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.

Tennessee's HB 2907

The Tennessee House Criminal Practice Subcommittee is set to take on HB 2907 this Wednesday (April 7). PursuitWatch.org opposes the bill. Here is a quick summary:

Under present law, the fact that law enforcement personnel pursue an actual or suspected violator of a law or ordinance who flees from pursuit does not render the law enforcement personnel, or the employers of the law enforcement personnel, liable for injuries to a third party proximately caused by the fleeing party unless the conduct of the law enforcement personnel was negligent and that negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries to the third party. This bill increases the measure of negligence that law enforcement personnel must engage in while pursuing a suspected violator, in order for such personnel or their employer to be liable for injuries to a third party proximately caused by the fleeing party, from ordinary negligence to gross negligence.

This bill also prohibits employers of law enforcement personnel from taking disciplinary action against law enforcement personnel for a pursuit of a fleeing suspect, unless such pursuit violated pursuit policies established by the law enforcement agency that employed such law enforcement personnel at the time of the pursuit.

For more on the Bill, click HERE.

Below is my letter to the members of the Subcommittee:


Members of the Tennessee House Criminal Practice Subcommittee,

This Wednesday (April 7), you will take on HB 2907. The Bill wishes to set the bar to which law enforcement is responsible for the negative consequences of police pursuits from “negligent and that negligence” to “grossly negligent and that gross negligence.”

PursuitWatch.org, which advocates for safer and smarter police pursuits, urges members of the Subcommittee to oppose the Bill.

While my organization understands the level of freedom law enforcement officers must be granted to protect the public, requiring the presence of gross negligence is simply too liberal of a concession.

Unfortunately, sometimes law enforcement forgets their job is not necessarily to catch the bad guy, but rather it is to protect the public. In 2001, my then 20-year-old sister was an innocent victim of a police pursuit. While the criminal who refused to stop for the police was imprisoned, our family also held comfort in knowing that the department and officers involved - whose negligence compounded a series of bad decisions by the criminal - were also held responsible for their actions.

Let me be clear: PursuitWatch.org does not wish to minimize the ability for law enforcement to complete their job. We simply feel that the passage of HB 2907 allows law enforcement to place themselves and the public in grave danger, without having to be accountable for their actions.

Regards,

John Phillips

Technology Cannot Replace a Public-Safety First Policy

I wrote a piece for Candy Priano and PursuitSAFETY's Voices on the Street. Distributed on March 17, Voices on the Street is the organization's newsletter. You can subscribe HERE.

There are several factors that go into a safe policy. To begin with, officers must receive adequate training beyond the academy. The fact that officers spend a majority of time in their vehicle does not mean they have the expertise required to safely track down a fleeing suspect.

Second, all departments should have a well-defined policy that clearly states the protocol when dealing with possible pursuits. There should be no doubt in an officer’s mind as to the appropriate action to take in such a circumstance. Officers already have enough on their mind. They need to know—before they “light up” a driver—if their policy allows a pursuit should the driver decide to flee.

To read the rest of the piece, click HERE.

"Classes encourage cops to review pursuit policies"

PursuitWatch was recently mentioned in an article in The Monitor of Edinburg, Texas.

There were 404 fatalities nationwide that stemmed from police pursuits in 2006, according to an analysis of government data by PursuitWatch.org, a pursuit safety advocate. Among those deaths, 133 of the victims were bystanders or occupants of uninvolved vehicles.

The piece continues:

epending on the nature of the offense — especially if no felony was committed — it may be best to cut loose the suspect, despite the officer’s desire to catch the criminal.

“Using good common sense — that’s what it boils down to,” Rodriguez said. “Once you get their license plates, let them go. We’ll get them later.”

I couldn't agree more. To read the piece, click HERE.

The Scott Fitzgerald Show

This morning I was a guest on the Scott Fitzgerald Show on Raleigh N.C.'s NewsRadio 680. The interview was triggered by a pursuit yesterday in Raleigh for a stolen vehicle. Although, according to the report, the police had GPS capabilities to keep track of the fleeing vehicle on the radar, they pursued during rush hour at high speeds. Luckily, no one died.

Lasting three segments and nearly 45 minutes, I spoke with Scott about what a proper policy should be, what should have happened yesterday, what technologies are available today, and more. During the interview Scott fielded several calls from listeners. Surprisingly, a majority seemed to understand the need to have a strictly defined policy that properly weights the need to apprehend a suspect immediately and protecting the public. Others did not see it that way, yet the discussion remained civil and productive.

Thanks to Mr. Fitzgerald for having me on.

You can learn more about him and his show HERE.

I'll post a link to the audio if I can track it down...

In NSW, minimum punishments will go a long way

According to The Coast News, the New South Wales government has enacted legislation that requires a jail sentence of at least 3 years and up to 5 years for those who choose to flee police, even if no one is hurt. The change in police includes:

• Participate in a police pursuit while driving furiously, recklessly or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public – maximum jail term: three years;

• Participate in a police pursuit while driving furiously, recklessly or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public on a second or subsequent occasion within five years of the first offence – maximum jail term: five years.

Now if someone is hurt, prosecutors a free to pursue harsher sentences, but having this tool at their disposal will undoubtedly bring how the message of how dangerous it is to flee police.

At the same time, officers still have the ability to pursue if the suspected crime warrants such. To close,

“Police pursuits are only engaged in by highly-skilled and trained officers and are subject to strict guidelines and safe driving strategies.”

It looks like NSW is doing it the right way. Proper policy, proper officer training, proper oversight, proper punishment.

Mid-North Monitor: Safety top concern during police pursuits: chief

An interesting story came through my alerts yesterday from the Mid-North Monitor in Espanola, Ontario. Noting the difference between American police pursuits and the Canadian approach...

According to Towns, the approach taken by police services in Ontario is always bent toward the threat the pursuit presents to the safety of the public. This may appear to be in contrast to the American approach, which is generally more aggressive. Through extensive media attention, high-intensity, high-speed pursuits have become part of the visual vocabulary in Canadian households, but for the most part that isn't how it happens north of the border.

In fact, Ontario law states that "police are in fact only to start a pursuit if they have determined that 'there are no alternatives available as set out in the written procedures of the police force'." That is quite a difference.

You can read the rest HERE.

Innocent victim dies in Orlando... Just what happened?

Update, 10:55 AM:

According to the Orlando Sentinel,

Officers said 24-year-old Kenny Zarzuela struck Spencer George Owens' car in Tuesday's crash at Lake Margaret Drive and Semoran Boulevard while fleeing from police. Owens, 42, of Orlando, died at Florida Hospital East.

Police say an officer turned on his lights upon observing Zarzuela run a red light. The suspect was driving erratically and refused to stop. The officer followed for a block or so, and when he was turning his police cruiser around, heard the sound of the collision.

Orlando Sentinel: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-crash-accident-orlando-20100119,0,6550186.story

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

News reports out of Orlando this morning are revealing the death of a motorist who was struck and killed by a vehicle that failed to stop at the request of the Orlando Police Department. Details are few and far between, but here is what we think we know so far:

• According to the Orlando Sentinel, OPD attempted to pull over a blue escort after it ran a red light.
  
• The escort failed to stop, and the police followed.
  
• The suspect's car then struck the victim. Rescue crews transferred the victim to the hospital, where he/she was pronounced dead.
  
• The suspect has been arrested. Charges have yet to be filed.
  
• According to WESH, police noted that they did not initiate a pursuit and that the accident happened minutes after the attempted stop.
  

It's very early on this story, but let's stay with it until more details are released.

Sentinel: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-crash-accident-orlando-20100119,0,6550186.story
Local 6: http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22270486/detail.html
WESH: http://www.wesh.com/news/22270278/detail.html