In 2005, California logged more than 7,700 police pursuits in which 16 people died and 1,351 were injured. Though legislators last year passed a law that may or may not curb the number of pursuits, this explosive debate is far from over. Will repealing California’s unique system of liability protection for police officers lead to fewer injuries and deaths? Should legislators set the standards of when officers can and cannot pursue a fleeing vehicle? Or should individual law enforcement agencies be left to decide how best to respond when a driver decides to run?
Correspondent Lisa McRee reports.
- Kristie’s Law website, devoted to innocent victims of police pursuits
- California State Senator Sam Aanestad who sponsored Kristie’s Law
- Peace Officers Research Association of California
- California State Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, author of SB719.
Listen to the commentary
May 12th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Senator Romero says that she wrote SB719, not law enforcement. What no one said, though, is that the reason that Kristie’s Law failed and 719 didn’t, is because our representatives knew that law enforcement was afraid of Kristie’s Law and our representatives were afraid of loosing the support of law enforcement. As usual, that’s what this life and death matter comes down to – politics. So Senator Romero and law enforcement compromised with SB719. Senator Romero’s bill does nothing. First and most important, the police don’t loose their blanket immunity, so they can’t be held responsible when they do not follow their policy and an innocent person dies. Second, it does not require police officers to follow their pursuit policies. Third, a suspect MIGHT get a stiffer penalty, but then maybe not. The whole basis for this law was that with the stiffer penalties that they MIGHT get, people would be less likely to run. In Judy Muller’s piece, “Cut to the Chase,” she said that 64% of these criminals, who ran from the police, said they did it because they didn’t think they would get caught. What does that tell you? If they don’t think they’ll get caught, they aren’t worrying about stiffer penalties. Oh yes, SB719 will also compensate the victims. I ask everyone who reads this comment to sit back and think about how much the person that you love most in the world is worth. Our representatives seem to believe that if a person dies as the result of an out of control (and very few, if any, are controlled) police pursuit, that person’s loved ones will be satisfied to be paid for that life. Again, I ask you, how much are your loved ones worth?
May 14th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
I would like to clarify a statement I made during the interview about the chase that killed my innocent daughter Kristie. My statement, “She (the fleeing teen) was never physically arrested,” refers specifically to the night of the chase. While I watched Kristie die at the hospital, the teen was released from the hospital and went home with her mother. As I buried Kristie, the teen was still at home with her mother. The teen was finally physically arrested 20 days after the chase … and then to serve only one year in juvenile hall. I believe these facts beg the question: Why the chase?
To Lisa McRee, Coll Metcalfe and everyone who worked on this program, thank you very much. Programs, such as yours, will eventually lead to better pursuit policies and practices that will save innocent lives. And, that’s what Kristie’s Law is all about – preventing these tragedies and saving the lives of innocent people and our officers!
It has been reported in various news media that at least eight innocent victims of pursuit have been killed in California since January 2006 which is when Senator Romero’s law took effect. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that a combined total of 59 innocent victims were killed in California police chases in 2001, 2002, and 2003. They were either in another car or pedestrians. Fifty-nine divided by 3 equals 19.66, so the number of deaths to innocent victims in 2006 is still in line with the numbers prior to Senator Romero’s law. Also, injuries, some of them life-altering, are not tracked.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:30 am
It is truely unfortunated about your daughter. As a parent it would be devistating. As a police officer in NY, law prohibits the arrest of a 15 year old, she would have only been referred to a probation officer. As far as what ever termination you would use, whether following, catching up, pursuing or what ever, police still need to do there job and traffic enforcement is part of it. If you allow anyone to do what ever they please, more problems are the result. Instead of slamming law enforcement, why don’t you try making more people accountable for there actions and making stiffer penalties for motorists who also put poce officers lives in danger for getting themselves in a pursuit in the first place.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Officer Ennist,
I am not “slamming law enforcement.” The Kristie’s Law web site is very clear that I hold the drivers who flee accountable, and I do not blame officers for the actions of those who flee. My ideal version of Kristie’s Law has four components. The first is making fleeing a felony with mandatory prison time, whether or not an innocent person or officer is killed or injured.
Since law enforcement’s first job is to “serve and protect,” I do expect officers to follow the pursuit policy their agency has actually adopted. California’s state law on pursuits does not hold law enforcement agencies accountable when officers fail to follow their pursuit policy.
Prior to the chase, the Chico officers knew the full identity & age of the teen and that she had taken her mother’s car without permission. Here are just three examples of how the officers violated their pursuit policy:
Chico’s 2002 Pursuit Policy states:
1. “A pursuit shall be abandoned if it is traversing traffic-controlled intersections.”
Prior to the chase, the teen was not speeding and she was not running stop signs. During the chase, she ran her first stop sign at 30 mph. According to the policy, the pursuit should have been terminated. Yet, officers continued to chase her at night through a poorly lit residential neighborhood even though she ran three more stop signs. From statements in the police transcript and report, as the chase continued the speed fluctuated, reaching highs from 50 to 65 mph until she ran her fifth stop sign and plowed into our van that was traveling on an intersecting street with the right of way.
2. Chico’s policy states: “Whenever the collision risks outweigh the benefits of apprehending the violator, the pursuit shall be abandoned.”
Early in the chase, she almost hit another innocent third party, so there was obviously a collision risk due to the chase. Narrow roads and poor visibility were other factors.
3. Chico’s pursuit policy advises officers to catch juveniles later (i.e., not chase them), especially if officers know the juvenile’s identity.
Obviously, the policy writer understood clearly that chasing inexperienced drivers poses an even greater threat to public safety since the inexperienced driver is now racing through streets, disobeying traffic signs and looking in their rearview mirror to see the police cars. Remember, prior to the chase her driving was not posing a threat to public safety.
I agree with you that no one should be allowed to break the law. In the March 2006 issue of “The Police Chief Magazine,” Lt. John Specht of the Hillsboro, Oregon, Police Department, makes two important points in his article on police pursuits:
1. “The earlier a pursuit is terminated, the more likely it is that the fleeing driver will return to safe speeds or abandon the vehicle in the immediate vicinity.”
2. “Abandoning the pursuit does not mean the officer stops apprehension efforts; rather, the officer initiates other resources to bring about the apprehension.”
Respectfully,
Candy Priano
March 16th, 2007 at 8:23 am
My main comment is that the liability for any damage caused during a pursuit should be squarely in the court of the criminal and not the law enforncement agency. It is the criminal who is creating the dangerous situation and is the reason that the police are reacting as such. Of course, the realpolitik of the situation is that most criminals don’t have much in the way of assets, whereas most law enforcement entities do, in one form or another. So guess who gets the lawsuit? The law enforcement agency, of course! This ensues discussions like this. Police cars have sirens and beacon lights on them for a reason. It is a citizen’s duty to pay attention when out of doors and listen to the world around themselves. In short, I want the police to chase down the bad guys, because criminals belong in jail, or at the very least making restitution to the people they have wronged.