New Page 0

Law enforcement administrators have become keenly aware of the liability associated with pursuits, and most have responded accordingly by modifying their agency’s pursuit policies within the last five to ten years. Keeping liability concerns and public safety considerations in mind, the question remains: What direction should a law enforcement agency take regarding pursuits? This question has created an ongoing dilemma for law enforcement administrators throughout the country. Past IACP President Chief David G. Walchak addressed the situation some years ago, stating ”...If, however, a law enforcement agency decides not to engage in high speed pursuits, its credibility with both law-abiding citizens and law violators may suffer, and its effectiveness may be diminished. Public knowledge that the agency has a policy prohibiting pursuit may encourage people to flee, decreasing the probability of apprehension.” (1) Chief Walchak’s comments were empirically illustrated by the experiences of the Tampa Police Department (TPD) in Tampa, Florida. In 1992, TPD instituted a restrictive pursuit policy that allowed its officers to pursue only violent felony offenders. Officers and supervisors who violated the policy were subject to disciplinary action. (2). Within two years, Tampa ranked second in the nation in the number of auto thefts, surpassed only by Newark, New Jersey (3). Burglars, car thieves, and other non-violent felons were free to elude the police at will. In 1995, TPD modified its pursuit policy to allow officers to pursue most felony suspects, including auto theft and burglary suspects. Following the policy change there was an immediate decrease in the number of auto thefts.(4) Although there will always be an inherent risk in allowing officers to engage in pursuit of non-violent felons, the alternative, as illustrated above, can be the proliferation of criminal activity which tends to border on anarchy.

So how can law enforcement agencies continue to effectively pursue offenders, and simultaneously ensure the maximum safety of anyone who is directly or indirectly involved? It is suggested that law enforcement administrators take a holistic approach to the problem, and develop a strategic model for action.

The Total Pursuit Management model presented below is comprised of five essential elements that will allow law enforcement agencies to apprehend criminals, train their personnel, and minimize civil liability. They are as follows:

t A clear and concise written policy regarding pursuit

t Extensive training

t Pursuit prevention techniques

t Pursuit termination devices

t Pursuit termination techniques (police vehicle involvement)

PURSUIT POLICY

Naturally, the first step in a comprehensive approach to pursuits is the development of a clear and concise policy. Individual agencies must consider several factors when deciding what their specific pursuit policy will allow. Among these are the overall crime rate, the nature of crime within the jurisdiction, the associated liability that pursuits often bear, and the level of citizen support for such actions. The best pursuit policy is the one that meets the needs of both the agency and the citizenry.

Once the direction and scope of a pursuit policy is outlined, it is recommended that agencies refer to the IACP sample vehicle policy as a template for the final product .(5) The IACP sample will ensure that all of the pertinent areas necessary for a comprehensive pursuit policy are covered, and individual agencies can then customize a policy to suit their specific needs.

TRAINING

Law enforcement administrators need look only as far as the agency’s SWAT team to understand why training should play such an important role in pursuit management. Most agencies’ SWAT teams train, on average, from two to twenty days per month. The reasons for this are clear: SWAT teams take part in situations where personal injury, and even death, are serious contingencies. SWAT teams never enter a situation or structure blindly. Significant logistical planning is required, and completed prior to entry. The entry team members know exactly the points of direction they will travel to and cover upon gaining access. Some members are assigned to secure individuals within, and others are designated to provide cover from potential threats not yet encountered. Consider that most vehicle pursuits involve two or more three- to four-thousand pound machines traveling at very high speeds, thus posing similar, or even higher, threat of potential injury and/or death than the SWAT team. Given this, it would seem obvious that at least as much training should be provided in this area. In spite of these facts, however, most agencies do not train their officers to the same level as their specialty teams. Of course, pursuit training two to twenty days per month is unrealistic. However, most agencies probably provide only a half-day or so annually of pursuit-related training.

This comparison is not presented to be wholly critical of agencies for not conducting pursuit training more often, but rather to underscore the importance of training in general, and specifically that, which relates to logistical and tactical thinking. Such thinking is the foundation behind the tactics that can prevent pursuits before they start, and end them safely and effectively once they have begun. The following flow chart outlines the use of tactics and the role they play in pursuit management.

PURSUIT PREVENTION TECHNIQUES

Historically, police tactics regarding pursuits have focused on strategies of relentlessly pursuing those suspects who refuse to yield. Although this is sometimes necessary, or even unavoidable, many pursuits may be prevented through the use of non-traditional police practices.

Normal procedure dictates that, once a law enforcement officer identifies a suspect vehicle, emergency equipment, such as lights and siren, are activated. Although instances vary from state to state, many suspects in this situation, particularly felony suspects, are not going to stop. Statistics show that once a pursuit has begun, the probability of some type of accident is approximately 40 percent, the likelihood of an injury related to the pursuit is roughly 20 percent, (6) and there is a one percent chance of a death occurring. (7) The information presented in this model would suggest that many such pursuits can be avoided, thereby recognizing the statistics as a preventable circumstance.

With in-car data terminal, and dispatchers having high speed connections to Stolen Vehicle and Wanted Person databases officers can quickly obtain a great deal of information about the vehicle in front of them prior to initiating any action.

Most law enforcement officers will agree that offenders generally will not flee until emergency equipment is activated. Rather than alarm a suspect with emergency equipment once they have been identified, officers can take this opportunity to contact an air service, or, if available, unmarked units to take over the observation. The suspect can then be followed until he or she stops, and other units can be directed to the location for apprehension. This method, referred to as “Tactical Observation”, offers a viable alternative to engaging in a high speed pursuit.

The second pursuit prevention tactic to be discussed is called “Vehicle Interception” (VI) and is based on the same principles as tactical observation. The main difference between these two methods is that VI involves the blocking in of a suspect vehicle by law enforcement vehicles. This effectively takes place as the offender’s vehicle is slowing, stopped, or just beginning to move, most often at an intersection, in a driveway, or in parking lot.

VI was designed and implemented by the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) in 1995 in response to an ever-increasing number of pursuits and the resulting increase and concern for public safety. Certainly, blocking in vehicles is not a new practice in law enforcement, but what the HCSO’s VI program initiated was a provision that led to authorization, standardized procedure and training. The VI procedure was designed by a committee of sworn personnel from the canine, aviation, detective, training, and patrol bureaus. The committee met over a one-week period and presented their recommendations to Sheriff Cal Henderson, who approved the procedure and authorized training for all of the HCSO’s sworn personnel. The VI procedure is authorized for felony suspects and impaired vehicle operators who pose a threat to pedestrians and other drivers. Once a deputy has identified an intercept candidate, dispatch is notified with a location, direction of travel, vehicle description and nature of the charges against the suspect. at this point, it is important to take no overt action (e.g., lights and/or siren) that would alert the suspect to impending law enforcement intervention. The next step is for dispatch to notify the agency’s aviation section and the nearest canine unit. The deputy following the suspect will then communicate via radio with any other units that may be in the area. Both marked and unmarked HCSO vehicles may participate in a VI. Through the training, deputies are taught to think tactically, considering what intersections and conditions ahead might be conducive to facilitating a VI. It is preferred, but not required that both a canine and an aviation unit be on-scene. When the location for the VI has been determined, the primary blocking unit will pull in front of the suspect vehicle, still refraining from activating emergency equipment. The primary unit’s position is perpendicular to the front suspect vehicle, with the rear axle in line with the center of the suspect vehicle’s hood. The other law enforcement vehicles will then simultaneously block the rear of the vehicle; minimal bumper-to-bumper contact is authorized. A third or fourth law enforcement vehicle can also take up a coverage position, facing the suspect vehicle’s driver’s side door from 20 to 60 feet away. Emergency equipment can now be activated to further startle and confuse the occupants of the suspect vehicle. The deputy operating the primary blocking vehicle remains in his unit until the suspect vehicle and its occupants have been secured. This is to prevent any potential injury to the deputy should a suspect vehicle attempt to break an intercept. If such a break occurs, the situation is then governed by the HCSO’s standard operating procedure for vehicle pursuits. (8).

All of the HCSO’s sworn personnel attend four hours of VI training. The training consists of two hours of classroom instruction and two hours of practical training on the driving pad.

In the first three years of the program, approximately 150 VIs have been successfully completed, with only one minor injury -- to a deputy -- and some minor damage to HCSO vehicles. Following the first year of authorizing VI procedure, there was an approximate 50 percent decline in deputy-initiated pursuits at the HCSO, and no significant increase in the years since.

PURSUIT TERMINATION DEVICES

The advent of tire deflation devices has been soundly welcomed by the law enforcement community, and such devices have become popular with many agencies in the last five to ten years. These devices which can be purchased at a reasonable cost, have proven quite effective in ending--or at least reducing the speed of-- vehicle pursuits by slowly deflating one or more tires of a suspect vehicle. The cost for one of these devices ranges from three to four hundred dollars. When weighing this cost against the potential savings from the elimination of civil action law suits, coupled with the probability of ending a pursuit without serious injury--or worse--the purchase is clearly a wise expenditure. Some agencies now equip all of their units with these devices, others only selected units. Naturally, the more units that carry these devices, the greater the probability that they can be effectively deployed.

In addition to the tire deflation devices for pursuit termination, there are alternatives currently being tested these include: a tracking module that is shot at a fleeing suspect’s car; a cart that is rocket-propelled underneath a suspect’s car, disabling the vehicle by dissipating a large electromagnetic field; a portable or permanent disc on the road, again discharging an electromagnetic field aimed at disabling the ignition system of a suspect vehicle. (9) Although these, and other high tech devices, may hold promise in the future of pursuit termination, their efficacy has yet to be proven on a large scale.

PURSUIT TERMINATION TECHNIQUES

(Police Vehicle Involvement)

Currently, there are two methods of pursuit termination involving police vehicles. Both of these techniques have been used extensively, but nonetheless require proper training to obtain proficiency.

The first technique is known as “boxing”. Although many law enforcement officers have “boxed” suspects at one time or another without any specific training, there is one law enforcement agency which has developed specific techniques for safely and effectively “boxing” suspect vehicles. The Fairfax County Police Department (FCPO) in Fairfax, Virginia has been actively training their officers to “box” suspects for over a decade. In addition to training their own officers, they also certify driving instructors from other law enforcement agencies in order that they can conduct similar training at their respective agencies.

The “boxing” technique involves the use of three police vehicles. The vehicles position themselves at the front, rear and side of the suspect vehicle. The three police vehicles slow in unison as they approach the suspect vehicle, consequently causing the offender to slow, and eventually stop. Due to the simultaneous movement of all four vehicles, this technique can result in damage to any or all of the vehicles. However, the potential for damage is anticipated and, again, when weighed against the risk for continuation of a pursuit, any such damage may be considered the cost of terminating a pursuit.

The Fairfax County Police Department also uses a second pursuit termination tactic known as “Precision Immobilization Technique”(PIT). PIT involves a law enforcement vehicle making actual contact with a suspect vehicle. Law enforcement officers are taught to gently push one of the rear quarter panels of the suspect vehicle in order to displace its forward motion, thus forcing a 180-degree spin. This technique does involve more risk both to the officer and the suspect, and an officer must consider carefully in what direction the suspect vehicle may end up. It can, however, end a pursuit very effectively--and very rapidly. During the training for this technique officers are taught to consider several factors, including the area they ultimately choose for the PIT, as well as vehicle speed and safety of the suspect. The FCPO has been using PIT since the mid 1980s, and continues to train officers from many different agencies, as well as their own, in this tactic. (10)

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The 1990s have been a tumultuous time for law enforcement agencies, and the way in which they have addressed the vehicle pursuit dilemma. Valuable lessons have been learned, and many long-standing procedures have seen change. Law enforcement administrators have an obligation to the public to assess the best methods to apprehend suspects in vehicles, and in doing so must consider the safety of their citizenry, their officers, and the suspects in question.

The model for Total Pursuit Management, as discussed in this article, should give law enforcement administrators the insight and direction that is needed to establish a pursuit management program within their own agencies. If administrators do all that is within their power to train their officers to successfully apprehend criminal suspects in vehicles while minimizing--to the greatest extent possible--the tragedies that can result from such situations, they are truly serving those they are sworn to protect.

REFERENCES

1. Walchak, David G. “ Vehicular Pursuit-What are the issues?”. Police Chief,

July 1996. p.7

2. Staff. “New police chief wants high-speed chases curbed”.

The Tampa Tribune, April 1, 1992. p. 1

3. Staff. “ Tampa’s racing toward the top in most stolen autos nationwide”.

The Tampa Tribune, September 17, 1994. p. 1

4. Staff. “Tampa car thefts decrease after new police chase policy”.

The Tampa Tribune, July 7, 1995. p. 7

5. Sweeney, Earl M. “Vehicular Pursuit: A serious-and ongoing-problem”.

Police Chief, January 1997. pp. 16-21

6. Alpert, Geoffrey P. “Police Pursuit: Policies and Training”.

A National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, May 1997. p.3

7. Staff. “High-Speed Pursuit: New Technologies Around the Corner”

A National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center brief,

October 1996. p. 2

8. Eisenberg, Clyde B. & Fitzpatrick, Cynthia. “ A Pursuit Alternative”.

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, August, 1996. pp. 16-19

9. Staff. “High-Speed Pursuit: New Technologies Around the Corner”

A National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center brief,

October 1996. pp. 3-5

10. Staff. “The Precision Immobilization Technique”. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

September 1992. pp. 8-9