Police Pursuits and Civil Liability

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The, July, 2001 by Chris Pipes, Dominick Pape

On May 22, 1990, Sacramento County sheriff's deputies responded to a call regarding a fight. After handling the call, a motorcycle with a driver and a passenger approached the officers at a high rate of speed. The officers attempted to stop the motorcycle, but the driver chose to flee. A high-speed pursuit commenced with the vehicles reaching speeds of 100 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood. The pursuit ended when the motorcycle crashed. Unable to stop, the police vehicle ran over the passenger, who died at the scene. The district court ruled in favor of the police. The court of appeals reversed the decision based upon the standard of deliberate indifference. That court based its decision, in part, on the fact that the deputy violated his agency's general order concerning police pursuits. The Supreme Court held that the failure of the deputy to adhere to his agency's pursuit policy was irrelevant. This ruling, in effect, has given police agencies more protection from federal civil litigation genera ted by police pursuits.

Research and Review of Several Policies

Formal studies reflect that the general public believes police pursuits remain necessary for the apprehension of persons suspected of committing serious offenses, and that the need for pursuit to capture any offender should be balanced against the risk of danger to the innocent public. [33] These findings are consistent with the directives set forth in nine pursuit policies reviewed by the authors. Four of the agencies' policies and the IACP model policy can be characterized as judgmental, allowing pursuit for any offense as long as the danger to the officers and public created by the pursuit does not outweigh the necessity to capture the offender. [34] Three of the policies can be described as restrictive, based upon Alpert's definition [35] allowing pursuits only in the cases of felonies (one policy) or in the case of serious violent felonies (two policies). [36] One agency policy, of the West Midlands Police of Birmingham, England, [37] takes into account police driver proficiency as indicated by level of completion of a hierarchy of available driving courses. Depending upon current conditions and the seriousness of the offense, drivers who obtain advanced driving grades may pursue. All other drivers may pursue only in the event of serious, violent offenses. [38]

The Pennsylvania State Police, which has a "pursuit continuum" similar in many ways to the force continua that are components of many department use of force policies, characterizes another novel approach by an agency. [39] The Pennsylvania State Police Continuum provides clear direction for the consideration of supplementary tactics including the use of stop strips, roadblocks, induced stops, rolling roadblocks, ramming, and firearms.

Apparently few, if any, studies exist that attempt to determine if an offender, in deciding whether or not to flee, takes into account any chase prohibitions placed on officers by their agency's policy. Unfortunately, the often-heard argument against a restrictive policy states that once the members of a community learn that a local agency's policy prohibits pursuit except in the event of felonies, officers will suffer an increase in the number of offenders who choose to flee. While the empirical evidence in support of, or rebuttal against, this argument is insufficient, the anecdotal evidence suggests that such policies do not result in a change in the number of suspects who choose to flee. [40]