Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What do you think about Non-pursuit policies?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What do you think about Non-pursuit policies?

    I am currently in process with Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, I did a ride along probably a month ago and to my surprise after clocking a car going 112, blue lighting the car, and then stopping the pursuit when the car didn't stop, I was told that CMPD has a non-pursuit policy and I was wondering what seasoned LEO's think. mostly the reasoning other than the obvious of public safety issues, and does a non-pursuit policy really affect the daily patrol or is it more of a few and far between issue? thanks!
    Last edited by DTB108247; 10-02-2009, 09:00 PM.

  • #2
    I can understand calling off a pursuit in heavy rush-hour traffic where a crash is almost guaranteed.

    But if its late at night minimal traffic on the road theres not much reason to call it off.

    My point is the circumstances of the chase itself should dictate whether there's going to be a pursuit or not. Blanket policies don't work and reward criminals.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is NJ's policy...

      1. A police officer may only pursue

      a. When the officer reasonably believes that the violator has committed an offense of the first or second degree, or an offense enumerated in Appendix A of this policy, or
      b. When a police officer reasonably believes that the violator poses an immediate threat to the safety of the public or other police officers.
      2. Pursuit for motor vehicle offenses is not authorized under the above criteria unless the violator's vehicle is being operated so as to pose an immediate threat to the safety of another person
      We ride for those who died!

      RIP SgtCHP!

      Comment


      • #4
        i appreciate you quoting the policy, I have read it but I really was wanting just some opinion on the subject and what vets that have been on the street for a while think of the policy.

        Comment


        • #5
          I have been told that I completely agree that under almost no circumstances should there be a pursuit.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Code Seven
            You need to look at the big picture. Is the risk to the officers, the public, and even the suspect worth the benefit of capturing the suspect?
            It depends, IMHO, there has to be some level of discretion laid at the feet of the individual officer. The primary officer knows what the traffic conditions are, knows his or her own driving ability, knows what the want is, knows the driving pattern of the suspect. This information can be relayed via radio to a supervisor, but unless the supervisor is involved in the pursuit or FTY, I dont think a fully objective decision can be made.

            I'll cancel a pursuit for a VC violation through a school zone at 3pm. I may continue the same pursuit through the same area at 2am. In a pursuit, I have to broadcast the speed and traffic conditions. "Still eastbound, speeds 90, no traffic, no peds." Chances are, I can continue that pursuit, even for a traffic violation.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DTB108247 View Post
              I am currently in process with Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, I did a ride along probably a month ago and to my surprise after clocking a car going 112, blue lighting the car, and then stopping the pursuit when the car didn't stop, I was told that CMPD has a non-pursuit policy and I was wondering what seasoned LEO's think. mostly the reasoning other than the obvious of public safety issues, and does a non-pursuit policy really affect the daily patrol or is it more of a few and far between issue? thanks!
              How long did the pursuit go before it was called off? Was the officer still attempting to overtake the violator? Could the driver possibly be DWI?

              Our Sgts would attempt to spike the violator before calling it off, unless there is heavy traffic, bad weather conditions or other factors deeming it unsafe. We won't get into 20 min pursuit where the only violation is a single traffic infraction. But if its a felony, D/V Assault or DWI then its on.
              Last edited by Rush817; 10-03-2009, 04:55 PM.
              Strong Body, Sharp Mind And Good Tactics!

              Comment


              • #8
                it was on a very new interstate loop that since it is new, has very light traffic, at the time... it was the violator and the police car on the interstate...speed limit was 55, driver just seemed to be wanting to see how fast his car could go, no recklessness other than the speed, stayed on pursuit maybe 1 minute... we started from a dead stop and by the time we got upto 80-90 range the car was well out of sight...I guess I was just surprised at that...I understand the policy, I just wondered if a pursuit was as dangerous as the non-pursuit advocates say it is...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Desk Jockey Policy

                  Originally posted by DTB108247 View Post
                  i appreciate you quoting the policy, I have read it but I really was wanting just some opinion on the subject and what vets that have been on the street for a while think of the policy.
                  No-Pursuit policy is pure BUNK.

                  The policy needs to reffer to driving in a reasonably safe manner with due regard for public safety. This means when the one leading the chase feels the conditions warrant ceasing the pursuit or never starting it then they need to cut it off. Just as individual Officers make life and death decisions on use in deadly force related to their firearms or any other tool of the trade.

                  You start making policy preventing the individual officers from doing their jobs the "crooks" win and the community will turn into a huge pot of crap related to crime.
                  "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. The MARINES don't have that problem." ....Ronald Reagan

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ivegot 9 years in...heres my take...
                    chase 'em til the wheels come off! We can pursue but only for violent felonies, (murder, rape, etc), and for burglary, (a felony, but not a "violent" felony), and treason...yes, treason. BUT not for traffic infractions. Oh, we'll "follow" you...lights off, sirens off...at a safe distance and when you get home we'll arrest you and tow your ride.
                    My agency will spike strip you, too...every chance we get.

                    No chase policies send a message to criminals that if they do not want a ticket...floor it. The job of the Po-leece is to get the bad guy....not cower in fear because they are afraid of lawsuits or complaints
                    "I don't go on "I'maworthlesscumdumpster.com" and post negative **** about cum dumpsters."
                    The Tick

                    "Are you referring to the secret headquarters of a fictional crime fighter or penal complex slang for a-$$hole, anus or rectum?"
                    sanitizer

                    "and we all know you are a poser and a p*ssy.... "
                    Bearcat357 to Dinner Portion/buck8/long relief

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The other consideration that must be made is if the suspect can be taken into custody later. In other words did you identify him/her and can they be located and charged with the numerous crimes (including evading). Our agency can only pursue for violent felonies as well. I would like to think that it should be left up to the officer doing the pursuing as far as the safety issues involved (already mentioned), but I can't say I would trust all of the officers in my agency to make the right decision.
                      I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
                        but I can't say I would trust all of the officers in my agency to make the right decision.
                        Then you need new officers or more training, possibly both.

                        If you don't chase the bad guys..........they win!!! Of course common sense and good supervision should prevail.

                        Personally, I think the instant the violator does something to endanger others, i.e. goes into on-coming traffic, runs thru an intersection etc., they should be stopped by whatever means neccessary. Vehicles and property can be replaced, lives cannot. Some hard core enforcement like this, where the violator gets wrecked or shot, would cut down on the number of pursuits, thus saving lives and property.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It is not unheard of for innocent bystanders and officers to get killed pursuing a suspect.
                          People also get killed by guys who got away.

                          Pick your poison.

                          M-11
                          “All men dream...... But not equally..
                          Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
                          but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
                          for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

                          TE Lawrence

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Code Seven
                            To me, it's not an either-or proposition. It's a matter of balance, as I mentioned. That's why you're more likely to call off a pursuit of a stop-sign runner than a pursuit of a wanted murderer and cop killer. While the stop-sign runner may be guilty of some more serious crime, you don't know that when you're making the pursuit decision.
                            While I understand both sides of the argument, I think pursuits are necessary. The mere fact that we may not know if the person fleeing is guilty of some more serious crime makes it imperative we at least try to stop that stop sign runner when he takes off. That very person may have just forcibly raped a woman and left her on the side of the road or killed a child or a family or may have just shot a cop in a neighboring city and details were slim to none.

                            Do I believe there are instances a pursuit should be called off? Of course. I've been in a pursuit during rush hour and after the fact realized how dangerous it was/could have been. No one was hurt thank God, but to have a complete no pursuit policy is ridiculous in my opinion. The guy with the parole board warrant will run every time and how often do you "know" who is behind the wheel, you can't go based on the registered owner because it doesn't work like that all the time. As long as criminals flee, there will be casualties on both sides. How about the guy who is driving recklessly down the road, swerving from lane to lane, blowing through red lights. In Texas, reckless driving is a misdemeanor but to say we shouldn't pursue because it's not a felony, I can't go with that.

                            Pursuits, while at times are fun, are more often than not pucker factor moments heaped on top of holy shhhh____ moments. I still think they are a necessary evil in this day and age.
                            Moooooooooooo, I'm a goat

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nightshift va View Post
                              No-Pursuit policy is pure BUNK.

                              The policy needs to reffer to driving in a reasonably safe manner with due regard for public safety. This means when the one leading the chase feels the conditions warrant ceasing the pursuit or never starting it then they need to cut it off. Just as individual Officers make life and death decisions on use in deadly force related to their firearms or any other tool of the trade.

                              You start making policy preventing the individual officers from doing their jobs the "crooks" win and the community will turn into a huge pot of crap related to crime.
                              Well said!
                              “We don't disagree, you are wrong. Until you have a clue what you are talking about we can't disagree.” - cgh6366

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5933 users online. 356 members and 5577 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X