Dear Editor,
Sherwood Lowe has provoked serious thought with his observations about police high speed pursuit and the firing of weapons, and the dangers they pose to innocent persons in those circumstances (‘What are the rules of engagement for the police pursuing escaping suspects?’ SN, September 8). I may be guilty of jumping the gun instead of awaiting a more informed reaction from the police themselves, but then again, I am only offering my personal take on the subject.
High-speed vehicle pursuits are among the most dangerous of all ordinary police activities. In some countries there are far more police vehicle chases each year than police shootings. The germane issue at hand is whether there is a policy which guides decisions regarding those two activities when they are both occurring at the same time. I think it is only fair to point out that what many may regard as a policy is sometimes really an undocumented practice that has come to be accepted as the normal way of doing business. The fact is that a written policy is one assured way of guaranteeing that almost everyone is adequately prepared to perform their functions in a safe manner. In other words policies, guide the formulation of standard operational procedures which in turn guide practitioners’ performance as they go about their tasks. In law enforcement written policies are indispensable to the efficient and effective functioning of the police agency.
Furthermore, with an eye on the potential for civil litigation it would be in the best interest of modern democratic police forces to develop legally sound police vehicle pursuit policies alongside their deadly force policies involving firearms. Not to be lost sight of is the fact that public opinion is more likely to be favourable in the event of a mishap when a responsive police force is seen to be making an effort to draft and implement specific pursuit directives; adequately train officers in the policy and techniques of pursuit driving; and closely supervise, review, and evaluate implementation of pursuit policies. However, it must be emphasised that the most important reason for effective pursuit policies should be the protection of life and property.
Editor, Mr Lowe is on very good ground when he cautions against high speed pursuits if the suspects could have been apprehended by other means. When offenders are known, nothing prevents arresting them in their homes or in places they frequent. It therefore brings the factor of judgment into the equation. All too often police officers charged with protecting public safety, take serious personal and social risks and therefore any decision must take into consideration the danger to the public by the chase itself against the danger to the public of the offender remaining at large. The expanded use of CCTV should provide the police with the means of identifying a suspect without high-speed pursuit. For anyone other than a violent felon, the balance weighs against the high-speed chase.
Questioning Police Pursuits in Urban Areas Alpert (1987) refers to three policy models namely: ‘Discretionary’, which allows officers to make all major decisions relating to initiation, tactics, and termination; ‘Restrictive’, which places certain restrictions on officers’ judgments and decisions; and ‘Discouraging’, which severely cautions against or discourages any pursuit, except in the most extreme circumstances. Nugent et al writing for the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice cited four major elements which should form a police pursuit policy. These are a specific pursuit directive, (2) training, (3) alternatives to high-speed pursuit, and (4) a review process.
Editor, in the final analysis the need for a clearly defined vehicle pursuit policy in support of those who enforce the law and protect public safety, can serve to minimise the chances of accidental injury and death, by providing police ranks with a clear understanding of when and how to pursue.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick E Mentore
