Policy Proposal for Florida Gubernatorial Candidate Alex Sink

Through a contact I was able to submit a policy proposal to current Florida CFO, and Democratic candidate for Governor, Alex Sink. Candy Priano of PursuitSAFETY joined me on this submission. I appreciate the opportunity and while it might not lead to dramatic policy change, it is certainly useful to catch the ear of an influential public figure. Below is the proposal.

-------------

When Sarah Phillips, a 20-year-old UCF student, was killed by a man fleeing police just outside of Orlando in 2001, and when 15-year-old Kristie Priano was killed on her way to a high school basketball game in 2002, they became two more innocent victims of police pursuits in the United States. Founded as a result of their deaths, PursuitWatch.org and PursuitSAFETY have been advocating for safe and smart police pursuits.

In regards to police pursuits, there are several important facts to take into consideration:

• Nationwide, 1 officer is killed every 6 weeks, and at least 3 innocent victims are killed each week.

• Officer deaths from vehicle collisions outnumber firearm related officer deaths.

• Pursuits result in up to 4,000 injuries to innocent Americans each year.

• From 1998-2007, at least 176 Floridians were killed during police pursuits.

• 88% of all chases are for non-violent crimes.

Given these statistics, we would like to make three recommendations to Alex Sink’s campaign for Governor of Florida.

1. Across Florida, all law enforcement agencies should be required to implement a clearly defined pursuit policy that prevents the review of a pursuit from being a guessing game. This must state what crimes warrant a pursuit, and what the proper action should be. A clearly defined policy allows officers to make the correct decision, helps in training for these situations, and for proper scrutiny and review by the chain of command to be possible.
2. In Florida, those who choose to flee police should be charged with at least a 2nd degree felony. Currently, those who flee are charged with a 3rd degree felony unless they show wanton disregard (2nd degree) or cause serious bodily harm (1st degree). (See Florida Statute 316.1935)
3. Law enforcement agencies should only pursue those who are suspected of committing a violent crime. Given the risk to peace officers and the innocent public, it is only worth the risk to pursue when there is an imminent threat to human life. It is also important to take into consideration that just because officers choose not to pursue with their vehicles thisdoes not mean the suspect gets away. The ability to use proven resources and technologies to apprehend drivers who flee does not require life-threatening behavior.
   

Finally, it is important to remember the financial costs (lawsuits, workers’ compensation, insurance claims). For example, a study done in St. Louis found one out of every 100 dollars spent in the police budget went to workers’ compensation claims for deaths and injuries arising from vehicular accidents. That is enough for St. Louis to employ 25 more officers.

John Phillips

President, PursuitWatch.org
321.228.9783

Candy Priano

Executive Director, PursuitSAFETY
A National Nonprofit Organization
530.343.9754

Yuma PD: On the right track

More and more departments around the nation are getting on track and adopting progressive policies that take into consideration the safety of officers, the innocent public, and even fleeing suspect. I came across this editorial from the Yuma (Arizona) Sun:

The YPD's pursuit policy is 14 pages long, but can be boiled down to one basic tenet: Don't engage in a pursuit unless it is a very serious situation. Chases for misdemeanor offenses - like beer theft - or civil traffic violations are specifically prohibited.

That means there are few pursuits by Yuma police officers.

Chases are allowed for felony offenses when it is seen as necessary and there is a reasonable chance of apprehension or if there is the imminent threat of injury or death to others.

Read the entire opinion piece HERE.

Although PursuitWatch supports limiting pursuits to only violent crimes, this is a step in the right direction. We can truthfully discuss the level of felony worthy of a pursuit, but everyone ought to agree on the stupidity of pursuing for minor crimes.

GPS and OnStar: No exception to sound policy

Last October, GM announced that 19 of its new models would be equipped with the technology, through OnStar, that would allow law enforcement to ask the engines of cars they were pursuing to be remotely shut off. The idea is that this would bring a safe and quick end to these situations. Around the same time, the LAPD was testing StarChase, a devise mounted on patrol cars that shoots a GPS tracking devise that sticks to fleeing cars. Considering Los Angeles had over 600 pursuits last year, any new testing is a welcomed idea. Both StarChase and the OnStar products use state of the art technologies which no one could have imagined years earlier would be possible. Fox News, the USA Today, and CBS News called, wanting to know what I thought about these exciting new technologies.

They asked: “Do you support these technologies?” Yes, I support all technologies that might make the job of law enforcement safer and more effective. Much like the two-way radio, helicopter, and the computer have helped police protect their communities, StarChase and OnStar might once prove as important as those previously mentioned. I understand that when an officer engages in a pursuit of a suspect, he or she is putting their life in danger every time. If these technologies make it possible for more officers to go home safe to their families every evening, then let us see if it works.

“Will it make pursuits a thing of the past?” They continued, adding “If police had this technology in 2001, would your sister still be alive?” I can answer both of these questions at once: I don’t know.

But this is what I do know, that the potential for these technological advancements does not take the place of safe and smart policy. First, the costs of these new technologies are high, and with the already incredibly stretched budgets of out nations departments, don’t expect to see devices on your local patrol cars that can shoot a GPS tracker onto a suspects car anytime soon. The StarChase technology requires the suspect vehicle to be either stopped or going very slow at a close range. What if the patrol car doesn’t get anywhere near the suspects car? Let us also not forget that this new OnStar technology will only be included on a small fraction of the vehicles out there. Chances are this wont be an option in the vast majority of situations for many years.

Some have come to me, including The Economist, wondering what I thought about the civil liberties implications of these new technologies. Could these devices be easily abused? Would this allow law enforcement to always know what I’m doing? Is this Big Brother? This is not my place to comment. However, this side of the debate shows even more so the need for clear and defined policy that lets officers know what can and can’t be done. Hopefully, a policy that clearly states the wrongs and rights of these technologies can cut down on cases that might bring civil liberties issues into question.

So, until that time, all departments should adopt a policy that requires adequate training for police officers, only pursues those who are suspected of committing violent crimes, allows for complete and painstaking review of all incidents, and makes available to the public all requested information. Until this becomes common practice, these technologies are no more than a story in the newspaper.