Vehicle Pursuits

The purpose of Order 554 is to establish when JSO officers may pursue a vehicle and the procedures that must be followed during and after the pursuit.

The policy begins by recognizing that vehicle pursuits create a danger to the public, the officers, and the people inside the fleeing vehicle. Before beginning a pursuit, the officer must determine whether the danger created by allowing the vehicle to escape is greater than the danger created by the pursuit itself.

Generally, a pursuit may begin for one of two reasons. The officer may reasonably believe that the driver or an occupant committed one of the forcible felonies listed in the policy. The officer may also begin a pursuit when the person's actions before law enforcement attempted the stop created an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

The policy specifically states that reckless driving and repeated traffic violations do not, by themselves, create the imminent threat required under the second option.

Afterwards, the officer and monitoring lieutenant must continue evaluating the pursuit. They consider the traffic, weather, road conditions, speed, underlying offense, officer experience, condition of the police vehicles, and radio communication. When the danger created by the pursuit becomes greater than the danger created by allowing the person to escape, the pursuit must end.

There does not appear to be a United Nations standard written specifically for police vehicle pursuits. However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that law-enforcement operations should be planned in a manner that minimizes the risk to human life. It also states that excessive or potentially unlawful uses of force should be recorded and independently investigated. These principles are useful when examining a pursuit because the decision to pursue can create an additional danger that did not exist before the officer attempted the stop. Source: https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=8%2FhkQac9QXTcnTv%2BzIJlG3H72vyw9lNdm5SD8r6eS6%2BJa3O1reyrW0Sk3gC17FQLeEiRRLfFBl8Ol%2BdQfW3w%2Bg%3D%3D

There is more specific guidance in the United States. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice's COPS Office and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration worked with the Police Executive Research Forum to create a national guide for vehicle pursuits. The guide contains 65 recommendations involving pursuit standards, supervision, stopping tactics, reporting, training, and alternatives to pursuit. Source: https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/Home.aspx?item=cops-r1134

The guide recommends that a pursuit occur only when a violent crime has been committed and the suspect presents an imminent threat of committing another violent crime. When both conditions are not present, the guide recommends that officers use another method of apprehension. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

JSO uses a broader standard.

One of the stronger portions of Order 554 is that a person cannot normally be pursued simply because the person refuses to stop.

JSO requires an additional reason for the pursuit. Generally, the person must be connected to one of the forcible felonies listed in the policy or must have presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury before officers attempted the stop.

This distinction is important because a person may begin speeding or driving recklessly after the police pursuit begins. If that new dangerous driving could automatically become the reason for continuing the pursuit, the pursuit could create the condition used to justify itself.

The policy also requires officers to consider several safety factors before and during the pursuit.

These factors include the weather, traffic, condition of the roadway, speed of the vehicles, underlying offense, officer experience, vehicle condition, and quality of radio communication.

The officer must continue considering these factors after the pursuit begins.

Because of this, the fact that a pursuit was justified when it started does not automatically mean that it remains justified several minutes later. When the conditions change, the officer and lieutenant must reconsider whether the pursuit should continue.

The monitoring lieutenant also has a clear responsibility.

The lieutenant takes command of the pursuit and must terminate it when the danger created by the pursuit becomes greater than the danger created by allowing the vehicle to escape.

This authority also applies when the person who started the pursuit is a ranked member. Another lieutenant must monitor the pursuit, and that lieutenant has the final authority to terminate it.

The policy also limits how officers drive during the pursuit.

Officers cannot pursue against the normal flow of traffic on a divided highway, one-way road, entrance ramp, exit ramp, or service road. Emergency lights and sirens must remain activated throughout the pursuit.

The procedures for terminating the pursuit are also specific.

When the pursuit is terminated, officers must reduce their speed, deactivate the emergency equipment, change direction or stop, and stop following the subject vehicle.

Afterwards, officers may continue investigating the crime and seek a warrant when appropriate.

This is important because the policy recognizes that ending the pursuit does not mean ending the investigation.

Finally, every vehicle pursuit and forcible stopping tactic must be documented in a Vehicle Pursuit Report. The monitoring lieutenant normally has 10 calendar days to complete the report. Afterwards, a commander and the Professional Oversight Unit review it.

The Professional Oversight Unit and Crime Analysis Unit also complete an annual analysis of the pursuit reports.

Therefore, JSO already creates records that can be used to determine how often pursuits occur, why they occur, and whether officers followed the policy.

The first weakness appears in the pursuit threshold.

JSO allows a pursuit when the driver or an occupant committed one of the listed forcible felonies. It also allows a pursuit when the person presents the required imminent danger.

These are separate reasons.

The national guide recommends that both conditions exist. A violent crime should have occurred, and the person should present an imminent threat of another violent crime. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

Because of this difference, JSO may pursue a person based on a violent offense that occurred earlier even when there is no information showing that the person currently presents an imminent threat.

The policy still requires the officer to compare the danger created by pursuing with the danger created by allowing the person to escape. However, this comparison occurs after JSO has already decided that the prior offense is serious enough to make a pursuit available.

Another weakness is that the policy does not clearly require officers to consider whether the person can be arrested later.

This becomes important when the person's identity is already known.

The national guide recommends that an officer not pursue when the suspect is known, the suspect can be apprehended later, and delaying the arrest does not significantly increase the danger to the community. If this information becomes known after the pursuit begins, the guide recommends that the pursuit be discontinued. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

Order 554 does not place this requirement directly into the Vehicle Pursuit Safety Factors.

Therefore, the officer must determine whether allowing the person to escape is dangerous, but the policy does not specifically require the officer to determine whether the person is actually escaping apprehension or simply delaying the arrest.

The Specialized Investigations exception makes this problem more noticeable.

Members conducting a Specialized Investigations operation may receive advance approval from a lieutenant to pursue a known violent offender even when the normal pursuit criteria are not met.

The policy still requires the lieutenant to determine that the danger created by pursuing is less than the danger created by allowing the person to escape.

However, the exception allows the normal pursuit threshold to be bypassed.

The fact that the offender is known also creates another issue. When officers know the person's identity, that information may make a later arrest easier. The national guide specifically treats known identity as a reason to consider whether the arrest can occur later under safer conditions. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

Therefore, the Specialized Investigations provision uses known identity as part of an exception even though known identity may also reduce the need for an immediate pursuit.

Washington law provides another useful comparison.

Washington currently allows pursuits under a broader range of offenses than JSO. However, the law still requires the pursuit to be necessary for identifying or apprehending the person. The officer and supervisor must also consider alternatives to pursuit, along with the speed, weather, traffic, road conditions, and other safety factors. If the pursuit no longer meets those requirements, it must be terminated. Source: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.116.060

JSO has a strong risk-balancing requirement, but it does not use the same direct necessity requirement.

These two requirements are similar, but they are not identical.

A pursuit may be relatively safe and still be unnecessary because the person can be arrested later.

The blocking provision also creates an exception.

Normally, blocking may be used when the circumstances would have allowed a pursuit. However, the policy also allows blocking when a supervisor authorizes it.

Because these are written as separate options, supervisory approval appears capable of replacing the normal pursuit requirement.

Blocking generally occurs at a lower speed than a pursuit. However, it still involves intentionally using police vehicles to prevent another vehicle from moving.

The policy should therefore explain what additional circumstances allow a supervisor to authorize blocking when the ordinary pursuit criteria are not met.

The Precision Immobilization Technique creates another issue.

JSO places several restrictions on PIT. The officer must be trained, and PIT generally cannot be used against motorcycles, high center-of-gravity vehicles, open-top vehicles, or vehicles traveling more than 55 miles per hour unless deadly force is justified.

However, the monitoring lieutenant generally does not have to approve PIT before the officer uses it.

The national guide recommends that agencies require supervisory approval before PIT. It also recommends that the officer provide information about the speed, vehicles, environment, seriousness of the crime, reason for PIT, and planned location before the supervisor authorizes the maneuver. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

This is especially important under JSO's policy because a lieutenant is already responsible for managing the pursuit.

The lieutenant decides whether the pursuit itself should continue. However, an officer may generally decide to intentionally strike the fleeing vehicle without first receiving approval from the same lieutenant.

Ramming creates an additional problem.

JSO allows trained officers to ram a fleeing vehicle when PIT is not feasible. Many of the PIT restrictions also apply to ramming.

The national pursuit guide recommends prohibiting ramming and other tactics that use a police vehicle to forcibly stop a fleeing vehicle. It allows an exception for boxing a vehicle that is already stopped or nearly stopped because that situation creates a lower risk. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

Therefore, JSO authorizes a vehicle-contact tactic that the national guide recommends agencies prohibit.

Another weakness involves the information JSO collects.

Every pursuit is documented. However, the policy does not appear to require the same type of record when a driver flees and the officer decides not to pursue.

This means the annual analysis can show what happened during pursuits that occurred, but it cannot easily show how often officers decided that a pursuit was unnecessary or too dangerous.

Those decisions are also important.

If an officer follows the policy by allowing a fleeing vehicle to leave and arranging a later arrest, that decision provides information about whether the restrictions in Order 554 are actually being used.

The public reporting requirement is also limited.

Order 554 requires JSO to complete an annual analysis, but the policy does not require that analysis to be released to the public.

Pennsylvania provides one comparison. Pennsylvania law requires police departments to maintain records of every pursuit, including the reason for the pursuit, injuries, property damage, deaths, suspect information, charges, and whether the suspect was apprehended. The Pennsylvania State Police then compiles the information into a statewide annual report for state officials and legislative committees. Source: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/00.063.043.000..HTM

JSO already creates much of the information necessary for a similar analysis.

The difference is that Order 554 keeps the analysis primarily within JSO.

Finally, Order 554 does not establish an independent investigation when a pursuit results in a death.

New Jersey uses a different system. When a person dies during an encounter with law enforcement, the Attorney General's Office conducts the investigation and the matter is presented to a grand jury. This process has been used after deaths caused during vehicle pursuits. Source: https://www.njoag.gov/state-grand-jury-declines-to-file-criminal-charges-in-connection-with-july-2024-fatal-crash-in-east-orange-during-pursuit-by-bloomfield-police/

An outside investigation does not mean the pursuit was improper.

It means that the agency involved in the pursuit is not the only agency responsible for determining what happened.

The first change could be to add necessity directly to the pursuit requirement.

Before beginning a pursuit, the officer could determine whether the person must be apprehended immediately or whether another method can reasonably be used.

The officer could consider whether the person's identity is known, whether officers know where the person can later be found, whether a warrant can be obtained, and whether delaying the arrest would create an additional danger.

When the person's identity becomes known during the pursuit, the officer and monitoring lieutenant could perform the same review.

If the person can reasonably be arrested later and delaying the arrest does not increase the danger to the public, the pursuit could be terminated.

This would follow the national recommendation concerning known suspects and would be similar to Washington's requirement that a pursuit be necessary for identification or apprehension. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

JSO could also reconsider whether a prior forcible felony should be enough, by itself, to satisfy the pursuit threshold.

The national guide recommends that a violent crime and an ongoing imminent threat both be present. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

The Specialized Investigations exception could then be removed or narrowed.

If JSO continues to allow the exception, the approving lieutenant could be required to document why the person must be captured immediately, why a later arrest is not reasonable, and what danger would be created by waiting.

The fact that the person is a known violent offender would not, by itself, answer those questions.

The blocking provision could also be clarified.

Supervisory authorization could remain, but the policy could identify the conditions that must exist before a supervisor may authorize blocking when the ordinary pursuit requirements are not met.

PIT could require approval from the monitoring lieutenant when circumstances allow enough time to obtain it.

Prior to giving approval, the lieutenant could review the speed, road conditions, vehicle type, traffic, occupants, underlying offense, reason PIT is needed, and the intended location.

An exception could remain when an officer must act immediately to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

This would bring the policy closer to the national recommendation for PIT. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

Ramming could also be removed as an ordinary pursuit-ending tactic.

If a vehicle is being used in a manner that independently justifies deadly force, JSO could rely on the deadly-force standard in Order 551. Otherwise, officers could use another authorized stopping method.

This would follow the national recommendation that ramming and similar vehicle-contact tactics be prohibited during ordinary pursuits. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

The reporting system could also include incidents where an officer decides not to pursue.

These records do not need to be as extensive as a full Vehicle Pursuit Report. However, JSO could record why the stop was attempted, why the vehicle fled, whether the driver was identified, and why the officer decided not to pursue.

Afterwards, the annual analysis could compare pursuits with decisions not to pursue.

The annual analysis could also be released publicly.

It could include the number of pursuits, reason for the pursuit, whether the driver was known, duration, highest reported speed, crashes, injuries, deaths, PIT uses, ramming incidents, officer terminations, supervisor terminations, and final policy findings.

Pennsylvania's reporting requirements show that pursuit information can be collected across agencies and reviewed outside the individual police department. Source: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/00.063.043.000..HTM

Finally, pursuits resulting in death or life-threatening injury could receive an additional review outside JSO.

New Jersey's Attorney General process provides one example. A death occurring during an encounter with law enforcement is investigated outside the involved local agency and presented to a grand jury. Source: https://www.njoag.gov/ags-office-investigating-death-following-a-police-encounter-in-guttenberg-n-j/

Order 554 contains several safeguards that limit when a pursuit may occur.

The officer must identify a serious reason for the pursuit. The danger of pursuing must be compared with the danger of allowing the vehicle to escape. A lieutenant monitors the pursuit. The officer and lieutenant must continue reviewing the conditions as they change. Afterwards, the pursuit is documented and reviewed.

The largest remaining issue is whether the policy gives enough consideration to alternatives before the pursuit begins.

Order 554 asks whether pursuing the vehicle creates too much danger.

It does not clearly require the officer to determine whether immediate apprehension is necessary.

This difference becomes important when JSO already knows who the person is.

If the person can be identified, located, and arrested later without creating an additional danger to the public, the reason for accepting the danger of a pursuit becomes smaller. The national pursuit guide specifically recommends considering a later arrest in this situation. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

The Specialized Investigations exception creates the same issue.

The exception allows a known violent offender to be pursued when the normal pursuit criteria are not met.

Because the person is known, officers may already have information that would allow them to plan another arrest.

The policy should therefore explain why knowing who the person is sometimes supports an exception rather than supporting a decision to wait.

The use of PIT and ramming creates another concern.

JSO gives the monitoring lieutenant responsibility for deciding whether the pursuit should continue. However, the officer may generally use PIT or ramming without first receiving approval from the lieutenant.

The national guidance recommends supervisor approval before PIT and recommends prohibiting ramming as an ordinary pursuit tactic. Source: https://www.policeforum.org/assets/VehicularPursuits.pdf

Finally, JSO creates enough records to study its pursuit practices, but Order 554 does not require the annual analysis to be released publicly.

The policy also appears to leave out situations where a driver fled and the officer decided not to pursue.

Because of this, the current records can show how JSO's pursuits ended. They provide less information about how often officers avoided a pursuit entirely.

Both groups are useful.

The pursuits show when officers decided that immediate apprehension justified the risk. The non-pursuits would show when officers decided that the same risk was unnecessary.

Comparing the two would provide a better picture of how Order 554 is actually being used.