Friday, January 20, 2006

Hot Pursuit

A recent news media event centered around a police chase that ended when the suspect crashed head on into another vehicle, all caught on camera, has brought an old issue to the surface. Folks across the nation got to watch as the helicopter’s news cam transmitted the “reality show” live; and then over and over as the daily news outlets enjoyed the excitement of the moment. What is the responsibility of the police officer/police department when stopping a vehicle?

In an article appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Matt Stiles summed up the incident: (linked via title bar)



“No one was seriously injured, but the crash sparked a discussion about a policy being debated nationwide over how police should arrest nonviolent, fleeing suspects — and whether they ought to chase them at all.” (emphasis added)

I would have to question Matt Stiles inclusion of the word nonviolent. The fact that a person is fleeing in a vehicle, a piece of equipment that could be considered a lethal weapon by virtue of its potential when used as something other than passive transportation creates a violent situation in and of itself. To validate my statement I need only turn back the clock to September 11, 2001 when terrorists turned a passenger jet, something normally thought of as a vehicle, into a weapon capable of murder and mayhem. A car driven by a person with no regard for the safety and well being of his fellow citizens is not much different, smaller perhaps; but just as deadly.

Matt Stiles then adds one more interesting thought, should the police even chase them at all; turn a blind eye in order to avoid complications. The citizens of any given community have every right to establish the parameters governing their police departments. They have to determine whether they want law and order maintained or if they are willing to permit lawless disregard, murder and mayhem to occur in plain sight. Once the laws and rules are placed before everyone it then becomes a matter of watching the results to see if changes should be made.

In our litigious society where a certain segment waits for their money train to arrive via the “civil courts lottery”, many cities have put muzzles and leashes on their police departments to limit their exposure to the possibility of being sued. Police department rules manuals are written in such a way as to protect the city and the department by creating all inclusive Standard Operating Procedures; which if exceeded by an individual officer leave that particular officer open for ridicule, suspension and the brunt of any lawsuits.

Police officers have sworn to uphold the law and protect the citizens. The citizens who are paying his/her salary expect a reasonable return. One problem with the system now in place is that police officers are constantly being asked to go it alone when it comes to support from the department because there is no reasonable way to write a Standard Operating Procedure that will protect both the police officer and the city when dealing with unreasonable money hungry lawyers who represent unreasonable and greedy future lottery ticket holders.

The cameras and microphones were everywhere when the chase ended the other day, catching the emotions of the woman whose car had been crashed into by the suspect along with interviewing some of the police officers involved, either directly or in the mop up of the scene. I heard the remarks made by officer Thomas Nixon as he expressed some of the frustration faced by every police officer at having to do less, to avoid entangling the City in a law suit and somehow create the illusion that law enforcement is healthy and doing its job.


“At the scene, he said it shouldn't "have taken an innocent family to stop this man”.”

{…}
"Nixon was ordered Thursday to turn in his badge and identification card."

{…}

"I didn't commit a crime. I didn't violate anyone's civil rights. I didn't use excessive force. It's kind of insulting," ( Officer Thomas ) Nixon said outside HPD headquarters prior to meeting with department officials.”

For those who have never read the chase policy it can be summed up in few short thoughts. If a police officer gets behind a suspect in a chase and during that chase any property is damaged or any injury is brought about the final responsibility rests with the officer involved in that chase. The policy may have been altered since I was wearing a blue uniform.

I recall the last police chase I was involved in. I was dispatched to an alarm on an auto parts warehouse. Upon arrival I observed the suspect vehicle leaving the scene loaded with stolen auto parts; two suspects in the back of the truck as it sped away. They were throwing boxes which contained tire rims they had stolen at my patrol car in an attempt to get me to back off. They increased speed with no regard for anyone, ran stop signs and red lights without a care. I had been calling in the progress of the chase and at one point all I could see was a panel of jurists and a judge asking me what caused me to leave my brain at home. I advised the dispatcher that I was implementing my interpretation of the newest chase policy, that it was likely to end a bad wreck, one which I would be responsible for legally. I killed my red lights and siren.

I backed off half a block more and the suspects, who had been watching my “retreat” more than the road, crashed the truck and fled on foot into the night. The truck turned out to be stolen too. I made my report, the original burglary, while the accident division made their report on the wreck and the recovery of the stolen truck loaded with what ever hadn’t been tossed on the roadway. I’d made the smart and selfish decision, the “right choice” under the policy of the day. I still felt like I’d ignored, not forgotten, my primary directive; that being to uphold the law and stop the bad guys.


This is my entry into the next Carnival of Liberty. R. G. Combs will be hosting the event and can be found at Combs Spouts Off.

No comments: