IPD chase policy

[amboy49]

It appears IPD is on the cusp of changing their policy re: police car chases as the result of the most recent chase that resulted in multiple innocent motorists being injured. On the one hand high speed chases are dangerous for law enforcement, motorists on the roadways, and the person(s) being chased.

On the other hand, implement a non pursuit policy and it would seem the perps will figure if they run they'll simply be allowed to get away. I've heard the argument about ending a high speed chase and issuing a warrant to try to pick the perpetrators up at a later date. Is this really a viable option ?

Ar there any other options ?

 

[SSGSAD]

YES, SHOOT Them .....

NO chase, NO trial .....

 

[Trigger Time]

Who's IPD?

 

[phylodog]

On the other hand, implement a non pursuit policy and it would seem the perps will figure if they run they'll simply be allowed to get away. I've heard the argument about ending a high speed chase and issuing a warrant to try to pick the perpetrators up at a later date. Is this really a viable option ?

No, it isn't. It's pretty difficult to positively identify someone from the 2" of the top/back of their head you can see while following them so obtaining a warrant is a complete and utter waste of time.

Ar there any other options ?

No, there aren't. Either people want criminals pursued, arrested and tried for their crimes or they don't. I'd prefer to have the vote recorded so those who decide the police shouldn't be allowed to do their jobs cannot later complain about the police not doing their jobs. I know, I'm a bit of an extremist when it comes to things like that.

 

[SSGSAD]

No, there aren't. Either people want criminals pursued, arrested and tried for their crimes or they don't. I'd prefer to have the vote recorded so those who decide the police shouldn't be allowed to do their jobs cannot later complain about the police not doing their jobs. I know, I'm a bit of an extremist when it comes to things like that.

AMEN, I agree 100% .....

 

[Nate@TeamAB]

I used to say chase them til the wheels fall off. One day our department chased a stolen Expedition. The Expedition ran a light, smoked a G6, and innocent husband and wife in the G6 had extensive injuries as a result. We went to see them in the hospital in Indy, took them some magazines and things to pass the time, etc. It's hard to justify a pursuit when you're standing next to that hospital bed.

 

[Jludo]

Here's a solution if you don't mind trading privacy for catching criminals.

Eye in the Sky - Radiolab

In 2004, when casualties in Iraq were rising due to roadside bombs, Ross McNutt and his team came up with an idea. With a small plane and a 44 mega-pixel camera, they figured out how to watch an entire city all at once, all day long. Whenever a bomb detonated, they could zoom onto that spot and then, because this eye in the sky had been there all along, they could scroll back in time and see - literally see - who planted it. After the war, Ross McNutt retired from the airforce, and brought this technology back home with him. Manoush Zomorodi and Alex Goldmark from the podcast “Note to Self” give us the low-down on Ross’s unique brand of persistent surveillance, from Juarez, Mexico to Dayton, Ohio. Then, once we realize what we can do, we wonder whether we should.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

It appears IPD is on the cusp of changing their policy re: police car chases as the result of the most recent chase that resulted in multiple innocent motorists being injured. On the one hand high speed chases are dangerous for law enforcement, motorists on the roadways, and the person(s) being chased.

On the other hand, implement a non pursuit policy and it would seem the perps will figure if they run they'll simply be allowed to get away. I've heard the argument about ending a high speed chase and issuing a warrant to try to pick the perpetrators up at a later date. Is this really a viable option ?

Ar there any other options ?

That chase was initiated by Lawrence PD so it was on them to monitor it and for one of their supervisors to allow it to continue or terminate it. The only decision needed to be made by IMPD supervisors for that chase was whether to allow IMPD officers to assist, which apparently they did. A new policy has been on the drawing board for a couple years and was in no way affected by this particular incident. When the policy does change, IMPD will likely not be able to chase for infractions or low-level misdemeanors not involving a crime against a person (battery, domestic battery, etc) but the exact policy won't be known until it is implemented. It was supposed to have been already but Riggs' sudden departure delayed it.

As far as letting them go and getting a warrant later, you have to know who the fleeing driver is in order to put a warrant on them.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Here's a solution if you don't mind trading privacy for catching criminals.

Eye in the Sky - Radiolab

In 2004, when casualties in Iraq were rising due to roadside bombs, Ross McNutt and his team came up with an idea. With a small plane and a 44 mega-pixel camera, they figured out how to watch an entire city all at once, all day long. Whenever a bomb detonated, they could zoom onto that spot and then, because this eye in the sky had been there all along, they could scroll back in time and see - literally see - who planted it. After the war, Ross McNutt retired from the airforce, and brought this technology back home with him. Manoush Zomorodi and Alex Goldmark from the podcast “Note to Self” give us the low-down on Ross’s unique brand of persistent surveillance, from Juarez, Mexico to Dayton, Ohio. Then, once we realize what we can do, we wonder whether we should.

Yeah thats not going to fly. Pun intended.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I used to say chase them til the wheels fall off. One day our department chased a stolen Expedition. The Expedition ran a light, smoked a G6, and innocent husband and wife in the G6 had extensive injuries as a result. We went to see them in the hospital in Indy, took them some magazines and things to pass the time, etc. It's hard to justify a pursuit when you're standing next to that hospital bed.

I'm willing to bet we won't be chasing for property crimes with the new policy, but once again we won't know until it is actually implemented. I kicked up a chase of a stolen car last week and was getting ready to self-terminate due to the speed of the fleeing vehicle. Before I could he crashed, but luckily only into a fence and a small tree. It is getting harder to justify chases for infractions, property crimes, and most misdemeanors but I'll argue to chase til the wheels fall off all day long if it involves a serious crime of violence (robbery, homicide, etc).

 

[actaeon277]

I used to say chase them til the wheels fall off. One day our department chased a stolen Expedition. The Expedition ran a light, smoked a G6, and innocent husband and wife in the G6 had extensive injuries as a result. We went to see them in the hospital in Indy, took them some magazines and things to pass the time, etc. It's hard to justify a pursuit when you're standing next to that hospital bed.

And when someone is killed because they were not pursued, "to be picked up later"?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

And when someone is killed because they were not pursued, "to be picked up later"?

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

 

[actaeon277]

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Yup

 

[thunderchicken]

I'm willing to bet we won't be chasing for property crimes with the new policy, but once again we won't know until it is actually implemented. I kicked up a chase of a stolen car last week and was getting ready to self-terminate due to the speed of the fleeing vehicle. Before I could he crashed, but luckily only into a fence and a small tree. It is getting harder to justify chases for infractions, property crimes, and most misdemeanors but I'll argue to chase til the wheels fall off all day long if it involves a serious crime of violence (robbery, homicide, etc).

I agree with this.. Seems like an awfully big risk to both officers and citizens to chase for lower level crimes. Yet at the same time I think it will result in more criminals running and may cause an increase in property crimes

 

[phylodog]

The question which is always in my mind is Why is the suspect willing to go to this great length to get away for such a minor offense? The answer is more often than not that there are bigger things at play than what the officer knows at that moment. Frank is correct that we cannot win either way. Knowing that, I'd much prefer to err on the side of doing what we are supposed to do and not allowing people to simply drive away if they don't want to be held accountable for their actions. I know its all the rage to blame anyone other than the person responsible these days but I'd prefer to leave the line in the sand where it is.