PursuitWatch Blog

Review of Orange County Sheriff’s Office 2004 Vehicle Apprehension/Pursuit forms indicates widespread disregard of policy

2005-06-16T08:37:00.000-04:00

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office Vehicle Pursuit Policy requires that deputies generate a form whenever a suspect fails to pull over when ordered. The policy also requires that the forms be reviewed by the chain of command to the level of Division Commander of the Uniform Patrol Division. (Chiefs Frank Fabrizio and Matt Weathersby) PursuitWatch has conducted an analysis of these reports for 2004.

There were:
243 Vehicle Apprehension Forms
20 Vehicle Pursuit Forms
Signatures:
44 were rubber stamped "Chief Frank Fabrizio"
60 were rubber stamped "Chief Matt Weathersby"
22 were signed by individuals other than the Division Commanders
34 were not signed
2 signatures were unintelligible
162-Total
The remaining 101 were signed by the Division Commanders as required by policy.

Aviation was requested 42 times and responded 34 times. Of the 34 times aviation responded there is only 1 instance of video being available.

Of the 20 acknowledged Vehicle Pursuits, 10 (50%) were for Aggravated Assault on a LEO with a vehicle.

There were 34 Vehicle Apprehension incidents where duration, beginning and ending locations, or narratives suggested that a pursuit may have taken place and consequently should have prompted further investigation and were simply judged to be within policy without comment or further investigation.

There were 43 Vehicle Apprehension incidents where reports do not indicate deputies ceased to follow, as required by policy.

There were no indications of discipline for deputies being outside of policy other than a handful of incidents where deputies were "counseled." Other than these few incidents all others were adjudged to be within policy.

There is a consistent pattern of continued efforts to apprehend vehicles after apprehensions were called off as being against policy. Area checks, alerting other units, following without the use of emergency equipment and use of tire deflation devices after termination of apprehension were often cited in narratives.

This review indicates that there is no effective oversight of the Uniform Patrol Division of OCSO and that disregard, misunderstanding, and misapplication of the agency’s Vehicle Pursuit Policy is pervasive within the division.

Are there racial issues involved with the broadcast media coverage of the events of May 15, 2005?

2005-06-08T14:19:00.000-04:00

PursuitWatch.org Press Release
Orlando, Florida
June 1, 2005

The Central Florida broadcast media have shown only a passing interest in the Orange County Sheriff’s Office "following" incident that occurred on Sunday morning, May 15th, and resulted in death of two prominent members of the local Haitian community. Frantz and Carole Leander died when a suspect being "followed" by OSCO ran a red light and impacted their automobile.

The outrageous and documented particulars of the facts of the incident:
1. The deputies were aware from the outset of the identity and address of the suspect.
2. The deputies were aware from the outset that the suspect had "stolen" his mother’s vehicle.
3. 23 of the 40 deputies on duty in Orange County participated in the "following" in some capacity.
4. Deputies deployed stop sticks no less that 8 times.
5. The "following" lasted for 49+ minutes.
6. The Sheriff’s Office had deployed a chase helicopter that was observing the travel of the suspect.
7. The helicopter failed to obtain video of the incident as required by policy/practice.
8. The OCSO maintained that there was no use of lights or sirens and the Supplementary Reports of many deputies supported that assertion.
9. The Florida Highway Patrol Charging Affidavit of the suspect, the OPD recording of the OCSO request for assistance and the radio tapes of the incident all show overwhelming evidence of the use of sirens and/or lights.
10. The Orlando Police Department refused to participate in the "following".
11. Exoneration of the OCSO participants within a few days of the incident by the Chiefs of the Uniform Patrol Division.

Despite these facts as well a the statements of several experts that the incident was, according to OCSO policy, a pursuit and that the pursuit violated policy and that proper application of that policy would have not have resulted in the death of the Leanders, the story has not been extensively covered by the local broadcast media. Hardly a day has passed in the last two weeks since the incident, when additional significant information has not come to the surface, largely due to the efforts of the Orlando Sentinel and PursuitWatch.

Given the documented horrible bungling of this incident by the Sheriff’s Office, as well as the aftermath, and the almost daily unraveling of the events of May 15th it is hard to not wonder if the coverage would have been a lot different if the innocent victims were prominent members of a more politically connected minority or the white community.

PursuitWatch renews call for investigative panel

2005-05-30T11:46:00.000-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FROM:PursuitWatch.org
Orlando, Florida May 30, 2005

Recent events have demonstrated a crisis of management in the Orange County Sheriff’s Office Uniform Patrol Division. Public statements, as well as statements made to PursuitWatch by Chief Frank Fabrizio, co-commander of that division, have demonstrated a fundamental lack of "understanding" of the agency’s Vehicle Pursuit Policy.

Chief Fabrizio is guilty of a quick "rubber stamping" of his deputies actions in the May 15th "following" incident that resulted in the death of innocent bystanders, Frantz and Carole Leander. Studying the Supplementary Reports from many of the deputies involved, there emerges a consistent statement in many of them, "at no time did I have my lights and sirens activated." It is hard to understand this when that statement is inconsistent with the statement of the OCSO dispatcher to the Orlando Police Department when requesting assistance, as well as the Florida Highway Patrol Charging Affidavit of the suspect and the radio tapes of the incident.

The Supplementary Report of Lt. Dennis Leonard gives the careful reader some insight into how this might happen, "At this point I, along with Sgt. Lynch met with the Deputies involved to work on all the required documentation needed."

It appears that many OCSO deputies echo the faulty, and ultimately fatal, interpretation of the policy articulated by Chief Fabrizio-if they do not activate lights and siren and drive at the posted speed they are not in pursuit and are just following the suspect and, consequently, are in compliance with policy. This, as well as the, "Don’t ask. Don’t tell." attitude demonstrated in the DS Kilgore/Ivey Lane incident, and other incidents that have been brought to the attention of PursuitWatch, brings into question the fitness of the present leadership of the Uniform Patrol Division and indicates a top-down systemic disregard of OCSO’s Vehicle Pursuit Policy.

PursuitWatch has received an email stating that the OCSO Professional Standards Division is in the process of an investigation of the events of May 15th. The narrow scope of this investigation is not acceptable. Additionally, the chain of command review of the events of May 15th and the subsequent underwriting of those events have demonstrated a breakdown of the internal review process and brings into question the ability of the OCSO to objectively review their own actions.

PursuitWatch renews its call for an independent panel, made up equally of citizens and Orange County Sheriff personnel to examine the following:
1. The May 15th incident and the apparent failure of the review process.
2. The overall compliance of the OCSO to the revised Vehicle Pursuit Policy.
3. Deficiencies in the OCSO Vehicle Pursuit Policy.

In an email to Sheriff Kevin Beary, Jim Phillips, President of PursuitWatch, has volunteered to serve on, or chair, an investigative panel. By endorsing an outside panel Sheriff Beary can demonstrate his continuing commitment to the integrity and credibility of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.

CONTACT INFORMATION:
Jim Phillips
PursuitWatch.org, Inc. A Florida Non-Profit Corporation
http://www.pursuitwatch.org/
(407)629-4975

ABOUT PURSUITWATCH.ORG: PursuitWatch is a national organization of citizens and police officers that promotes smarter and safer police pursuit policy. PursuitWatch was founded by Jim Phillips as a result of the loss of his 20 year-old daughter, Sarah, an innocent bystander killed in a police pursuit. The website www.pursuitwatch.org has become the most comprehensive resource concerning Police Pursuits on the Internet and attracts inquiries from reporters all over the United States as well as many international inquiries.

It is time for Orange County Sheriff Beary to take a stand

2005-05-26T04:47:00.000-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FROM:
Pursuitwatch.org
Orlando, Florida 5/25/05

It is time for Orange County Sheriff Beary to take a stand

From the 5/25/05 Orlando Sentinel:
"We will reserve judgment until all reports are in and the ongoing investigation by the Florida Highway Patrol is concluded," Beary wrote in an e-mail. "Any speculation or opinion by anyone at this time would be premature."

The FHP report that Sheriff Beary is referring to is the Traffic Homicide Report. It is neither the purpose nor will the report address whether the Orange County Sheriff’s Office followed policy. The sole purpose of the report is to provide the basis for the criminal prosecution of Jonathan Kornexl.

To wait several months for a report that will not address the question of the OCSO’s compliance to their pursuit policy would be ridiculous and the suggestion to do so is nothing more that a smoke screen.

It is well past time for Sheriff Beary to address this situation. He must investigate or appoint a panel to investigate. An open and thorough investigation into the actions of his department and those who adjudged those actions to be within policy is the only way for the OCSO to maintain any credibility on this issue.

PursuitWatch calls for a citizen/law enforcement panel to investigate this incident as well as the overall compliance of the OCSO with the revised pursuit policy. The panel should also be charged to clarify the pursuit policy where needed. The Sheriff should agree to abide by the findings of the panel.

CONTACT INFORMATION:
Jim Phillips
www.pursuitwatch.org

PursuitWatch.org Press Release 5/22/05

2005-05-23T10:30:00.000-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Orange County Sheriff’s Office disregard of pursuit policy results in the death of 2 innocent bystanders

Orlando, Florida 5/22/05

Sometime before 8AM on Sunday, May 15th Orange County Sheriff’s Deputy Russell Kilgore ran the license plate of a suspicious vehicle he encountered and learned that the pickup was stolen by the owner’s son and that the occupant of the pickup was most certainly Jonathan Lee Kornexl. He followed the truck to a convenience store on the corner of W. Kaley and OBT and ordered the suspect to exit the pickup under gunpoint. The pickup sped away heading east on Kaley. When DS Kilgore and another deputy followed, the incident became, by policy definition, a vehicle pursuit regardless of the speed the deputies were traveling. Pursuit for a stolen vehicle is specifically forbidden by OCSO policy. The deputies further disobeyed policy by not activating their lights and siren while in pursuit. For approximately the next hour the OCSO played a cat and mouse game with the suspect involving no less than 13 deputies and an OCSO helicopter. Stop sticks were deployed at least 8 times which the suspect avoided by driving through the front and even back yards of residences, on the shoulder of the road and by turning away. The suspect was observed to ignore stop signs numerous times. This incident involves many violations of the OCSO’s Vehicle Pursuit Policy and shows a reckless "ratcheting" up of the pressure on the fleeing suspect which ultimately resulted in the tragic death of two innocent bystanders, Frantz Leander and his sister Carole Leander. This is precisely the type of incident that the revised OCSO pursuit policy was designed to prevent.
The incident has been reviewed and adjudged within policy by Chief Frank Frabrizio, Chief of the Patrol Division. This determination, given the overwhelming evidence of disregard of OCSO policy, and statements of Chief Frabrizio to the press and myself, brings into question whether the Orange County Sheriff’s Office is committed to the revised pursuit policy. PursuitWatch anxiously awaits the final determination of Sheriff Kevin Beary. It remains to be seen whether Sheriff Beary will reaffirm his commitment to the revised policy and take appropriate action to demonstrate that commitment or whether he will rubber stamp the self-serving judgements of his chain of command.

How did the pursuits end?

2005-05-06T13:41:00.000-04:00

I was reading a newspaper article the other day in the Ukiah Daily Journal in California and the reporter quoted some statistics from the California Highway Patrol for the year 2004:
......Number of pursuits-6,913
......Number of apprehensions-4,470
......Number of suspects who stopped on their own-1,577
......Number of accidents-1,848
The numbers are puzzling to me. Over the years, in all jurisdictions, irregardless of policy the following have held approximately true:
..... 40% of pursuits end in crashes
......20% of pursuits end in injury
.......1% of pursuits end in death
If the CHP numbers are correct two things bother me (1) the characterization of crashes as accidents and (2) that only only about 27% of pursuits end in crashes when the CHP is involved. I began to analyze the numbers to see if I was missing anything:
......Number of apprehensions .......................4,470
......Number stopped on their own............... - 1,577
......Number of crashes................................ - 1,848
......Number ended for unknown reasons .......1,075
It seems to me that there are only 2 ways that a pursuit can end-by crash or by the suspect giving up. In California fully 15% of pursuits engaged in by CHP have mystery endings.

It seems curious that if we add the number of crashes(1,848) and the number of mystery endings(1,075) we get 2,923 which is 42% of the total number of pursuits.

Velly, Velly interesting!

Blanket Immunity issue dropped from California's Kristie's Law

2005-04-20T13:31:00.000-04:00

The California Legislature has given California Law Enforcement agencies Blanket Immunity from liability if they adopt a pursuit policy that conforms to a few rudimentary standards. Unfortunately by doing this they have also removed accountability of agencies whose officers do not follow the policy. Blanket Immunity has become an untouchable issue because of California Law Enforcement. California Law Enforcement is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the state. Additionally, the endorsement of political candidates by Law Enforcement is a very important element in any campaign. California Law Enforcement would like to frame the whole immunity issue into the simplistic logic of "If the bad guys had not run, none of this would have happened." PERIOD. While this is certainly true it ignores the complexity of pursuits and prevents any rational approach to making them safer and less costly. The scandalous position of California Law Enforcement is that they are powerless to do anything to prevent pursuit deaths and injuries and that is exactly what they do-nothing.

Pursuit Policy Description

2005-04-16T11:29:00.000-04:00

Quite often in discussions or in the media various pursuit policies are classified as restrictive. Often I find upon review that the policy is really what I would classify as a discretionary policy. Unfortunately those who oppose any restrictions upon the initiating officer in a pursuit classify any policy that does this as restrictive. To be fair, those who favor restrictive policy tend to classify any policy that is to the left of their position on the continuum below to be overly discretionary.

I submit that the above scheme is a fair representation of the spectrum of pursuit policies. I am open to a term to describe the policies in the middle.

Discretionary Pursuit Policy and Training

2005-04-06T08:44:00.000-04:00

Pursuit Policies can all be placed on a line that runs from discretionary to restrictive. The more discretionary a policy is the more decisions the policy permits an initiating or participating officer to make. As policies move down the line toward more restrictive the fewer decisions the officers are permitted to make. It follows that the more discretionary a policy is the more training the policy would require. Discretionary policies place the decision making burden on pursuing officers at a time that research has shown that they are experiencing adrenaline overload and the attendant shallow breathing, rapid heart rate and tunnel vision.

At the other end of the spectrum if a department had a policy that forbade pursuits (In the real world I am unaware of any such policy)the training burden would obviously be nil. I would bet all I own that there is no overall correlation between training time and increasing discretion in pursuit policy among the 17,000+ law enforcement agencies in the United States. It is scandalous for an agency to put the burden of discretionary policy upon its officers and not give them the tools to deal with it.

LA Police Chief Bratton on the same wavelength

2005-04-06T08:20:00.000-04:00

Apparently Chief Bratton and I were having the same nightmare.

Police Move to Curb Car Shootings
LAPD officers will be told to 'get out of the way' rather than fire at oncoming vehicles.
By Andrew Blankstein LA Times Staff Writer
March 31, 2005

Hoping to stem a series of shootings in which his officers have fired into moving cars, Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton said Wednesday that new training videos will direct officers who find themselves in the path of a vehicle to "get out of the way" rather than open fire.The training comes nearly two months after the Los Angeles Police Commission adopted a stricter policy covering such shootings, saying officers may fire at a moving vehicle only if they feel their lives or those of bystanders are at risk.But the video goes a step further, instructing officers to make it their first priority to get out of harm's way rather than stand in place and use their weapons."The focus is really on the officers not to put themselves in a situation tactically where they become a victim, in which their only resort is a last resort and that's to shoot," Bratton said. "What it really comes down to, and this is to be very specifically addressed in the training, is 'get out the way.' "Bratton suggested that officers should think defensively rather than offensively in such situations."If anything, I think I'm reducing the potential for them to be victims both in terms of a crime but also the emotions that come about when they sometimes find themselves having to act," he said.The Police Commission tightened the shooting rules after the Feb. 6 fatal shooting by an LAPD officer of 13-year-old Devin Brown. The teenager led police on a short chase before allegedly backing his car toward the officer, who opened fire. The youth was unarmed and the car was later determined to be stolen.On Tuesday, three LAPD officers in South Los Angeles fired a dozen rounds at an unarmed robbery suspect who backed toward them following a brief pursuit.Bratton declined to discussed details of that incident, which is under investigation to determine why the officers opened fire and whether the shooting was within department policies. The Devin Brown case is also under investigation.Bratton has said reducing the number of such shootings is a priority. His effort is part of a larger campaign to curtail many types of pursuits, which Bratton considers to often not be worth the risk to officers and bystanders.Since 1985, LAPD officers have shot at moving cars about half a dozen times each year, killing 25 people and injuring at least 30, according to a Times review of police records last year. That review found that 90% of the shootings resulted in a reprimand or retraining.Bratton had called for an updated policy a year ago after his officers shot and killed a robbery suspect who had backed toward them slowly after a 90-minute chase that ended in Santa Monica. That shooting was shown by TV stations taping the pursuit from helicopters.Geoffrey Alpert, a University of South Carolina professor knowledgeable in police use-of-force policies, said the LAPD's new training makes sense. He said it would help officers change their mind-sets when confronted with such a situation."It's going to save the lives of the officers and it's going to save the lives of suspects," Alpert said. "It updates Los Angeles into what is considered a best practice in law enforcement."The tape will be shown in the coming days and weeks in roll calls across the 9,200-member department as part of an ongoing training effort. In addition, Bratton said, officers will undergo intensive "scenario-based training" to help them better react to situations involving moving vehicles.The chief, however, warned that it would take until the end of the year for all officers to receive the complete training.Police are releasing few details about Tuesday's shooting.Officials identified the officers involved as Jose Bonilla, 30, with five years on the force; Francisco Diaz, 33, a nine-year veteran; and Eric Rose, 30, with five years on the force.The suspect, identified as Oscar Leyva, 30, was hit once by gunfire. He was listed in serious condition at California Hospital Medical Center in downtown Los Angeles.

A Recurrent Nightmare

2005-03-22T10:36:00.000-05:00

Almost everyday as I read accounts of pursuits from across the nation I am confronted with the same nightmare. While my evidence is only gut feeling, I am certain that these type of incidents are becoming more common. A pursuit ends when a suspect crashes, many times with an uninvolved motorist, and comes to a stop. Several police cars pull up and block the suspect in, officers exit their cars and take up protective positions. Guns drawn-they order the suspect to get out of the car. Many times when the suspect tries to escape in the car and either purposely, accidently, or because all other avenues are blocked he goes toward the blocking police officers and he is met with a hail of gunfire. Unjustifiable use of deadly force? Not always-but always a nightmare.

Pursuit Myths-#3

2005-03-22T09:11:00.000-05:00

Lt. Mark Cummings of the Marysville Police Department said officers were chasing someone who posed a direct threat to residents, quoted from the previously cited article in the Appeal-Democrat (Archived Story). Lt. Cummings why have you put away your crystal ball? It is painfully obvious that the direct threat to the public from the pursuit itself is much greater that the threat to the public posed by the suspect.

Pursuit Myths- #2

2005-03-22T08:34:00.000-05:00

"If you don't stop these individuals, you can guarantee they will commit more crimes, perhaps more vicious crimes, with impunity," Lt. Mark Cummings of the Marysville California Police Department said in a written statement, as quoted in an article in the Appeal-Democrat (Archived Story) after a pursuit "gone bad’ on March 20, 2005.

This reflects an attitude that is pervasive among California Police Officers. The notion that they can justify the risks of the pursuit of suspects by the suspect's future crimes. Police officers in Marysville, as well as the rest of California, must have remarkable abilities to be able to look into the future. Research and data collection over the last twenty years have shown that 40% of pursuits end in crashes, 20% in injury and 1% in death. I wonder why they can't see that in their crystal balls?

Pursuit Myths- #1

2005-03-21T15:11:00.000-05:00

Lt. Mark Cummings of the Marysville California police Department was quoted in an article in the Appeal-Democrat (Archived Story) after a pursuit "gone bad’ on March 20, 2005, "High-speed pursuits are inherently dangerous, not only to the public, but to the officers who may have to give their own lives to stop these criminals."

This statement implies that the grave dangers that police officers accept to remove these criminals from the streets somehow justifies the dangers to innocent bystanders created by police pursuits. If police officers are willing to accept the risks in the name of law and order citizens should be willing to do the same. The facts tell a very different story. According to the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS part of USDOT) in the 10 year period 1992 to 2001 there were 3,506 deaths related to pursuits. Of these 2,317 (66%) were occupants of the chased vehicle, driver or passengers. 1149 (33%) were innocent bystanders. 40 (1%) were police officers. While we do not mean to minimize the importance of any life lost, it is sobering to note that innocent bystanders assume at least 33 times the risk of police officers and the occupants of the chased vehicle assume 66 times more risk. While it can be argued that those in the chased vehicle have made a choice to accept that risk (maybe not all of the passengers), this is certainly not the case of innocent bystanders. When we couple the fact that the great majority of collisions in pursuits are a result of the fleeing car impacting a stationary object or an uninvolved motor vehicle and not a police car we come to a disturbing conclusion. Police officers trail behind (trainers even speak of interval) while the suspects clear intersections of uninvolved vehicles.

Press Release 3/19/05

2005-03-21T08:44:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Orlando Police Department-One year anniversary of restrictive pursuit policy passes.

SOURCE-PursuitWatch.org, Inc.

Orlando, Florida 3/19/05

On March 1, 2004 the Orlando Police Department adopted what PursuitWatch believes is the most restrictive pursuit policy in the United States. This followed the adoption of a similarly restrictive policy by the Orange County Sheriff's Office in the fall of 2003 and preceded adoption of the Orlando model by the remaining 8 agencies in Orange County. All of this attracted extensive coverage in the local media. In the 12 months since the policy was adopted OPD has made 40,460 traffic stops. OPD has reported that they had 11 pursuits (0.027%) and 107 suspects (0.27%) who refused to stop. OPD also reported that in 2003 they had 20,291 reported felonies and in 2004 there were 20,065 (-1.1%) reported felonies. In the same period the population of Orlando increased an estimated 3%.

The past years experience has served to silence critics here and from many cities across the United States who predicted widespread defiance of OPD officers attempting traffic stops as well as attendant increases in crime rates. These results are especially relevant in light of the national attention generated by the introduction of Kristie’s Law in California by State Senator Sam Aanestad. Kristie’s Law is an attempt to set reasonable minimum standards for pursuit policy, practice and accountability in California. The California Law Enforcement establishment’s opposition to the bill is largely based on contentions that there will be large increases in the number of suspects who flee and that crime rates will increase significantly. These conclusions are soundly refuted by the results experienced in Orlando.

CONTACT INFORMATION:
PursuitWatch.org, Inc.
Jim Phillips
www.pursuitwatch.org
jim@pursuitwatch.org

INTERNET SOURCES:PursuitWatch.org, Inc.- http://pursuitwatch.org/
Kristie’s Law- http://www.kristieslaw.org/
OPD Pursuit Policy- http://pursuitwatch.org/pursuit_policies/Orlando_Florida.doc
Orange County Sheriff’s Office Pursuit Policy-
http://pursuitwatch.org/pursuit_policies/Orange_County_Florida.pdf
California State Senator Sam Aanestad (Author of Kristie’s Law)
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/4/
Orlando Police Department- http://www.cityoforlando.net/police/

Orlando, Florida-One year anniversary of restrictive pursuit policy passes. ANARCHY RULES!

2005-03-18T17:39:00.000-05:00

On March 1, 2004 the Orlando Police Department adopted what PursuitWatch believes is the most restrictive pursuit policy in the United States. This followed the adoption of a similarly restrictive policy by the Orange County Sheriff's Office in the fall of 2003 and preceded adoption of the Orlando model by the remaining 8 agencies in Orange County. In the 12 months since the policy was adopted OPD has made 40,460 traffic stops. What is shocking, however, is that the department had 11 pursuits and an additional 107 suspects who refused to stop. Many warned this would happen. To sum up-118 suspects fled and 40,342 obeyed the order to stop. What is just as disturbing is change in the number of reported felonies. 2003-20,291 2004 20,065 and that includes all the 118 fleeing and eluding incidents! I guess the City Beautiful won't be the City Beautiful much longer.

A proposal for California

2005-03-17T10:01:00.000-05:00

I propose a new statute for California. California police agencies should receive Blanket Immunity from liability in all instances of "use of force". For an agency to qualify for Immunity all they need do is have a policy concerning "use of force". To keep from handcuffing police officers and making it difficult for them to do their jobs we will not require that they follow the policy-only that they have a policy. Additionally the statute would establish a fund called The California Deadly Force Compensation Fund to compensate victims and the families of those killed accidentally or by misapplication of force. This would be a win-win situation where police officers will be able to do their job unhampered by tedious rules and regulations, the taxpayers would save money on expensive training and costly litagation and innocent victims, injured or dead, would get a bunch of dough.

An inescapable conclusion

2005-03-17T09:02:00.000-05:00

After three years of studying police pursuits, reading thousands of newspaper accounts and corresponding with hundreds of police officers I have come to an inescapable conclusion; many police officers enjoy pursuits. Universally they all profess pursuits to be terrifying and to be avoided at all costs. I must take those who have told me so at their word but there must be thousands of officers out there who feel differently. I am appalled at the hundreds of media accounts I have read where police officers caravan after suspects, or when they respond by the dozens from afar, racing through towns at speed-sometimes without lights and sirens to catch up with the pursuit.

I am dumbfounded at the number of pursuit deaths that occur seconds after police call off the chase. I am amazed at the number of assault on a police officer charges that result from pursuits. Are these always lies? Of course not-perhaps only a small percentage. What is certain is that when other police officers stand behind, protect, look the other way or lie for these rogue officers they dishonor themselves and their profession.

Press Release

2005-01-19T16:26:00.000-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

PursuitWatch.org launches national effort

Orlando, Florida 1/19/05

On Friday, January 21, 2005 from 9AM to 5PM EST Court TV will air taped and edited coverage of the State of Florida v. Shamir Suber. Shamir Suber faced 6 counts, including 2nd degree murder, and up to life imprisonment for the December 13th, 2001 police pursuit incident where he impacted the vehicle of 20 year-old Sarah Phillips at 70 mph, killing her instantly.

During the broadcast Sarah’s father and founder of PursuitWatch.org, Jim Phillips, will announce PursuitWatch.org as a national organization advocating safer and smarter police pursuits. With members already working in California, Missouri, Mississippi, Georgia, New Jersey and Florida, PursuitWatch.org will be working to expand its efforts to all 50 states.

CONTACT INFORMATION:
Jim Phillips
www.pursuitwatch.org
(407)629-4975
jim@pursuitwatch.org

Court TV Schedules Suber Trial

2005-01-11T14:30:00.000-05:00

Court TV has tentatively scheduled the taped and edited version of the Shamir Suber trial for Friday, January 21, from 9 AM until 5 PM. NOTE: These times are EST and I don't know if they vary by time zone. They have condensed the 6 day trial into 8 hours of programming. It should move along-and believe me there are a number of twists and turns.
You can check the Court TV schedule here.

Court TV to Broadcast Suber Trial

2004-12-21T10:54:00.000-05:00

We were very disappointed to learn in October that Court TV had shelved broadcasting the Shamir Suber trial due to a loss in transit of several days worth of video tape. We have just heard that the tape had been found and that editing had begun! There is also the possibility of a Dateline story.

FHP policy allows "overtaking", at speeds above the speed limit, without the use of Emergency Lights or Siren

2004-12-17T13:38:00.000-05:00

"For a variety of reasons, policy does permit operation of the patrol car in the overtaking mode to be at the informed discretion of the Trooper regarding the speed and manner with which to catch up to a violator and when to turn on the emergency equipment." - Major Ernesto Duarte FHP Chief of Public Affairs

This statement confirms what Pursuitwatch had learned from statements of FHP Spokesperson Trooper Kim Miller concerning Trooper Haywood case in October of this year. The practice was also confirmed to PursuitWatch by several sources from within the FHP. Shortly after learning of the practice PursuitWatch requested an official response to the question:

Is it the policy or practice for FHP troopers to Overtake or Pursue
suspects at speeds above the limit without the use of Emergency
Lights or Siren?

The official FHP response was given by Major Ernesto Duarte, FHP Public Affairs Chief, in an email received by Pursuitwatch on December 15, 2004-the complete answer follows:

"Our policy is stated at Chapter 17.05 and 17.22 of our policy manual. The policies do create a distinction between overtaking a violator for a traffic stop and active pursuit of a driver who has or is believed to have committed a crime of violence. For a variety of reasons, policy does permit operation of the patrol car in the overtaking mode to be at the informed discretion of the Trooper regarding the speed and manner with which to catch up to a violator and when to turn on the emergency equipment. This policy is consistent with the provisions of 316.072(5) Florida Statutes that permits an officer in an authorized emergency vehicle to exceed the speed limit when in pursuit, but without any mention of use of emergency equipment. Both FHP policy and applicable statutes do not relieve the officer from operation with due regard for the safety of all persons."

The position of the FHP is that since there is no mention of the requirement for use of emergency equipment within Florida Statute 316.072(5) that no such obligation exists. It is worth noting that there is no mention of "overtaking" in the statute either and the same logic would conclude that emergency vehicles cannot break traffic regulations while "overtaking." The statute does, however, mention "pursuit" and Major Duarte specifically mentions the distinction between the two in the FHP Policy manual and it is puzzling that the FHP claims statutory authority for discretionary use of emergency equipment when in "overtaking" mode but not when in "pursuit." I am sure that the FHP would not argue that the requirement that troopers use a safely belt, though not mentioned in FS 316.072(5), does not mean that troopers are exempt from FS 316.614 requiring safety belt usage. The absurdities produced by this type of logic are too numerous to mention.

It should be obvious to all who read this article that when emergency vehicles operate outside of the traffic laws of the State of Florida, as provided by FS 316.072(5), they pose a safety hazard to the other occupants of the roadway and hence Florida Statue 316.126 requires that emergency vehicles operating outside traffic regulations warn motorists of their approach with lights or siren. FS 316.126 also specifies the actions motorists must take to facilitate the safe and expeditious passage of emergency vehicles. (Ref:Must a Florida Police Officer use emergency lights or siren when he operates outside of Florida traffic regulations?)

It is clear to PursuitWatch that the practice of "overtaking", at speeds over the limit, without the use of lights or siren is dangerous to the motoring public as well as the troopers involved-Not to mention contrary to Florida Statutes. PuruitWatch believes that this practice is a important subject for judicial review.

FHP Sgt. Andy Brown died as a result of a non-policy pursuit

2004-12-06T13:58:00.000-05:00

On 4/27/04 FHP Sgt. Andy Brown died when he lost control of his FHP Camaro and left the roadway and slammed into a tree. The FHP Traffic Homicide report characterizes his actions as Overtaking and not as a Pursuit. If his actions were a Pursuit then FHP policy requires a Pursuit After Action Report as well as an Administrative Compliance Review. Both of these documents were requested as part of a PursuitWatch public records request and PursuitWatch was told that they did not exist because the incident was an Overtake.

From the FHP Pursuit Policy:
Overtake-The active attempt by a member to catch up to and stop a traffic violator before there is recognition by the violator that the member is attempting to stop him.
Pursuit-An active attempt by one or more members to apprehend a suspect operating a motor vehicle while the suspect is trying to avoid capture by using high speed driving or other evasive tactics such as driving off a highway, making sudden or unexpected movements, or driving on the wrong side of a roadway.

Since the speeding driver Sgt. Brown was going after had initially stopped, and even talked to Sgt. Brown before he took off it is ludicrous to say that he was not aware of Sgt. Brown's efforts to stop him-as would be required to be described as an Overtake. The action was, by policy definition a Pursuit.

Further FHP policy requires that a "crime of violence" be committed or attempted for a trooper to pursue a suspect. It is obvious what the FHP is doing. They only call it a Pursuit when it is by the policy and if the Pursuit is outside of policy it is called an Overtake even when it does not fit the policy definition.

PursuitWatch congratulates Roy Wood and the Cincinnati Post

2004-11-26T18:34:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to Reporter Roy Wood and The Cincinnati Post for the excellent article- High-speed chases are risky.

The "no-pursuit" policy lie

2004-11-22T08:34:00.000-05:00

"Since XYPD changed their policy to a "no-pursuit" policy..."
or:
"The ZPD policy is a no-pursuit policy."
These types of statements are often made in news stories or quoted from law enforcement sources. At the very least these statements are misleading, or the result of sloppy research, and at their root lays a calculated lie. There are approximately 13,500 law enforcement agencies in the United States, and while I only have first-hand knowledge of a few dozen of their pursuit policies, I am confident that very few, if any, of them do not pursue under any circumstance. Not even those who favor greatly restricting police pursuits advocate a "no-pursuit” policy. Consequently, any reporter who characterizes a pursuit policy as "no-pursuit", or allows such a characterization to go unchallenged, is guilty of perpetuating the lie. The lie is calculated to lead uninformed citizens to dismiss any effort to reasonably address problems with pursuit policy and practice and makes it much harder for those who advocate smarter and safer pursuit policy to get a fair public hearing of their views.

Police Pursuits and Assault on a Police Officer

2004-11-19T09:18:00.000-05:00

While reviewing the news this morning I noted, as I often do, that the seriousness of pursuits are often “ratcheted up” with charges of assault on a police officer. This is how that situation was addressed in the new Orlando Police Department Pursuit Policy. Some may find it surprising that this was endorsed by the local PBA.

OPD policy excerpt (from section listing crimes that officers may pursue for):

Violent Forcible Felonies: For the purpose of this directive, shall be when a suspect has committed or attempted to commit:

1. Murder.
2. Manslaughter.
3. Armed robbery.
4. Armed sexual battery.
5. Arson to a structure reasonably believed to be occupied.
6. Use of explosive devices to a structure reasonably believed to be occupied.
7. Kidnapping
8. Armed carjacking.
9. Burglary armed with a firearm.
10. Aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon (firearm, edged weapon). Does not include a motor vehicle.
11. Aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer resulting in serious injury.

NOTE: The fact that an officer had to move from the path of a fleeing vehicle does not constitute an aggravated assault, attempted murder, attempted aggravated battery, or attempted manslaughter for the purposes of this policy

Outrageous Pursuits in the News

2004-11-14T09:31:00.000-05:00

I syndicated the "Outrageous Pursuits in the News" segment of PursuitWatch this morning. The RSS feed can be found here.

Another Cincinnati area deadly pursuit

2004-11-13T18:00:00.000-05:00

I'm getting a sense that things are out of control. A $16 gas drive away and an innocent pedestrian is killed?

Story here

Fairfield Ohio Pursuit Policy

2004-11-11T14:54:00.000-05:00

Chief Michael Dickey of Fairfield Ohio PD sent me their Pursuit Policy. Overall a strong policy-in contrast with the superficial and sloppy Pursuit Policy from Cincinnati PD.

Fairfield

Cincinnati

55 KRC Morning Show

2004-11-10T08:11:00.000-05:00

The interview went well-even if I didn't have the correct radio station. It was actually on 555KRC, a sister station of 700WLW. Jerry Thomas and Craig Kopp were gracious hosts and we had an interesting conversation.

Radio Interview in Cincinnati

2004-11-09T15:53:00.000-05:00

Did a radio interview today on the Bill Cunningham Show on 700 WLW in Cincinnati concerning a rash of pursuit deaths there.

Reference this newspaper article-
Cincinnati Enquirer 11/09/04

Mr. Cunningham was a gracious host and we had a fruitful discussion. I am slated to do the morning show tomorrow with a very outspoken host(John Phillips)who believes that the deaths and injuries suffered as a result of Police Pursuits are an acceptable price for justice. These conclusions are drawn from his on-air conversation with Mr. Cunningham after my interview. Should be interesting. Slated for 7:40 AM Eastern.

Streaming audio here

Pursuit/Overtake is there a real difference?

2004-11-07T11:47:00.000-05:00

The Florida Highway Patrol prides itself on being a progressive agency. They are especially proud of their Pursuit Policy and hold it up as example to other agencies in Florida and nationwide. When adopted in 1996 it was certainly a needed step in the right direction. The days of chasing all violators, regardless of the dangers involved, were over-The FHP would only chase for crimes of violence:
Members may pursue, attempt to stop and apprehend as expeditiously and safely as possible, any person in a vehicle who the member reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a crime of violence. ALL OTHER VEHICULAR PURSUITS ARE PROHIBITED.

Since 1996 most progressive policies more tightly define the types of crimes officers can pursue for as well as addressing a list of external factors (weather, traffic etc.) that affect the pursue/no pursue decision. I refer the reader to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office policy or the Orlando Florida Police Department policy for examples of more modern progressive policies.

The recent case of the death of Trooper Darryl Haywood has exposed very serious problems with the FHP Pursuit Policy as well as serious public safety issues in the implementation of that policy. Since 1996 the FHP only pursues for crimes of violence, but they do Overtake for traffic violations. Overtake as defined by the FHP Pursuit Policy:
The active attempt by a member to catch up to and stop a traffic violator before there is recognition by the violator that the member is attempting to stop him.
Since the most common traffic violation is speeding, overtaking the suspect vehicle will require that a trooper exceed the speed limit. The faster the suspect is travelling-the faster the trooper must go to overtake him and the speeds required ratchet to what can only be classified as dangerous.

The danger involved to the trooper as well as highway traffic at the overtake speeds and distances demonstrated in the table above should be self evident. One of the key factors leading to many agencies restricting pursuits is the speed of the participants and its duration. It is incontrovertible that the faster a police officer travels the more likely that he will lose control of his vehicle and the more serious the resulting consequences will be, irregardless of whether the officer is pursuing or overtaking. As speeds increase so do the demands on the reaction times, driving skills, physiology and equipment of the officer.Pursuits and Overtakes, as defined in FHP policy, differ in only one respect; the suspect is not aware of the troopers attempt to stop him in an overtake. When a trooper overtakes a traffic violator there are only 2 possible outcomes once the violator becomes aware of the trooper:
1. The suspect pulls over for the trooper.
2. The suspect refuses to pull over and then the overtake becomes a pursuit.
In the first outcome the FHP policy has decided that the demonstrated dangers of the overtake were an acceptable risk in order to write a traffic citation. What is an acceptable number of crashes, injuries or deaths per 100 traffic citations? Per 1,000 citations? In the second outcome the trooper is compelled to discontinue since FHP prohibits pursuits for any crime except crimes of violence. In this scenario the net gain is zero for the risks accepted in the overtake.

In the second outcome the trooper is compelled to discontinue since FHP prohibits pursuits for any crime except crimes of violence. In this scenario the net gain is zero for the risks accepted in the overtake.

Some have argued that the overtake allows the trooper to slip up on the violator and obtain a license number in case the violator flees. No one would argue that the overwhelming majority of motorists yield to law enforcement officers. Similarly, it would be difficult to argue that any motorist who would flee would be unaware enough of the presence of a trooper to allow him to get close enough to get a license number.

It is clear that the dangers of an overtake are less than the dangers of a full blown pursuit most of the time. The exception would be if the violator is already driving dangerously as the trooper is attempting to overtake him. Still it is hard to understand a policy that has made a value judgement on what crimes warrant the risks of pursuits and then gives troopers unlimited discretion when it comes to overtakes.

For an overtake to become a pursuit the trooper must perceive that the suspect is evidencing an awareness of the trooper by his actions. Herein lies a serious problem in the FHP policy. At a time where all police officers are experiencing a surge in adrenaline, tunnel vision, increased heart rate and a perceived challenge from the suspect we ask that the trooper make the subtle distinction between between an overtake and pursuit. Further, we open the door for institutional abuse of the policy where supervisors or investigators readily accept an explanation of "the suspect never knew I was there," or immediately classify incidents as overtakes at the onset. Additionally, the stage is set to hide individual abuse of policy or bad pursuit decision making. At the very least, the citizens of Florida have been forced to accept a policy that carries a significant risk of injury or death-without any measurable benefit.

All of the foregoing conclusions assume that FHP policy and practice, requires the activation of emergency lights or sirens when overtaking or pursuing a suspect at speeds above the speed limit. I await a requested official declaration from the FHP on exactly what the policy on this issue is. Obviously this practice would greatly increase the danger to uninvolved motorists and I will address this issue when I am advised of precise policy of FHP.

FHP Trooper Haywood is the 3rd "overtaking" death in 6 months

2004-10-21T11:39:00.000-04:00

Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Darryl Hayood who died when he lost control of his FHP Camaro attempting to overtake a speeding motorcycle on October 2nd was the 3rd Florida fatality due to the practice of "overtaking" in the last six months. On March 20th of this year Ball State University student Kyle Troskey was killed on I-95, near Daytona Beach, when the van he was riding in swerved and struck another vehicle in a effort to avoid a FHP Trooper which had turned in front of the van in a effort to overtake a traffic violator. Catlin Culpepper, the driver of the van, was seriously injured and a third occupant was treated and released. On April 27th FHP Sgt. Andy Brown was killed when he lost control of his FHP Camaro while also overtaking a traffic violator near Lake City.

Must a Florida Police Officer use emergency lights or siren when he operates outside of Florida traffic regulations?

2004-10-12T11:27:00.000-04:00

Contrary to what Florida Highway Patrol has said the Florida Statutes are very clear on this point. Florida State Statute 316.072-Obedience to and effect of traffic laws defines and limits the actions an emergency vehicle may take when responding to an emergency:
The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call, when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to a fire alarm, but not upon returning from a fire;
May:
1. Park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of this chapter;2. Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation; 3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as the driver does not endanger life or property; 4. Disregard regulations governing direction or movement or turning in specified directions, so long as the driver does not endanger life or property.
And:
The foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle specified in paragraph (a) from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his or her reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Florida Statute 316.072 does not mention nor is it operative over the use of emergency equipment. Florida Statute 316.126-Operation of vehicles and actions of pedestrians on approach of authorized emergency vehicle states:
3) Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the emergency vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.
Very clearly, the driver of an emergency vehicle operating in emergency mode can only disobey traffic regulations as specified in 316.072 and if he does he must proceed with due regard, and if and only if he displays lights or sirens per 316.126.

Florida Highway Patrol trooper dies in pursuit. Controversy ensues.

2004-10-06T15:21:00.000-04:00

“I’m attempting to stop that motorcycle on that BOLO (be on the lookout for), he is heading eastbound. He took off on me,” FHP Trooper Darryl Haywood radioed to his dispatcher. His last radio communication, “eastbound at 120 (mile marker),” gave his location. Within seconds his right rear tire blew-sending his high-performance Camaro out of control and sliding 860 feet until it impacted a tree at an estimated 60 mph, almost splitting his cruiser in two. Tragically, Trooper Darryl Haywood, 49, of Palm Coast, died as a result of the impact.

Trooper Haywood came to the Florida Highway Patrol after retiring from the New York Police Department in 2000 and had began his second Law Enforcement career with FHP four years ago. Trooper Haywood had served on several elite units in New York and had recently been recognized as FHP’s “Trooper of the Month.” Trooper Haywood has been universally described as a hard working, professional, compassionate and dedicated public servant. His needless death was tragic-a catastrophic loss to his family and a major loss to the citizens of Florida whom he has served for the last four years.

This tragic event occurred Saturday, October 2, at 1:45 PM on Interstate 4, just east of the State Road 44 exit. Trooper Haywood was responding to a citizen complaint about a motorcycle and Porsche racing each other at 100+ mph speeds as they headed eastbound. Trooper Haywood, who was westbound, spotted the motorcycle and turned through the median to the eastbound lane. Within a few miles Trooper Haywood lost control of his vehicle and the crash resulted.

At this point the FHP, through spokesperson Trooper Kim Miller, began a questionable attempt to “spin” the events. I am sure her office was besieged by the media and under extreme pressure to reveal what was, at best, partial information. By unconvincingly attempting to characterize the incident as an “overtaking” rather than a pursuit, the FHP has precipitated a firestorm of controversy around the case. An honest and prudent response to the pressure would have been to decline comment while the investigation was proceeding.

Instead of the controversy surrounding what Trooper Haywood did or didn’t do, this should have been a time for his family to mourn his passing and a time for the rest of us to honor his service. The media and those of us who write about pursuits have been pressed to respond to a series of poorly reasoned and misleading statements by the FHP.

Pursuit as defined by the FHP Pursuit Policy:
An active attempt by one or more members to apprehend a suspect operating a motor vehicle while the suspect is trying to avoid capture by using high speed driving or other evasive tactics such as driving off a highway, making sudden or unexpected movements, or driving on the wrong side of a roadway.

In simple terms-if an officer is attempting to stop a suspect, the suspect knows he is being chased and the suspect does not stop-It is a pursuit. There is no requirement that an officer use lights or siren. There is no requirement that the pursuit be at high speed. There is no requirement that the officer be on the bumper of the suspect.

Fact:"I’m attempting to stop that motorcycle on that BOLO…” Trooper Haywood was attempting to stop the suspect.

Fact:The suspect did not stop.

Fact:“He took off on me.” The suspect’s actions, as observed by Trooper Haywood, demonstrated that he knew of the attempt to stop.

The inescapable conclusion is that Trooper Haywood knew he was in pursuit.

The Daytona Beach News-Journal quotes Sandy Champagne, who was traveling on Interstate 4 at that time, as saying that she was passed by a motorcycle while travelling at 75 mph followed, in short order by Trooper Haywood. “He had no lights and sirens on. He was cutting in and out of traffic.”

WESH TV quotes the driver of the car that Trooper Haywood clipped:“There was a car in the left-hand lane and a car in the right-hand lane, and he was shooting down the middle looking back,” said T. J. Evanchik. He said he believes the driver knew the patrolman was after him.

Two eyewitness accounts that corroborate the conclusion that Trooper Haywood was in pursuit.

From the Orlando Sentinel: “A pursuit does not begin until an officer “overtakes” or catches up with a vehicle,” Miller said, “and the driver sees the flashing lights and hears the sirens but refuses to stop.”

I will refer the reader to the FHP Pursuit Policy definition of Pursuit quoted earlier. There is no requirement that the trooper catches up to the suspect or that the suspect observes the lights and sirens.

The alternative explanation offered by Trooper Kim Miller from the Daytona Beach News-Journal. “Troopers don’t put on their sirens and lights while trying to catch up to a speeding driver because other motorists tend to freeze when they hear the sirens and light,” Miller said. “They stop on the Interstate and block the road, making it difficult for troopers to proceed,” she said.

From the Orlando Sentinel. “This was not a pursuit. The Trooper did nothing wrong,“ Miller said. “He was trying to overtake the vehicle.”

Overtaking as defined in the FHP Pursuit Policy:
The active attempt by a member to catch up to and stop a traffic violator before there is recognition by the violator that the member is attempting to stop him.

Again, Trooper Haywood’s radio message contradicts the assertion that the suspect was unaware of the trooper’s presence. The suspect could only “take off” from Trooper Haywood if he was aware of Trooper Haywood’s attempt to stop him. Additionally the statements of Champagne and Evanchik contradict the assertion.

If Trooper Haywood was attempting to “overtake” the suspect, at speeds estimated by the crash investigator in excess of 100 mph, and he was not using his lights or sirens as evidenced by the two witness statements and by the “freezing motorist” statements by Trooper Miller, there is a serious problem.

From 2004->Ch0316->Section%20126#0316.126" target=_blank>Florida State Statutes (Title XXIII 316.126):(3) Any authorized emergency vehicle, when en route to meet an existing emergency, shall warn all other vehicular traffic along the emergency route by an audible signal, siren, exhaust whistle, or other adequate device or by a visible signal by the use of displayed blue or red lights. While en route to such emergency, the vehicle shall otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with the laws regulating the vehicular traffic upon the highways of this state.

Simply stated-In Florida all police officers must obey all traffic regulations unless they are en route and display lights or siren. If it is the policy of FHP to allow “overtaking” (Note-to overtake a speeding motorist the trooper must exceed the speed limit) without the use of lights or sirens, at speeds above the limit then the FHP Pursuit Policy is in contradiction and violation of Florida Statute. The inescapable conclusion, if we are to believe Trooper Miller, is that the FHP Pursuit Policy sanctions the unlawful operation of police vehicles and ignores the statutory requirement that vehicles operating in emergency mode warn other traffic. If true, this is an unlawful, careless, senseless and reckless disregard of innocent and otherwise uninvolved vehicular traffic.

From the FHP Pursuit Policy:Members may pursue, attempt to stop and apprehend as expeditiously and safely as possible, any person in a vehicle who the member reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a crime of violence. ALL OTHER PURSUITS ARE PROHIBITED.

Since the suspect was being sought for speeding, reckless driving, or whatever the appropriate traffic charge would be it was not a crime of violence and consequently the pursuit was against FHP policy.

There are two lessons to be learned from this case. First, police agencies should not attempt to spin or color their information. To do so exposes the agency to critical examination, suspicion and questions of credibility. This practice, and departmental investigations that rubber-stamp the official story, undermines a needed effort to identify shortcomings in policy and practice. An agency that never makes a mistake can never improve.

The second, and perhaps the most important, is how important it is to recognize the extreme danger of police pursuits and to address this danger with appropriate policy, training, tracking and accountability. It is frightening to observe how the adrenaline overload of experienced, honorable and professional officers can influence the decisions they make. Trooper Darryl Haywood made a mistake, under extreme and stressful conditions, and he paid for his mistake with his life. His death is a tragic loss to his family and his agency as well as a loss to the citizens of Florida. The greatest loss and the ultimate disrespect, however, would be if the Florida Highway Patrol continues to bury their head in the sand and fails to learn from the circumstances of Trooper Haywood’s death.