REDUCING
THE RISKS OF POLICE PURSUIT
by Steve Ashley, M.S., M.L.S., ARM
PPSC Staff
One of the most difficult law enforcement
activities to manage is that of motor vehicle
pursuit. Each year in the United States, several
hundred persons (including some police officers)
are killed, and many others are injured during
the course of pursuits. Pursuit-related
accidents, injuries and deaths cause significant
emotional distress for officers, and frequently
result in very negative public relations for
departments. Occasionally, officers are
criminally prosecuted following pursuit-related
crashes. Of course, one of the most common
negative outcomes of pursuit is litigation
arising from the attendant crashes, injuries
and/or deaths. Clearly, both street officers and
police managers need to take steps to reduce the
risks inherent in motor vehicle pursuits.
Key Terms
Motor Vehicle Pursuit – The act of attempting
apprehension of a fleeing vehicle, once the
operator has given some indication of his or her
intent not to stop or yield. This indication can
be by increasing speed, bypassing traffic
control devices, or other means.
Resistive Behavior – Negative behavior exhibited
by an individual after an officer has indicated
intent to control the individual. The negative
behavior can be psychologically or physically
intimidating actions or words, passive refusal
to cooperate, or active resistance
(physical)—including the use of weapons.
Reasonableness – That which another person or
officer, with similar training, would do under
similar circumstances.
Constitutional Deprivation – Government actions
that are contrary to the rights and assurances
granted by the Constitution of the United
States. Deprivations may be either reasonable or
unreasonable.
Resistance/Control Continuum – A graphic
representation of the relationship between
levels of resistance and levels of control.
Sometimes referred to as a “Use of Force
Continuum”.
Public Harm Risk – The degree of risk to the
public posed by the actions of a suspect,
usually equated with the initial act that gives
rise to a pursuit. Generally comprised of two
elements: the risk inherent in the initial act
or crime committed by the suspect, and the risk
faced by the public should the suspect be
allowed to escape and remain at large. This is
different that the degree of risk to the public
posed by the pursuit itself.
Pursuit Management Continuum – A specific type
of Resistance/Control Continuum, reflecting the
relationship between pursuit causation factors
and the tactics and techniques that may
reasonably be used in the apprehension of a
fleeing suspect.
Initial Interaction – Techniques that represent
a relatively low risk of injury to officers and
the public. Often naturally occurring, these
techniques do not require any special resources
or personnel.
Active Intervention – Techniques that require
additional personnel, specialized equipment or
training, and/or advanced planning. These
tactics represent a greater degree of risk to
officers and the public. Additionally, these
techniques usually constitute “seizures” under
the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Critical Interdiction – Techniques the represent
the greatest degree of risk to officers. These
techniques approach the use of deadly force, and
should only be undertaken when high levels of
control are necessary.
REDUCING THE RISKS OF POLICE PURSUIT
Consider this: You’re working midnights. It’s a
couple of hours past the time you usually get
your nightly “drunk driver arrest”, but it’s a
slow night, so you’re doing some property
checks. Suddenly, a vehicle coming toward you on
a quiet residential street swerves up over the
curb, and knocks down a string of mailboxes,
continuing on. You turn around, and attempt to
stop the swaying, slow moving vehicle. Instead
of pulling over to the right, the driver
accelerates, and turns down a side street. You
notify dispatch, and begin to pursue.
Both your emergency lights and siren are
operating, but the bad guy’s ignoring them. As
the vehicle begins to come into the downtown
area, early morning commuters are out and about.
The fleeing vehicle swerves through the traffic,
narrowly missing several vehicles and one
pedestrian. Your heart’s pounding, because you
realize that if the vehicle gets into the
congestion of morning traffic, there’s likely to
be an accident.
You can see vehicles stopped at a red light up
ahead, but the fleeing vehicle doesn’t seem to
be slowing down. You know that he doesn’t have
room to get through, but that doesn’t seem to
matter to the bad guy. You see an opportunity to
ram the vehicle off the road before he hurts
someone, but you’re not sure if you should take
it. While you’re trying to decide on your next
move, a vehicle backs out of a driveway,
directly into the path of the fleeing violator.
There is a loud crash, and both vehicles spin
out of control into a bus-stop full of morning
commuters. . . .
Its three hours later and you’re sitting in the
Squad Room, trying to do your report. As your
mind runs over the events of the pursuit, you
begin to wonder whether you did the right thing,
but you can’t quite see how you could have
responded any differently. After all, he decided
to run, didn’t he? You were just doing your job.
Wouldn’t it be great, you think to yourself, if
there was a more concrete way to figure these
things out before things blew up in your face?
A police officer that engages in the pursuit of
a motor vehicle participates in one of the most
hazardous of all police duties. Pursuit has been
vilified by plaintiff’s attorneys and the media
as irresponsible, reckless and unnecessarily
dangerous, while at the same time the practice
is defended by police officers as necessary for
the apprehension of many suspects that are
unwilling to immediately yield to an officer’s
signal to stop. Police administrators are caught
in the middle, wanting to provide essential
options for their officers, while meeting their
obligation to direct and control a potentially
hazardous activity.
The practice of vehicular pursuit is fraught
with contradictions, and is therefore difficult
to manage both administratively and
operationally. There are many aspects of pursuit
that must be considered and weighed prior to,
during, and immediately following the actual
occurrence of a pursuit. Each of these aspects
harbors the potential for different
interpretations by various elements of society.
For example, it is not uncommon for a police
administrator to state in writing that his
department’s policy is to never allow a pursuit
to be hazardous to officers or citizens.
Generally the same policy document calls for the
immediate abandonment of any pursuit that rises
to the level of “hazardous”. However, from a
practical standpoint, most pursuits involve
various hazardous elements, such as speed in
excess of the posted limit, or disobedience of
traffic control devices.
When this situation occurs, officers are put in
the position of either deciding to never pursue,
or of violating the policy statements of the
department. Neither of these alternatives is
satisfactory, and both present different types
of risk for the agency. Failing to pursue
violators could give rise to charges of failure
to perform the mission of the department, while
violation of the department’s policies subjects
the officer to disciplinary action—and the
department to potential litigation.
Obviously, it is necessary to develop a
different approach to this and other pursuit
issues.
PURSUIT AS FORCE
Whenever a law enforcement officer uses force to
control resistive behavior, the legal system
will attempt to answer two questions. Of these,
the most fundamental is whether or not there was
an appropriate and reasonable balance between
the degree to which society would be exposed to
harm should the force not be used and the degree
of harm to society inherent in the level of
force used.
The system will also attempt to determine if the
officer’s use of force resulted in an
unreasonable constitutional deprivation. In
order to answer this question, a two-tiered test
will be applied.
First, the Court will determine if an actual
constitutional deprivation occurred. In other
words, was there a seizure through the mechanism
of force? If so, the Court will examine the
seizure to determine if it was reasonable. This
test will go beyond an examination of the
justification for the use of force, and will
also look at the degree of force that was used.
This balance test, and the evaluation of the
degree and reasonableness of any constitutional
deprivation apply to any use of force by a law
enforcement officer. Increasingly, they are
being applied to the conduct of police pursuits,
as well. While there is no existing legal
definition of pursuit as force, per se, it is
clear that many aspects of a police pursuit
verge on the use of force, and many times the
outcome of a pursuit is similar to the outcome
of a physical use of force.
Police officers use force to control resistive
behavior, and to gain control of individuals for
the purpose of taking them into custody. This is
frequently what occurs during a pursuit. A
pursuit involves the use of a vehicle in order
to capture and control a resistive individual,
and once that individual is controlled, they are
usually taken into custody.
Some tactics utilized to bring a pursuit to a
satisfactory conclusion involve physically
blocking the path of the fleeing vehicle, or
even striking the fleeing vehicle with a police
vehicle. The parallel between these tactics and
other types of force is unmistakable.
Many of the tactics commonly employed by police
officers during a pursuit contain some vestige
of force. While this force is present to a
greater or lesser degree, depending on the
tactic used, the use of any generally accepted
technique or method of pursuit presents a degree
of risk consistent with the amount of force
being used.
STANDARDS FOR PURSUIT
One of the most significant problems faced by
administrators in their attempts to manage
pursuit is the lack of applicable standards and
terminology. The United States Supreme Court has
provided guidelines for the use of force , and
the use of deadly force , but has not provided
clear standards and guidelines for police
pursuit. Some States have case law on the
subject of pursuit , but of course that case law
is not binding on other States.
There have been some notable attempts to provide
guidelines for pursuit training , but these
attempts have generally focused on the
organizational details of driver training
programs, and have not focused on pursuit
itself. If pursuit is addressed at all, it is as
one limited aspect of an overall training
program.
In order to provide a systematic approach to the
management of police pursuit, it is necessary to
develop and utilize a continuum similar to those
developed for management of the use of force.
Such a Pursuit Management Continuum© can be
utilized to show the relationship between the
degree of threat posed to the general public by
vehicles engaging in different types of pursuit,
and the tactics and techniques typically used by
police officers to control those pursuits.
Additionally, a pursuit continuum can be
utilized to indicate the escalation and
de-escalation of force and control inherent in
various techniques, and the degree of exposure
to risk presented by each, particularly in the
areas of officer injury and the potential
violation of civil rights.
Lastly, a pursuit continuum can offer a graphic
representation of levels of resistive behavior
(Types of Pursuit) and levels of control. This
will aid officers and their departments in
classifying pursuits and pursuit control
techniques so as to make them more operationally
specific.
PUBLIC HARM AND REASONABLENESS
The most critical element of any pursuit is the
need to match the level of control exerted to
the degree of risk posed by the fleeing
individual. In other words, what is the degree
of risk posed to the public by the offense
committed by the individual, and what is the
degree of risk posed to the public should the
fleeing individual make good his or her escape,
and be free to commit the offense again?
This public harm risk is different than the
degree of risk posed by the pursuit itself. Most
pursuits involve dangerous activities by their
very nature. While some are less hazardous than
others, the very act of engaging in motor
vehicle pursuit involves vehicular operation
outside the generally accepted parameters
established for normal vehicle movement and
control.
At issue is the reasonableness of an officer’s
actions in pursuing a fleeing violator. If an
officer’s actions are reasonable in light of the
public harm risk that exists, then the officer’s
actions should be defensible in a court of law.
A PURSUIT MANAGEMENT CONTINUUM
The use of such a Pursuit Management Continuum
must be based on several fundamental concepts:
• Officer’s can disengage from pursuit, or
de-escalate the control mechanisms being used,
at any time they reasonably believe it to be
necessary.
• Control alternatives presuppose proper
utilization of the tactics, based on reasonable
decision-making on the part of officers and
supervisors, not the worst possible result
scenario. While its possible to envision a
scenario where lethal harm results from the
application of lower level control methods, it
is not the officer’s intended result. Therefore,
the actual outcome should have nothing to do
with the reasonableness or unreasonableness of
an officer’s actions, given that the technique
or tactic was properly and judiciously applied.
Just as one should not place firearms low on a
use of force continuum, based on the fact that
most shots fired by officers miss, and therefore
there is no harm—one should not place stationary
roadblocks high on the Pursuit Management
Continuum because a suspect may choose to ram
the roadblock, and die in the attempt.
• Escalation and de-escalation on the Continuum
is keyed to the level of pursuit causation
factor at work. Additionally, officers must
evaluate the totality of the circumstances in
which they find themselves, when making
decisions regarding the use of any control or
force option.
Just as an officer should not use deadly force
against a suspect who has indicated an intent to
surrender, and who does not offer an immediate
threat of serious harm to anyone—an officer
should not implement a high level control option
against an individual who may have started a
pursuit by committing a life threatening act,
but is now apparently slowing as if to stop.
• Officers should stay at, or below, the control
level that matches the pursuit level (i.e. Level
Two pursuit, Level Two Control). It should be
the suspect’s actions in escalating the pursuit
level that prompts the officer to escalate the
control level utilized.
• Decisions regarding the use of particular
pursuit control tactics should not be based
solely on the likely liability exposure, but
should give significant consideration to the
degree of risk faced by the involved officers.
Officers should only utilize tactics and
techniques with which they have been trained.
PURSUIT AND CONTROL
The degree of public harm risk can be classified
at three levels, as can the techniques and
tactics utilized to control pursuits. Generally
speaking, pursuits at a certain level reasonably
justify use of control techniques from the
corresponding control level (i.e. Level One
Pursuit - Level One Control).
The various control techniques can be grouped as
to their general traits and common elements.
Initial Interaction Techniques -- Largely
because of body alarm response (sometimes
referred to as “Fight or Flight Syndrome”),
these techniques can be naturally occurring—that
is, they may occur without the officer intending
to use them. It is not uncommon for officers to
use a reduced interval, or to swing out to one
side or the other (Pursuit Position), in their
desire to capture the fleeing suspect. While
they may be natural in some cases, officers must
guard against the tendency to allow these
techniques to be applied to excess. Reduced
interval trailing can easily become dangerous
tail-gating, and the Pursuit Position can lead
to pulling alongside, thereby exposing the
officers to heightened hazards.
Active Intervention Techniques – These control
techniques are not naturally occurring. Active
Intervention Techniques require physical
intervention by officers. They therefore
typically require the presence of specialized
equipment, more than one police vehicle, or
advanced planning.
Critical Interdiction Techniques – These higher
risk techniques constitute the use of potential
or actual deadly force. They possess the same
traits as Active Intervention Techniques, with
the added caveat that they place the officers in
significant physical peril.
Level One Pursuit/Level One Control
A Level One Pursuit is a pursuit initiated to
apprehend an individual fleeing after committing
a simple traffic offense or a less serious
crime. Generally, such offenses as vandalism,
minor theft, and disorderly conduct, while
misdemeanors, are considered to present a low
degree of risk to the public. Pursuit for these
offenses can be justified, yet many of the more
hazardous pursuit tactics should not be used,
due to the minimal potential for public harm
posed by the offense. Techniques and tactics
that are generally acceptable in these instances
are:
Trailing -- The simple act of following along
behind the violator while giving both visual and
audible indication that the violator should
stop, and advising dispatch and other units of
the violator’s location and actions. Care should
be taken to maintain a safe interval between the
violator’s vehicle and the police vehicle.
Pursuit Position (Offset) -- Moving the police
vehicle approximately one half vehicle width to
either side (similar to the position
traditionally taken when parking during a
traffic stop), while continuing to Trail. This
offset position allows the officer to see
oncoming traffic, and to expose emergency
warning lights to the view of oncoming vehicles.
It should also allow the officer to more readily
anticipate the violator’s actions, due to the
enhanced visibility offered by the position.
Lastly, when approaching an intersection, the
offset position may allow the officer to
encourage the violator to turn in the desired
direction.
Reduced Interval -- More closely following the
violator, either while trailing or while
utilizing the pursuit position. While this
technique can present greater risk of collision,
it does facilitate greater visibility of the
violator’s vehicle and its occupants. It can
also be utilized to apply psychological
pressure.
Controlled Deflation Devices – When a department
has equipped and trained officers in the use of
these devices (sometimes called “spike strips”),
such equipment can be deployed as a method for
establishing a relatively low risk “roadblock”.
Officers should take care to plan adequately
when selecting a location for deployment, and
should move a safe distance from the deployment
zone.
Stationary Road Block -- The placement of one or
more police vehicles in the traveled portion of
the roadway, in order to partially block the
road, and to indicate a denial of passage to the
violator’s vehicle. Although not absolutely
necessary, officers frequently leave a
restricted route through the roadblock. When the
road is totally blocked, so that even a slow
moving vehicle cannot go around—or
through—safely, the degree of risk is
heightened. When a complete blockage of the
roadway is undertaken, officers should ensure
that the oncoming suspect has a clear view of
the roadblock, and has ample time to stop
safely, should he or she decide to do so. This
complete blockage usually represents a higher
level of control, and could be constitutionally
unreasonable unless properly managed.
Level Two Pursuit/Level Two Control
Level two pursuits are those which are initiated
for very hazardous traffic offenses, such as
driving while intoxicated or reckless driving,
or for more serious crimes, such as assault.
Level two pursuits are initiated for offenses
that present a high level of danger to the
public, but not such a high level of danger that
deadly force is routinely justified in the
apprehension attempt. Techniques and tactics
that are generally acceptable in these instances
are:
Rolling Road Block -- The placement of one or
more police vehicles in the path of the
violator’s vehicle, in order to cause it to slow
and/or stop. This is sometimes done by one
vehicle, swerving back and forth from lane to
lane (difficult, as it requires anticipation of
the violator’s movements), and sometimes by two
or three vehicles, moving along the highway in
echelon or abreast.
Boxing In -- A technique whereby two or more
police units move into positions around the
fleeing vehicle, forming a “box”. Once the box
is formed, all police vehicles slow, causing the
violator in the box to slow as well. Because
Boxing In, or “channeling” as it is sometimes
called, requires the placement of one or more
police vehicles in the path of the violator’s
vehicle, it is considered a form of Rolling Road
Block.
Controlled Contact -- Intentional contact
between a police vehicle and the violator’s
vehicle. Generally, Controlled Contact is
undertaken at lower speeds, and is frequently
intended to cause the violator to spin out of
control or to leave the roadway in a slow, but
uncontrolled manner. While this is the intended
result, Controlled Contact collisions are
sometimes unpredictable, and may be viewed as a
form of Ramming by the legal system. They
therefore involve application of potentially
deadly force. One technique that has been
developed to attempt to allow for safer
Controlled Contact collisions is the Precision
Immobilization Technique, or PIT Maneuver. The
use of such techniques calls for training,
planning, opportunity, and careful timing.
Level two control techniques are more aggressive
in nature, and call for police vehicles to move
in front of a fleeing violator. For this reason,
they are more hazardous to the officers, and
require time to plan, develop and execute.
Level Three Pursuit/Level Three Control
Level three pursuits are those initiated
following the commission of life threatening
felonies that usually justify the use of deadly
force in the apprehension of the fleeing
violator. Examples include armed robbery,
assault with a deadly weapon, and murder.
Techniques and tactics that are generally
acceptable in these instances are:
Uncontrolled Contact – Sometimes referred to as
“Ramming”. This represents a higher level of
intentional contact between a police vehicle and
a violator’s vehicle. Uncontrolled Contact is
frequently attempted at higher speeds than
intentional collisions. Because it is so
unpredictable, Uncontrolled Contact presents a
high degree of risk to the officers involved,
and may constitute deadly force, depending on
the circumstances of the incident.
Use of Firearms – There are some situations
where firing a weapon at a fleeing violator may
be necessary in the immediate defense of the
officer or another. In most cases, however, this
is generally not good practice, due to the low
likelihood of success, and the hazard posed to
the public by missed shots. Additionally, if a
bullet should strike the violator, his vehicle
is now pilotless, and presents a significant
hazard in and of itself. If the violator is not
alone in the vehicle, then passengers against
whom deadly force may be inappropriate are put
at great risk. While some recent court decisions
have indicated that police officers do not owe a
duty to passengers in a fleeing vehicle, this is
by no means clear in every jurisdiction.
Level three control techniques can be extremely
hazardous to the officers that attempt them, and
should only be utilized in emergency situations,
where a human life is already at great risk. In
essence, level three control techniques are
almost indistinguishable from the use of deadly
force, and therefore officers who are going to
use them should ask themselves if the death of
the violator is acceptable as an outcome to the
event. If the answer is anything but an
unqualified yes, then the control technique
should not be used.
UTILIZATION OF THE CONTINUUM
There are three primary uses for the Pursuit
Management Continuum; policy development,
training, and supervision.
Policy Development and Support
The Pursuit Management Continuum contains a
classification system for pursuit causation
activities which, if incorporated into a
department’s policy, can be utilized as an aid
to decision-making on the part of street
officers and supervisors.
Additionally, key elements of policy can be
linked to the classification system. For
example, it is fairly common for a department to
restrict by policy the number of police vehicles
that may engage in a pursuit. The theory is that
the fewer vehicles there are involved, the lower
the risk and therefore the lower the liability
exposure.
However, this does not take into account the
nature of the pursuit causation or the number of
suspects involved. Restricting a pursuit of
three armed robbery suspects to two single
officer patrol units may be safer for the
motoring public, but it is not safer for the
officers.
Departmental policy should indicate that the
nature of the pursuit causation should be
considered when controlling the number of units
in a pursuit. By classifying the pursuit as a
Level Three pursuit, with multiple suspects, a
safe number of police units and officers can be
assigned to the pursuit.
Training
Utilization of the Pursuit Management Continuum
as a training aid can assist in linking the
concept of escalation/de-escalation of control
methods to the conduct of a police pursuit.
Additionally, the relationship between the
pursuit causation factors (the previously
mentioned public harm risk) and the techniques
that are reasonable and proper should become
more obvious to officers.
The Continuum can also be used to illustrate the
increase in Officer Injury Potential that is
inherent in escalation through pursuit control
levels. As officers begin to take more
aggressive actions to attempt the apprehension
of a violator, they increase the degree of risk
to themselves.
Lastly, the Continuum can be used to explain the
potential civil rights ramifications of
escalation through the various pursuit control
levels. As each succeeding level is utilized,
the degree of intrusion into the suspect’s
existence increases. While this increasing
invasiveness may be reasonable and proper under
the circumstances, it still may give rise to
questions regarding potential civil rights
violations.
Supervision
The vague descriptions of pursuit activity that
are commonly used during radio transmissions
could be replaced with the descriptive Pursuit
Levels. Once this is done, then all parties
involved would be aware of the acceptable
techniques. The enhanced ability to communicate
causation factors and approved techniques will
eliminate some of the confusion that typically
surrounds police pursuit radio communications.
An example of supervisory application of the
Continuum might involve a Level Two Pursuit
through heavy traffic or some other type of high
risk environment. Supervisory personnel may
choose to limit the officers to Control Level
One, and so advise them. Use of the control
levels makes direction clear and concise.
Utilization of the Continuum provides a series
of benchmarks for the supervision and direction
of pursuits by the first-line supervisor. By
utilizing these benchmarks, the supervisor can
more successfully manage the conduct of pursuits
by officers, while at the same time, more
accurately evaluate the performance of officers
engaging in pursuit.
CONCLUSION
Police pursuit as it is currently practiced in
the United States is a relatively dangerous,
inexact undertaking. Officers, violators and the
public are frequently at considerable risk even
when management control measures are attempted.
Current methods of managing pursuits are
cumbersome and difficult to utilize.
Communication during pursuits is hampered by the
lack of a system for classification of pursuit
causation factors, and the reasonable
relationship of those factors to available
control techniques.
Implementation of the Pursuit Management
Continuum should allow many of these
difficulties to be controlled. Reasonable
application of pursuit control techniques, as
described in the various control levels of the
Continuum, should help to manage the potential
for officer injury or litigation arising from
police pursuit activity.
[1]
Graham v. Connor, 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989)
-- In Graham, the Court set forth standards for
evaluating the reasonableness of the use of
force. There were three criteria stated: the
severity of the crime at issue, whether the
suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety
of officers or others, and whether the suspect
is actively resisting arrest or attempting to
evade arrest by fleeing.
[2]
Tennessee v. Garner, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1985)
-- In Garner, the Court opined that deadly force
could be used to protect officers or others from
the immediate threat of serious physical harm,
or to prevent the escape of dangerous
individuals, after other means have been
exhausted, and a warning has been given, where
feasible.
[3]
Fiser v. City of Ann Arbor, 417 Mich. 461
(1983) -- In Fiser, the Michigan Supreme
Court provided guidelines for evaluating the
reasonableness of a police pursuit.
[4]
National Driver Training Reference Guide
-- International Association of Directors of Law
Enforcement Standards and Training, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1989.
[5]
Brower v. County of Inyo, 109 S.Ct. 1378 (1989)
-- The Brower Court held that a seizure is a,
“...governmental termination of freedom of
movement through means intentionally
applied...” (emphasis added), and further opined
that a seizure has occurred when force is used.
The Court defined force as an intentional act
which leads to a stop or an arrest.
While compliance to the loss prevention
techniques suggested herein may reduce the
likelihood of an incident, it will not eliminate
all possibility of an incident.
Further, as always, the reader is encouraged to
consult with an attorney for specific legal
advice.
©2004 The Police Policy Studies Council. All rights reserved.