatch NO

3. Discontinuance of NO 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions NO 5. Tactical NO
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutog Duties YES 7. Pursuit Drivifl YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvani$ YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions NO

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch NO 11. Unmarked NO
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor NO 13. Heading- NO
off/Pasflg;

14. Training NO 14. ParallelinL YES

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks NO

Termination Point

16. Report Writiri NO 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefmg NO 17. Pamers NO
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of NO
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

221

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Thirty-Two.

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit NO

Statement/Pig'pose

2. Safethaveat YES 2. NotiQDispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit NO

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions NO 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional NO
Considerations

7. StatutogLDuties YES 7. Pursuit DrivinL YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. CarvaninL YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of NO 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorgfile

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

l4. Traingg NO 14. Parallelingv NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. DebriefgL NO 17. Passengers NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

222

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Thirty-Three.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Pgose

2. Safe_t_y Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit DrivinL YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. CarvanipL NO

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

S_upervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- YES
off/Passing

14. Train'mg NO 14. ParallelinL YES

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefmg NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

223

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Thirty-Four.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Omrational Element Included

1. Mission YES I. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Mose

2. SafetyCaveat YES 2. Notify Dgpatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

14. Training YES 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefmg YES 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

224

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Thirty-Five.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifyDispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions NO 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit DrivinL NO

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvani‘ng YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcgle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Paging

14. TraininL NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Wrigg YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefmg NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

225

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Thirty-Six.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. SafetLCaveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional NO
Considerations

7. Statuton Duties NO 7. Pursuit Drivgg YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

S_upervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passifl

l4. TraininL NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passggers NO
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

226

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Thirty-Seven.

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Plumse

2. SafetpCaveat YES 2. Notify Dismuch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutorpruties NO 7. Pursuit DrivinL YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Srpervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- YES
off/Passing

14. Trainik NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debrief—mg NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

227

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Thirty-Eight.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statemeangpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Ntfly Dismtch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional NO
Considerations

7. Statutpry Duties YES 7. Pursuit DrivirL YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in NO

Sgpervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor NO 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

l4. TraininL YES 14. Parallelingp NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Regirt WM YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debrieflg NO 17. Pasmers YES
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

228

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Thirty-Nine.

Administrative Element Included (hierationaI Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notiprispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Dfivipg YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaniflp YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcpcle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Reading YES
off/Passing

l4. Trainrpg YES 14. ParallelinL NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks NO

Termination Point

16. Report Writip YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debrieme NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

229

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Forty.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. SafetyCaveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutonguties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References YES 8. Carvanifl YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- YES
off/Passirg

14. Training NO 14. Paralleligng NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Regirt Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefgg YES 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
2]. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

230

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Forty-One.

Administrative Element Included gierational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifyDispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. StatutorlDuties YES 7. Pursuit Drivging YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor NO 13. Heading- YES
off/Paps'pg

14. Training YES 14. Parallelirg NO

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefipng NO 17. Passengers NO
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

231

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Forty-Two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Pmse

2. SafetLCaveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statuthy Duties YES 7. Pursuit Drivingp YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a NO

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing;

l4. Trainipgp NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Wrflg YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

232

 

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Forty—Three.

Administrative Element Included gaerational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/We

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifLDigpatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvanipg_ YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked NO
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passm

14. Training NO 14. Parallelipg YES

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

233

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Forty-Four.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions NO 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties NO 7. Pursuit Drip'ng NO

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvanig YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions NO 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch NO 11. Unmarked NO
Car/Motorcyc 1e

12. Requirement of NO 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

l4. Trainifl NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks NO

Termination Point

16. Report Writing NO 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passepgers NO
18. Tire Deflation NO
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

234

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Forty—Five.

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. SafetLCaveat YES 2. NotifyDispgtch YES

3. Discontinuance of NO 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue NO 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties NO 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch NO 11. Unmarked NO
Car/Motorcgtle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Sufirvisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- YES
off/Passigp

14. Training NO 14. Parallelgg YES

15. Supervisor at YES 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriegg NO 17. Passengers NO
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit YES
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

235

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Forty-Six.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included @erational Element Included

1. Mission YES 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. NotifLDispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of NO 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance NO 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional NO
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Drivifl NO

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvaning YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting from a YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motorcycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in NO

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passing

14. Train'mj NO 14. ParallelinL NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed YES

17. Debriefing NO 17. Passengers NO
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance YES

 

 

 

 

236

 

 

 

Administrative and Operational elements contained within the vehicular pursuit policy of

State Forty-Seven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Element Included Operational Element Included

1. Mission NO 1. Initiate Pursuit YES

Statement/Purpose

2. Safety Caveat YES 2. Notify Dispatch YES

3. Discontinuance of YES 3. Specifics of Pursuit YES

Pursuit Conditions

4. Noncompliance YES 4. Provisions for Lights YES
& Sirens

5. Definitions YES 5. Tactical YES
Considerations

6. Authority to Pursue YES 6. Jurisdictional YES
Considerations

7. Statutory Duties YES 7. Pursuit Driving YES

8. Case Law References NO 8. Carvanig YES

9. Pursuit Restrictions YES 9. Intentional Collisions YES

10. Seriousness of YES 10. Shooting froma YES

offense Vehicle

11. Role of Dispatch YES 11. Unmarked YES
Car/Motopycle

12. Requirement of YES 12. Boxing-in YES

Supervisor to Monitor

13. Role of Supervisor YES 13. Heading- NO
off/Passipg

l4. Trainipg NO 14. Paralleling NO

15. Supervisor at NO 15. Roadblocks YES

Termination Point

16. Report Writing YES 16. Speed NO

17. Debriefmg NO 17. Passengers YES
18. Tire Deflation YES
Devices
19. Off Road Pursuit NO
20. Termination of YES
Pursuit
21. Aerial Assistance NO

 

 

 

 

237

 

References

Allen, J. (1973). Amerpgn societL Min; into civic issues. New York:
American Book.

Alpert, G. P. (1987). Questioning police pursuits in urban areas. Journal of
Police Science and Administration, L5, 298-306.

Alpert, G.P. & Anderson, P. (1986). The most deadly force: Police pursuits.
Justice anrterly, 3, 1-14.

Alpert, G., & Dunham, R. (1988). Research on police pursuits: Applications for
law enforcement. American Journal of Police, 2, 123-131.

Alpert, G., & Fridell, L. (1992). Police vehicles and firearms. Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland Press.

Auten, J. (1991). Police pursuit driving in Illinois: 1990. Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois.

Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979)

Barth, L. (1981). Police pursuit: A panoply of problems. The Police Chief,
Februm, 54-55.

Beckman, E. (1986). Pursuit driving: A report to law enforcement on factors in
police pursuits. Miclpigan Police Chiefs Newsletter, Ma126, 34.

Beckman, E. (1983). High speed chases: In pursuit of a balanced policy. fie
Police Chief, Janua_ry, 34-37.

Bickel v. City of Downey, 238 Cal. Rptr. 351 (Ct. App. 1987)

Britz, M., & Payne, D. (1994). Policy implications for law enforcement pursuit
driving. American Journal of Police, 13(1), 113-142.

Brooks v. Lundeen, 364 NE2d 423 (1981)

Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989)

Brown v. City of New Orleans, 464 So.2d 976 (La. App. 1985)

Brown v. City of Pinellas Park, 557 So.2d 161 (Fla. Dist. Ct.App. 1990)

California Highway Patrol (1983). Pursuit study. Sacramento, CA: California
Highway Patrol.

238

Canton v. Harris, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (1989)
Carter, D. L. (1986). Police deviance. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

Carter, D. L. & Payne, D. M. (1988). An evaluation of the Delhi Township
police dgpartment. Liability of the police officer and the police organization.

Chambers v. Ideal Pure Milk Co. 245 SW. 2d 589 (Ky. 1952).

Charles, M., & F alcone, D. (1992). Illinois’ police officer’s opinions on police
pursuit issues. American Joumgp of Police, fl(3), 69-88.

Charles, M., Falcone, D., & Wells, E. (1992). Police pursuit: In pursuit of
policy: The policy issue, legal and literature review, and an empirical stud; (Vol 1).
Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Charles, M., Falcone, D., & Wells, E. (1992a). Policgpursuit in pursuit of policg
The pursuit issue, lpgal and literature review, and an empirical study. Washington, DC:
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
City of Akron v. Charley Ohio Municipal 440 NE. 2d 837 (1982)
City of Dallas v. Rodolfo Garcia 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 1785 (1998)
City of Pinellas Park v. Lawrence Brown 604 So.2d 1222 (1992)

City of Sacramento v. Superior Court in and for Sacramento County Cal. App.
182 Cal. Rprt. 443 (1982)

Clapp, J. E. (1996). Random House legarl dictionary. New York: Random House.

Connecticut House of Representatives (1997). Substitute House Bill No. 5186:
Public Act No. 97-310.

Coryell v. Town of Pinedale 745 P.2d 883 (1987)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 98 F.3d 434 (1998)
Day v. State of Utah 1999 UT 46 (1999)

Del Carmen, R. V. (1986). Potential liabilities ojprobationpnd parole officers.
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

DeWald v. State of Wyoming 719 P.2d 643 (1986)

239

Dodge v. Stine C.A. Wis. 739 F.2d 1279 (1984)

Eulau, H., & Prewitt, K. (1971). Labm'nths of democpapy. Indianapolis, IN:
Bobbs-Merrill, Co.

Falcone, D. N. (1994). Police pursuits and officer attitudes: Myths and realities.
Amefipm Journpl of Police, 33(4), 143-155.

Fennessy, E., Hamilton, T., Joscelyn, K., and Merritt, J. (1970). A study of the
mblem of hot pursuit by the police. Hartford, CT: The Center for the Environment and
Man, Inc.

Fielder v. Noelle E. Stonack, Township of Neptune Police Department, and
Township of Neptune 141 NJ. 101 (1995)

Fiser v. City of Ann Arbor, 339 NW. 2d 413 (Mich. 1983)
Fowler v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control, 376 So.2d 11 (N .C. App. 1989)
Froman v. City of Detroit 181 Mich. App. 400 (1989)

F yfe, J. (1979). Administrative interventions on police shooting discretion: An
empirical examination. Journal of Criminal Justice 7, 309-323.

 

42 U.S.C. 1983

Galas v. McGee, 801 F.2d 200 (6th Cir. 1986)

Georgia Department of Safety v. Collins Georgia App. 232 SE. 2d 160 (1977)
Gibson v. Pasadena, 148 Cal.Rptr. 68 (Cal. App. 2“d Dist. 1987)

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

Hall, J .C. (1988). Police use of deadly force to arrest: A Constitutional standard.
FBI Qw Enforcement Bulletin, 37(7), 20-29.

Hamilton v. Town of Palo, 244 N.W.2d 329 (Iowa 1976)
Heclo, H. H. (1972). Policy analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 83-108.

Johnson, P., Aldrich, J ., Miller, G., Ostrom, C., & Rhode, D. (1990). American
government: People, institutions, and policies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Johnson v. State of California, 447 P.2d 352 (Cal. 1987)

240

Kappeler, V. E. (1993). Critical issues mpolicepgbilitv. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press.

Kappeler, V. E., & del Carmen, R. V. (1988). Police civil liability for failure to
arrest drunk drivers. Police Chief, October, 102-106.

Keating v. Holston’s Ambulance Service Inc., 546 So.2d 911 (La. Ct. App. 1989)
Kenney, J. P. (1972). Police administration. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Kisbey v. State of California, 682 P.2d 1093 (1984)

Knaggs v. Lewis Mich. 287 Mich. 431 (1939)

Lakoduk v. Cruger, 296 P.2d 690 (Wash. 1956)

Lee v. Mitchell Funeral Home Ambulance Service Utah 606 P. 2d 259 (1980)

Lewis, K. L. (1991). Section 1983: A matter of policy-current overview of
municipal liability. Michigan Bar Jouma_l, June, 556-559.

Littel v. Maloney Kansas App. 593 P. 2d 11 (1979)
Macmillan (1997). Planet Earth world atlas. New York: Macmillan.
Madison v. Wiley Scott Weldon 446 So.2d 21 (1984)

Marx, F. M. (1963). Elements of public administration, (2“d ed). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mason v. Britton, 534 P.2d. 1360 (Wash. 1975)
Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated, 1949, as amended. Section 691.1405
Michigan v. Chestemut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 (1988)
Minnesota House of Representatives (1999). House research bill summary H.F. 381.
Monell v. Department of Social Services 436 U.S. 658 1978
Monroe v. Pape 365 U.S. 167 1961
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (1967). I_erfp_rr_n_

vehicle code: Rules of the road with Statutog Annotatiom 1967. Washington D.C.:
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances.

241

Nelson v. Robert Thomas 282 Ill. App. 3d 818 (1996)

New Jersey Task Force on Police Vehicular Pursuit Policy (1999). Vehicular
pursuit: New Jersey Police vehicular pursuit policy.

Nicolaidis, N. G., & Donner, J. W. (1960). Fund Publication No. II. School of
Public Administration, University of Southern California.

Oechsli, S. (1990). Kentucpy State Police pursuit study 1989-1990. Rockville,
MD: National Institute of Justice.

Oklahoma v. Tuttle 471 U.S. 808 1985

O'Linn, M. K., Cotkin, Collins, & Frascell (1992). The gaps in the use-of-force
policies and training. The Police Chief, February, 52-54.

Patinkin, H. P., & Bingham, H. (1986). Police motor vehicle pursuits: The
Chicago Experience. The Police Chief, fl(7), 61-62.

Payne, D. M. (1997). Michigan Emergency Response Study-Phase III:
Implications of the failure to report pursuits and inaccurate accident reporting: A

research note. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategg and Management,
29(2), 256-269 .

Payne, D. (1993). Preliminamfindingfrom the Michigan Emergency response
study: Ph_ase II. A report to the Michig_an State Police training division. East Lansing,
MI: Michigan State University.

Payne, D. M., & Corley, C. (1994). Police pursuits: Correlates of the failure to
report. Americgn J oumal of Police. 13(4), 47-72.

Peters, B. G. (1982). American public policy: Process and performance. New
York: Franklin Watts.

Pfiffner, J. M. (1960). Administrative rationality. Public Administration
Review, @(3), 127-132.

Physician for Automotive Safety (1968). Raid pursuit by thepolice: Causes,
hazards, coqsemrences: A national pattern is evident. New York: Physicians for
Automotive Safety.

Riggs v. State, 488 So.2d 443 (La.App. 1986)
Robinson v. City of Detroit 462 Mich. 439 (2000)

Rousseau, J. J. (1948). The social confifl. New York: Oxford University Press.

242

Rutherford v. State, 605 P.2d 16 (1979)

Sciuto v. State of Connecticut 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3477 (1999)
Semple v. Hope Ohio 474 NE. 2d 314 (1984)

Siege], L. J. (1989). Criminology (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Silva v. City of Albuquerque NM. App., 610 P.2d 219 (1980)

Silver, 1. (1991). Police civill_i2_rbility. New York: Matthew Bender.
Simkins v. Barcus, 77 A.2d 717 (1951)

Smith v. City of West Point Miss. 475 So. 2d 816 (1985)

Stanulonis v. Marzec 649 F. Supp. 1536 D. Conn. (1986)

Stark v. City of Los Angeles Cal. App. 2 Dist. 214 Cal. Rprt. 216 (1985)
State of California (2000). Cal. Pen. Code § 13519.8

State of Connecticut v. Michael K. Harmon 56 Conn. App. 581 (2000)

State of Michigan (1986). Michigan pursuit driving researchaprd trainipg
manual. Lansing, MI: State of Michigan.

State of Minnesota (1999). Minn. Stat. § 609.487
State of Minnesota (1999). Minn. Stat. § 626.8458

Swanson, C. R., Territo, L., & Taylor, R. W. (1993). Police administration:
Structures, Drocessmand behaviors. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Thomas v. City of Richmond 9th Cal. 4‘h 1154 (1995)
Thornton v. Shore, 666 P.2d 655 (Kan. 1983).

Travis v. The City of Mesquite Texas 830 S.W.2d 94 (1992)

Tucker v. The Town of Branford 1998 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1139 (1998)

243

Vicknair v. Malbrough La. App. 5 Cir. 482 So. 2d 45 (1986)

Weaver v. The State of California 63 Cal. App. 4th 188 (1998)

West v. United States, 617 F.Supp. 1015 (CD. Cal. 1985)

West Virginia v. Fidelity Gas & Casualty Co. of NY, 263 F. Supp 88 (D.W.Va. 1967).
Wright v. District of Columbia, Memorandum Opinion, No. 87-2157 (June 21, 1990)

Zulauf v. State New York Ct. Cl. 462 NYS. 2d 560 (1983)

244

       

MIL, HM; AN‘ IAIE 1 “HA 1

llllllllllllllll

31293 02177 0734