This is an article I wrote on 03/05/11
Apprehension of Criminals Includes Pursuits!
Unfortunately the reality is that in order to catch those that create crime, cause crime, and are responsible for some of the most egregious acts, we must not shy away from allowing the police to do their jobs and if need be chase those criminals that are dangerous and are a threat to society. Pursuits are a dirty part of a police officers job, they have so many things to worry about, like first off which commander is working, or which supervisor; will they cancel the pursuit of a confirmed felon, and allow them to continue on their merry way, officers have to deal with these types of supervisors in the Stockton Police department. There is such indecisiveness, and inconsistency about the pursuit policy, that it makes the paper nothing but a noble attempt to be politically correct and promote safety among the city residents. But I take the view that to let individuals go that are responsible for some violent, or who have committed felonies is the same thing as having a pursuit turn bad.
We cannot think that not allowing officers who are already empowered to take a life if necessary and are the only ones besides a judge that can deprive you of your constitutional rights temporarily. Police officers have awesome responsibility and they are trained well and I feel they should be allowed to make choices that are consistent with their training and the oath that they took when they became police officers. I know that I will inevitably irritate some people who will say that I am on the wrong side of the idea or issue, but I say to you, what is the right side of the issue?, when criminals whom are dangerous are allowed to go free, and when we have a police force that is under attack, under staffed, and whom the officers do not have faith in their leadership! All of these things are detrimental. Any police activity is inherently dangerous, and pursuits are very dangerous but so are armed confrontations that occur in public places when officers are forced to use deadly force, or when they have to use force or fight with a suspect. I think it is quite funny that what is not probably understood is that what is more dangerous is the police using their cell phones while driving, reading their MDT's and working on the computers while driving-all of these activities are inherently able to cause accidents, and they do.
My point is this, their needs to be consistency regarding police pursuits, some watch commanders are willing to let their supervisors take ownership of the calls, and allow them to make the choice whether to terminate. Realize this over half of the termination of pursuits do not happen from Supervisors or W/C who are on the streets, but whom are at the police annex or the north facility in an office. I view this as limp, and makes me feel so bad for officers that are good at what they do but are held back because we have a department that is so afraid of chasing someone, that they are willing to gladly lump the pursuit onto CHP's plate, and they of course will take the pursuit, because they do not terminate, but they are in the business of catching these felonious criminals. The irony here is that all the time Stockton Police calls for CHP assistance, but when CHP calls for assistance from the City, the leadership is reluctant to assist, and just the other day they left a CHP officer alone on a pursuit, because the officer was told not to join the pursuit. The officers backup lost both tires in the pursuit so the CHP unit was solo and their were Stockton Police units all over, but they were held back by a W/C that needs to take the retirement package the City has offered, and go work for another agency like Mayberry PD.
Finally I want to address a case that was ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court and it deals with the issues of police pursuits and legal intervention. The brief states the following :
Georgia Deputy clocked 19-year-old Victor Harris going 73 mph in a 55 mph zone. As the pursuit entered Peachtree City, Deputy Timothy Scott joined the chase and took over as the lead vehicle. Although not yet trained in the Precision Intervention Technique (P.I.T.), Deputy Scott radioed in a request to a supervisor to perform the maneuver. The request was granted.
The actions of the Officer lead to the suspect becoming a parapalegic, and so several courts had oppinnions on the matter, but the final say came from the highest court in the land and here is what Justice Scalia stated in the opinnion:
Scott v. Harris
Justice Scalia stated...
A couple of points are clear from the Court’s decision:
* This case is not about the PIT Maneuver. While Deputy Scott asked permission to utilize PIT, he determined that he was going too fast to do so, and he rammed the vehicle instead. A precision maneuver such as PIT is not the same as ramming a vehicle.
* The Court clearly places the blame on the suspect and rejects the idea that if the police had canceled the pursuit, the public would be safer, citing: “. . .we are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger. It is obvious the perverse incentives such a rule would create.” The Court went on to say that the incentive would be “escape.”
* It is hard to say what the outcome of this case would have been if Deputy Scott did not have a video of the pursuit. The court relied on this evidence; clearly, law enforcement needs to embrace this technology. The suspect had been dishonest in his account, but Deputy Scott was protected because the incident was taped.
Furthermore Justice Scalia states “The court rules that a police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.”
While the end of the brief and opinion states that this case sides with law enforcement, it does not give carte blanche when it comes to safety and pursuits etc.
But what this case makes very clear is that the Court understands that people who run are a danger and they need to be stopped, and it is not the burden of the police to have to be so constrained because they must worry about being sued because of the actions of a criminal who is the absolute reason the event occurs from beginning to end.
The police department the court understands is in the business of protecting and serving and apprehending those whom would seek to deny others their rights and civil liberties.
Yes police pursuits are probably the most dangerous of all police work, but they are nonetheless a part of the work and a very integral part. We cannot constrain our police officers whom we demand to protect us, by telling them they can only go after certain people who break the law, this is not the way the system works. I am not saying chase a person for a pack of spearmint or even a dirty book, I am saying do not let Parolees go, do not let people who have stolen cars go, and do not let other s go who are known felons.
Source
Scott v. Harris-Posted on Policeone.com
No comments:
Post a Comment