Atlanta police chief halts all vehicle chases (crime, felony)

[LynnHarris1]

City of Atlanta police officers will no longer chase suspects’ vehicles while the department reviews its protocol, Chief Erika Shields said Friday.

“Please know that I realize this will not be a popular decision; and more disconcerting to me personally, is that this decision may drive crime up,” Shields said in a memo to the department announcing the change. “I get it...”

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/...d748P8VdQrh7I/

SOURCE: AJC

[back2atl]

Yikes.

[ATLTJL]

So... next time the police try to pull you over, all you have to do is drive away?

Cool!

[Thulsa]

What I found interesting was her point that why risk lives and kill people chasing burglars when the courts immediately turn them loose. What's interesting isn't the observation, but rather that the police chief said it.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

So... next time the police try to pull you over, all you have to do is drive away?

Cool!

Chances are your license plate and identity will be in the system and they will just issue a general warrant for your arrest for not only the original offense, but also for fleeing the scene, resisting arrest, etc.

They can simply come get you later or have your local sheriff pick you up if you don't live in COA.

[ATLTJL]

I was using hyperbole.

This basically means anybody can do anything and get away with it, so long as they do so in a stolen car... or one where they simply remove the plate.

[Huckleberry3911948]

The good news police halting all police action reduces crime stats and law suits
The bad news your city becomes uninhabitable

[sedimenjerry]

There's been at least one thread in the past on this. I find it interesting (and sad) that on quite a few occasions, an innocent person or multiple people have been killed, and the offender was never even caught. It's not like a chase is guaranteed to end with the suspect apprehended. And it's not like every chase is for an extremely dangerous person.

I found this. It's from 2005 written by a police officer. Of note: "fewer than 17 percent of pursuits are initiated for a serious felony. That leaves an overwhelming majority of police pursuits being initiated for traffic violations and minor criminal offenses". In one situation, a teen fled a gas station without paying for their gas, they then struck and killed a 52 year old pedestrian.

Phoenix in the mid 2000s changed their pursuit policy to exclude stolen cars:
"The new policy came about after the department looked at 423 pursuits in 2002 and noted that only 43 of those pursuits resulted in arrests for violent felonies, but 25 percent of the pursuits ended in traffic collisions. "

43 of 423 pursuits. That's a tick above 10%. So only ~10% of chases resulted in arrests for violent felonies but 25% ended in collisions. That doesn't seem like a good trade off to me.

And Atlanta isn't the first to curtail pursuits. APD may eventually go to a more restrictive policy instead of a complete no chase. Here's an interesting quote: " Vaughan showed a video of a sheriff haphazardly ramming a fleeing car, causing it to flip and eject the driver and her young child. "The driver ran because she had a small amount of crack," Vaughan said. "Can you shoot someone for having a little rock?" After a long period one officer finally uttered a quiet, "No.""

In short, if my car is stolen, well s*** that sucks, but I don't want an innocent family to pay a massive price for that.

[Yoski]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

There's been at least one thread in the past on this. I find it interesting (and sad) that on quite a few occasions, an innocent person or multiple people have been killed, and the offender was never even caught. It's not like a chase is guaranteed to end with the suspect apprehended. And it's not like every chase is for an extremely dangerous person.

I found this. It's from 2005 written by a police officer. Of note: "fewer than 17 percent of pursuits are initiated for a serious felony. That leaves an overwhelming majority of police pursuits being initiated for traffic violations and minor criminal offenses". In one situation, a teen fled a gas station without paying for their gas, they then struck and killed a 52 year old pedestrian.

Phoenix in the mid 2000s changed their pursuit policy to exclude stolen cars:
"The new policy came about after the department looked at 423 pursuits in 2002 and noted that only 43 of those pursuits resulted in arrests for violent felonies, but 25 percent of the pursuits ended in traffic collisions. "

43 of 423 pursuits. That's a tick above 10%. So only ~10% of chases resulted in arrests for violent felonies but 25% ended in collisions. That doesn't seem like a good trade off to me.

And Atlanta isn't the first to curtail pursuits. APD may eventually go to a more restrictive policy instead of a complete no chase. Here's an interesting quote: " Vaughan showed a video of a sheriff haphazardly ramming a fleeing car, causing it to flip and eject the driver and her young child. "The driver ran because she had a small amount of crack," Vaughan said. "Can you shoot someone for having a little rock?" After a long period one officer finally uttered a quiet, "No.""

In short, if my car is stolen, well s*** that sucks, but I don't want an innocent family to pay a massive price for that.

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

There's been at least one thread in the past on this. I find it interesting (and sad) that on quite a few occasions, an innocent person or multiple people have been killed, and the offender was never even caught. It's not like a chase is guaranteed to end with the suspect apprehended. And it's not like every chase is for an extremely dangerous person.

I found this. It's from 2005 written by a police officer. Of note: "fewer than 17 percent of pursuits are initiated for a serious felony. That leaves an overwhelming majority of police pursuits being initiated for traffic violations and minor criminal offenses". In one situation, a teen fled a gas station without paying for their gas, they then struck and killed a 52 year old pedestrian.

Phoenix in the mid 2000s changed their pursuit policy to exclude stolen cars:
"The new policy came about after the department looked at 423 pursuits in 2002 and noted that only 43 of those pursuits resulted in arrests for violent felonies, but 25 percent of the pursuits ended in traffic collisions. "

43 of 423 pursuits. That's a tick above 10%. So only ~10% of chases resulted in arrests for violent felonies but 25% ended in collisions. That doesn't seem like a good trade off to me.

And Atlanta isn't the first to curtail pursuits. APD may eventually go to a more restrictive policy instead of a complete no chase. Here's an interesting quote: " Vaughan showed a video of a sheriff haphazardly ramming a fleeing car, causing it to flip and eject the driver and her young child. "The driver ran because she had a small amount of crack," Vaughan said. "Can you shoot someone for having a little rock?" After a long period one officer finally uttered a quiet, "No.""

In short, if my car is stolen, well s*** that sucks, but I don't want an innocent family to pay a massive price for that.

Thanks for your input. I am happy to see the Atlanta police force examine their procedures using research-backed data instead of just continuing something just because "that's the way it's always been."