Thursday updates

First, I did an interview recently with a reporter from USA Today about police pursuits, more specifically the change in Milwaukee. I have written about the change before, and you can read that HERE and HERE. It looks like the reporter is putting together quite an extensive article, and let's hope it runs soon.

I ran across an interesting story out of St. Louis. According to the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, two SLPD officers who died in recent traffic accidents related to police pursuits were not wearing their seat belts. The Globe-Democrat noted that some officers are against wearing their seat belts because it can impede them from getting out of a patrol car quickly. It's pretty easy to disagree with that line of reasoning.

The death of the officers aside, the article was valid to include the financial considerations involved here. According to the Globe-Democrat, worker's compensation payouts are 25 percent higher when a seat belt is not worn. That is a lot. The same can be said for payouts to officer's families.

Again, the loss of life here is by far the most important consideration, but given the budgetary woes departments around the nation face today, you must also consider the financial implications of policy.

Milwaukee Policy Change, Virginia Legislation, and the BBC

First, here is my editorial regarding the change of Milwaukee's policy:

Several weeks ago the Milwaukee Police Department changed its pursuit policy to where officers can only pursue if they have probable cause that a violent felony has occurred. This is a progressive step for the department.

In late 2001, my then 20-year-old sister Sarah was on her way home from the movies when she was hit and killed by a man fleeing police. Like the four victims in Milwaukee since December 31st, Sarah’s case shows just how serious the decision to pursue must be taken.

Detractors argue that this will allow the bad guys to run wild on city streets. I could not disagree more. There is not a significant portion of the population on the fence waiting to hear what the policy is. People either listen to the police when asked to pull over, or they don’t. Those who don’t are usually young, stupid, and just don’t want to go to jail. Those who disagree with the policy change also need to understand that just because the initial officer loses sight of the suspect does not mean they will get away. Modern technology allows us to run a license plate in seconds, put a helicopter in the air, or simply radio other officers in the area.

As a friend and former police officer once told me, “Sometimes police forget that their job is not to catch the bad guy, but rather it is to protect the public.” Given this policy change, the Milwaukee Police Department understands this.

This has been submitted to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Next, a Delegate in Virginia is proposing "legislation to study the introduction of statewide guidelines for high-speed chases, a proposal that was prompted by the recent death of a Richmond pastor who was killed by a vehicle fleeing Henrico County police."

You can read the article HERE. It is very early in the process, but this looks like a step in the right direction.

Finally, I ran across a BBC story from late 2007 in which I am quoted. Check that out HERE.

Milwaukee PD makes a change

Several weeks ago, the Milwaukee Police Department announced changes to their department's policy. Under the new guidelines, officers must have probable cause that a violent felony has occurred, rather than just reasonable suspicion.

This represents a step in the right direction for Milwaukee. The change comes following the deaths of 4 people since December 31st.

Per usual, there were plenty of detractors. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, union leader Bob Donovan had this to say:

So now, if a burglary suspect or drug dealer jumps in a vehicle and refuses to stop for a patrol car, he'll be able to take off and get away because the crime was not a violent felony.

I'll start by pointing out that just because officers do not pursue a suspect DOES NOT mean they will get away. We can run a license plate, put a helicopter in the air, notify surrounding units, etc. Just because the suspect gets out of the sight of the initial officer does not mean the fight has been lost.

You can read the rest of the JS article HERE.

Yesterday the Journal Sentinel followed up with an editorial supporting the change. You can read that HERE.

I have submitted an editorial to the paper supporting the change. Check back for developments.