In beta release, the Stanford Center for Racial Justice began publishing chapters from our comprehensive Model use of Force Policy. The Model Policy is designed to support the ongoing efforts to reform and improve policing, as well as promote fair, safe and equitable practices for all. This essay continues the discussion by our staff about how the Model Policy interacts to scenarios officers might find themselves in. You can read Chapter 6 of Model Policy–Vehicle Pursuits, Tactical Apprehensions .
It is not uncommon for police vehicles to be chased by officers. These chases can be accompanied by multiple police cars that follow a fleeing motorist for miles, while the motorist turns around. They may also evoke the dramatic scene where spike strips are used to puncture the tire of the motorist, bringing it to a halt. You might think that these situations always result in officers capturing a dangerous suspect and avoiding injuries.
Police vehicle pursuits are a dangerous way to apprehend individuals. They can also expose police officers, uninvolved drivers, and innocent bystanders, to serious bodily injury or death. In a recent incident, two innocent motorists were murdered by a fleeing Los Angeles Police Officer’s vehicle. A Cobb County Georgia officer also pursued a vehicle and killed an innocent motorist.
These single incidents are becoming trends according to larger studies. For example, a USA Today Study found that, between 1979 and 2013, approximately 5,000 people and passengers were killed during police pursuits across the country. There are “tens of thousands” more. . . These incidents caused injuries.” A study also found that 355 people died annually in pursuit-related crashes. Los Angeles is home to around 11% of all pursuit-related deaths.
Data suggests officers will pursue more vehicles if they have broad discretion. data suggests that officers may initiate chases based on minor traffic violations if they are given wide discretion. This could have particularly serious consequences on Black motorists.
We recently released the Vehicle Pursuits & Tactical Apprehensions chapter of the Model Use of Force Policy. This chapter provides guidelines for reducing the dangers of vehicle pursuits. This essay outlines the dangers of starting a vehicle pursuit as well as the laws that underlie these pursuit practices.
What are the Model Policy’s vehicle pursuit guidelines?
A vehicle pursuit is not considered a use force. Sometimes, however, police pursuits end with a police officer using force – for example, through his body or vehicle. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs the use of a police car to interfere with another vehicle. Even if officers choose not to contact the motorist during a vehicle pursuit, they present many dangers to other drivers, innocent bystanders and third parties not involved in the pursuit. Officers must be able to clearly understand the dangers involved in vehicle pursuits and make decisions under these circumstances.
What rules does the U.S. Supreme Court have for police vehicle pursuits in pursuit of a suspect?
The Supreme Court has primarily spoken on the issue of terminating vehicle pursuits–particularly surrounding intervention methods such as PIT (precision immobilization technique) maneuvers and discharging firearms at a moving vehicle. PIT maneuvers , for example, are governed under the federal “reasonable officers” standard. This means that an officer’s decision about performing a PIT maneuver must be considered a balance act. Officers must weigh the risk of bodily injury that the officer’s actions pose to the fleeing motorist against the threat to the public that the officer was trying to eliminate.
The Supreme Court case Scott paved the way for PIT maneuvers. Georgia deputy sheriff Clinton Reynolds caught Victor Harris speeding along a highway at 73 mph on a March night, 18 miles over the limit. Reynolds flashed his blue light at Harris, but he didn’t stop , because was “scared”, wanted to get home and avoid an impound charge for his vehicle.
Reynolds chose to pursue Harris. Reynolds set off his lights and sirens to try to stop Harris from speeding, despite not finding any issues with Harris’ vehicle registration. Harris chose to speed up and lead Reynolds on a chase that was “well beyond the speed limits.” Harris used Harris’ turn signal to weave through traffic on a two-lane highway. Harris ran through red lights and crossed double yellow lines to try to escape Reynolds’ pursuit.
Reynolds, who was pursuing Harris, announced his decision over the dispatch radio to start the chase, along with Harris’ license plate number. Reynolds didn’t request a backup unit, and he did not reveal the reason for his decision to start the chase–speeding. Chuck Scott, another deputy sheriff, learned about the chase and agreed to join.
Harris was being pursued by two sheriff deputies. He began to slow down and used his blinker for a turn in a parking lot of a shopping center. Harris wanted to turn in the parking lot and get back on the highway. Reynolds closely followed Harris. Scott tried to box Harris between his vehicle and Reynolds’. Scott drove straight into Harris’ path. Harris saw this and immediately turned his car to avoid hitting Scott’s. Harris’ vehicle came into contact with Scott’s, causing “minor damage.” Harris managed to avoid the collision and drove on the highway ramp.
Scott and Reynolds continued to chase Harris on the highway at high speed, while Scott assumed control of the primary pursuit unit. Scott asked his supervisor for permission to contact Harris’ vehicle by using a PIT maneuver. Scott requested permission from his supervisor to contact Harris’ vehicle using a PIT maneuver on the highway. Although he didn’t know Harris was being pursued by the sheriffs, Scott received approval. He’ll be fine.
Harris was caught by Scott. Scott realized quickly that he couldn’t perform the maneuver due to the speed at which both vehicles were moving. Scott instead decided to smash Harris’ car into the back. Scott’s vehicle came into contact with Harris’, and it lost control. Harris crashed into an embankment after he veered off the road due to the contact. Harris was left quadriplegic as a result. The pursuit and intervention did not inflict any other injuries.
Harris filed suit against the officers involved in the incident and who approved it. Harris’ lawsuit was allowed to proceed by both the lower courts. The case reached the Supreme Court, where it was featured on a TV show called ” Why Did I Run.”
Two lower court rulings were rejected by the Supreme Court and Scott’s intervention technique was deemed constitutionally reasonable. This meant it didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s version, despite having reviewed the case at an early stage of litigation. The Court instead based its reasonableness determination on dashcam video. It concluded that Harris’ reckless driving was a danger to “lives of any pedestrians present, to other civilian motorists and to officers involved in the chase” rather than the death risk to Harris. The officers argued that the officers’ actions were reasonable because Harris could still drive recklessly if they had stopped the pursuit.
The Supreme Court’s analysis of vehicle pursuit was heavily focused on motorists’ potential risk if they flee from a chase. The Court prioritised apprehension a motorist, which was cloaked as the Court’s priority of safety for bystanders–regardless the risk to motorist or severity of the alleged violation. The Supreme Court’s analysis established the minimum standard for police vehicle pursuit policies. To ensure safety in their communities, however, states and municipalities may go above these constitutional minimums.
What would the Model Policy say about Harris’ vehicle pursuit?
The Model Policy attempts reflect the dangers associated with vehicle pursuits by first outlining their risks–injury and death to officers, subjects and bystanders. The Model Policy also rejects vehicle “eluding”, which is refusing to stop, as a reason for initiating a chase. It also prohibits the punishment of an officer who decides against initiating a vehicle chase. The Model Policy requires that any force be used during a vehicle chase to conform with the authorization standards.
The Model Policy outlines four requirements for initiating a vehicle pursuit.
- An officer must find out if the driver of the vehicle in question “committed or attempted crime of violence.”
- The “subject’s escape” must “pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injuries to the officer or another person.”
- An officer must decide whether they are able to pursue the subject safely. This includes the risk of their conduct to third parties, known information about the subject, road configuration, physical place and density, existence and traffic patterns, visibility and lighting, weather conditions and other factors.
- Before initiating a pursuit, the officer must have supervisory approval. To make an informed decision, the supervisor must be provided with a complete account by the officer pursuing him.
Reynolds decided to pursue Harris first because he couldn’t determine if Harris had committed a crime of violence. Therefore, pursuit wouldn’t have been authorized. Reynolds could only point to Harris’ speeding violations. Harris’ “eluding”, however, was not enough to justify a pursuit under Model Policy.
Harris’ escape would also not have “pose[d]] an imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury to an officer or another person.” Harris’ speeding violation, although it was dangerous, did not pose an immediate threat to Reynolds or anyone else on the highway at night.
The Model Policy would have required Reynolds to consider three factors in order to make a safe decision to start his pursuit. Reynolds could point out Harris’ weaving on the two-lane highway as “risk that Harris’ conduct [posed] to] third parties.” Harris however used his blinker signal. Harris didn’t drive this way until Reynolds started pursuit. Reynolds might have also considered the “misting” as important “weather and environmental conditions”–especially at night–to signal he could not safely undertake the pursuit.
Reynolds would have needed to get supervisory approval in order to pursue Harris. Reynolds told central command that he initiated the pursuit. However, Reynolds did not “provide [his] supervisor an account” of all the facts. Harris was being pursued because of a traffic violation. To initiate a pursuit, all requirements must be met according to the Model Policy.
The Model Policy provides guidelines for officers to choose between “moving surveillance” or “tactical apprehending” procedures if the requirements are not met in order to start a pursuit. If the officer has information about the motorist, an officer can arrest the individual at a later date. The Model Policy also lists prohibited and authorized conduct during a vehicle pursuit. An officer must meet certain requirements before deciding whether or not to engage in vehicle pursuit interventions. The Model Policy prohibits certain tactics from being used to stop vehicles. These include fixed or moving roadblocks and ramming, boxing-in, and firing a firearm.
Harris’ case was different. Scott, the second pursuing officer tried to box Harris in when he drove in front of Harris’ vehicle. Scott followed Harris’s path while Reynolds chased Reynolds from behind. Scott’s use this intervention technique would not only have been against the Model Policy but also put Scott in grave danger.
The Model Policy doesn’t explicitly forbid spike strips or PIT maneuvers. The Policy does not require officers to comply with the above-mentioned requirements for intervention techniques. These include the requirement that an officer believes that the vehicle is moving in an imminent danger of injury or death to others, that there is an apparent risk of injury if it continues to flee and that the officer has permission from a supervisor to use intervention techniques.
The Model Policy was violated by the pursuit being initiated. Scott’s vehicle intervention maneuver was also a violation of the Model Policy. Scott needed to be able to “reasonably believe” that Harris’ continued movement would put others in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. Scott could also point out Harris’ movements with his vehicle, such as swerving in and around lanes and running red lights, to prove that Harris posed an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Scott was unable to justify the “apparent risk of injury” involved in the forcible stopping. Scott found that the vehicles were moving at high speeds and that Scott was unable the PIT maneuver. Scott instead used a prohibited maneuver to try to stop Harris’ car. Scott was granted supervisor approval but a minor traffic violation wasn’t revealed to be the reason for the pursuit. Harris was only charged with a minor traffic offense. The “risk of harm” in allowing Harris to flee was less than the risk of Harris being convicted of a PIT maneuver which could lead to death.
Why is vehicle pursuit important?
The Model Policy doesn’t advocate that officers should let law-breakers go free and do whatever they like. The Model Policy acknowledges that vehicle pursuits pose serious risks for officers, motorists, as well as bystanders. This Policy establishes guidelines to recognize that the risks of apprehending fleeing individuals is not justified by their potential benefits, except when they have committed a violent crime that poses a danger to the community.
Data also shows that less vehicle pursuits are conducted by departments with restrictive policies. Data also shows that less restrictive policies don’t necessarily lead to higher rates of vehicles fleeing police. A vehicle pursuit policy that prohibits police officers from following vehicles for those suspected of violent crimes or who are a danger to the community reduces risks and increases opportunities for vehicle escape.
Companies that insure cities and police officers agree to reduce the risk of police vehicle pursuits, which can save a city money. Insurers began warning cities that they could lose coverage if the city did not change their force policies, including restrictive vehicle pursuit policies. This was after cities had paid billions in force claims in a decade. One Missouri city saw a dramatic drop in vehicle pursuits and injuries due to pressure from an insurer and the ban on high-speed pursuits of traffic infractions.
Police agencies and communities need to work together, whether they use our Model Policy or other guidelines. These visions should be informed by the lessons learned by the most successful police departments in the country and shaped by conversations with residents of the communities most affected by policing. Although there is much to be done to improve public safety and security, guidelines for vehicle pursuits within a police department’s use force policy must consider fair, safe and equitable values, leading practice, and voices from the community. This is crucial to achieve fair, safe and equitable results.
Disclaimer: These facts were compiled from public information including court decisions and have not been verified for accuracy. This analysis is based on the opinions of our staff. It is intended to be used for education and policy discussions.