The PIT Maneuver: Should it be Taught?

Radley AmeraultSanford Police Department

FDLE Analyst AcademyClass XI

November 17, 2008

Source: Lynnette Spratley

- 1 -

Executive Summary

There are many areas of police work that are considered high risk, one of which involves

pursuit driving and pursuit ending techniques. Many agencies form policies that don’t allow their

officers to participate in pursuits, and of the agencies that do allow pursuits many don’t allow the

use of the pursuit intervention technique (PIT) maneuver. The basis of this assessment is to

take a look at the PIT maneuver and decide of it should be taught to officers at the Sanford

Police Department for use on the road.

As of recent years, the most common used method to end a pursuit has become

stop sticks. Police agencies view this method as the least dangerous/obtrusive way to end a

pursuit, however, data shows that stop sticks can be very dangerous for the officer and the

offender alike. The PIT maneuver has long been under scrutiny as being too high risk for

officers to be taught and employed, but statistics show that it is unlikely that the maneuver will

end in an accident or fatality.

A survey of forty local agencies was completed in order to collect comparison data

surrounding the issues of pursuits and the PIT maneuver. This information gives the raw data

for which agencies are actually using these methods, and why they feel that it is either

necessary or dangerous. Statistics were also collected surrounding police involved crashes,

police pursuits, and pursuit intervention techniques. Lastly, a content analysis was completed to

determine how the public and media view the use of the technique.

After compiling and reviewing the data at hand, it was determined teaching the officers

of the Sanford Police Department the use of the PIT maneuver may be very beneficial.

However, it is recommended that certain criteria be met before the use of the maneuver. These

conditions should be clearly detailed in policy and through training. Recommendations for

equipment and funding are also included.

- 2 -

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1

Table of Contents....................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Tables .......................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4

Sanford Demographics .............................................................................................................. 5

Pursuit ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Policy ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Training .................................................................................................................................. 6

Statistics ................................................................................................................................ 7

PIT Maneuver ............................................................................................................................ 9

Myths ....................................................................................................................................10

Liability ..................................................................................................................................10

Scott v. Harris .......................................................................................................................11

Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................11

Content Analysis ...................................................................................................................12

SPD PIT Maneuver Survey .......................................................................................................12

Survey Limitations.................................................................................................................12

Response Rate .....................................................................................................................13

Data ......................................................................................................................................13

Recommendations ....................................................................................................................15

Policy ....................................................................................................................................15

Training .................................................................................................................................15

Equipment.............................................................................................................................15

- 3 -

Funding .................................................................................................................................16

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................16

Works Cited ..............................................................................................................................17

Appendix 1 – Sanford PD PIT Maneuver Survey.......................................................................19

Appendix 2 – Survey Respondents ...........................................................................................21

Appendix 3 – Sanford Police Department Pursuit Policy ...........................................................22

Appendix 4 – Scott v. Harris Syllabus .......................................................................................33

Table of Tables

Table 1 – Pursuit Reason by Category....................................................................................... 6

Table 2 – Pursuit Duration ......................................................................................................... 8

Table 3 – Pursuit Distance ......................................................................................................... 8

Table 4 – Injury Statistics ........................................................................................................... 8

Table 5 – Intervention Method...................................................................................................11

Table 6 – Agency Survey Results .............................................................................................14

Table 7 – Reasons Not to Employ PIT ......................................................................................14

Table of Figures

Figure 1 – PIT Maneuver on Cover

Figure 2 – PIT Maneuver in Action............................................................................................. 9

- 4 -

Introduction

Imagine working a long full day of work and at the end of the day looking forward to

going home and relaxing. You walk in your front door only to find your house torn apart and

ransacked, and then you realize that your spare car is missing from the garage. You feel

completely violated and call the Police. The Police respond and claim they have a good idea

who committed the crime. You are contacted by the Police later and told that the suspect who

burglarized your home was apprehended after a pursuit. The news claims that a pursuit

intervention technique (PIT) maneuver was used in order to stop this fleeing felon. Your

property has been recovered, along with your vehicle.

In Lee County, Florida the above example became reality. On June 5, 2007, Deputies

from the Lee County Sheriff’s Office began a high-speed chase with a burglary suspect. On that

day, the suspect had burglarized two houses, stole a vehicle from one of the houses and then

led the police on the chase. NBC News reported that, “The chase began as deputies attempted

to stop him at an intersection in North Fort Myers.” The suspect rammed police vehicles, and

finally after two attempts the suspect was stopped by the use of the PIT maneuver. The suspect

was a well known criminal with a suspended license and burglary arrests dating back to 2002.

Lieutenant Robert Forrest of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office said that, “Training paid off.”

“Police pursuits have become a part of American culture…from the time of the old west

posses, to the modern day movies, television and live news broadcasts, people have been

fascinated by pursuits,” (Noble). Police pursuits and the use of intervention techniques are

viewed as a very controversial issue, and many police agencies battle with the issue of how

these tools should be used. The basis of this assessment is to take a deeper look into the use of

pursuit intervention technique (PIT) maneuvers and if they should be taught to the officers at the

Sanford Police Department.

- 5 -

Sanford Demographics

One of the major issues an agency has to face when deciding whether their policy

should permit the PIT maneuver is the demographical make-up of their jurisdiction. The city of

Sanford sits on the shore of Lake Monroe in Seminole County, and has a population of 50,468

(U.S. Census Bureau). The population density for the city is 2,004.1/mi², and the city is

predominately residential. There are 14,237 households, and about 13 percent of them live

below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau). Basically the major concern at hand is since the

city is very densely populated, would the use of the PIT maneuver put the citizens of Sanford at

risk? The majority of the roads within Sanford are not major thoroughfares, they are

neighborhood streets and completion of the PIT maneuver may be risky.

Pursuit

Most situations where the PIT maneuver would be used begin with a pursuit. The

Association of Chiefs of Police define a pursuit as, “An active attempt by an officer in an

authorized emergency vehicle to apprehend fleeing suspects who are attempting to avoid

apprehension through evasive tactics,”. Pursuits have been viewed as a very controversial topic

in police work, and they are often considered a double edged sword. “It was not until the 1960s

that police pursuit was considered a critical issue for either the police or the public…during that

decade, two juxtaposed positions became the focus of the pursuit debate: the benefit of pursuit,

or need to enforce laws and apprehend violators; and the risk of pursuit, or the importance of

public safety,” (MacDonald and Alpert). Becknell et al. (1999) in their California Highway Patrol

study it was found that a typical pursuit included some of the following factors: initiated by traffic

violations, took place at night, continued for one mile, lasted one to two miles, involved two

police cars, was terminated voluntarily by the offender and involved a male driver 20 years old.

- 6 -

PolicySince pursuit is such a hot topic, almost all agencies have policy concerning pursuit

circumstances. “Nearly all of the

agencies (91 percent) reported

having written policies governing

pursuit situations, though the dates

that their current policies were

implemented varied considerably

from as early as 1970 to as recent

as 1995,”(Kenney and Alpert). The

most common variable in pursuit

policy is that a felony crime must have been committed to warrant a pursuit. Many agencies

have a no pursuit policy under any circumstances; Sanford Police Department follows the same

pursuit policy of the Seminole County Sheriff’s office, which is only to initiate pursuit after the

commission of a felony crime.

TrainingMost agencies have set up some sort of driving training for their officers/deputies. “60

percent of the agencies responding provide entry-level pursuit driving training at the academy,

the average time devoted to these skills was estimated at less than fourteen hours…the

remaining 40 percent of the agencies reported no pre-service pursuit training,” (Kenney and

Alpert). The training for police driving has changed monumentally over the years. Payne and

Fenske (1997) found that earlier training emphasized skill and vehicle handling while later

training changed from skill to policy issues and restrictions as well as skill development. Page et

al. (2008) found that pursuit driver training improved memory for skill-based information. Part of

driving training may include the teaching of pursuit termination methods. “…officers must be

Table 1. Pursuit ReasonSource: International Association of Chiefs of Police

- 7 -

trained in how and when to use the many tools and skills available for disabling a suspects

vehicle prior to a lengthy and increasingly dangerous pursuit…this includes the deployment of

“stop sticks” to flatten the suspect’s tires and the use of pursuit intervention technique (PIT)

maneuver to spin the suspect’s vehicle to a stop,” (Daniels and Spratley)

StatisticsThere have been numerous amounts of research that looks at the statistics surrounding

pursuit to assess its cost effectiveness. Crew and Hart (1999) found that the overall cost of

pursuits and pursuit techniques during 1997 was $44,252,170. The monetary amount of pursuits

appears to be high; however the benefits outweigh the costs. “In the pursuits, 77% of the

suspects were apprehended; 70 % ended without an accident; and 68% lasted less than 5

miles,” Alpert and Anderson (1986) commented on their research of the California Highway

Patrol. In Crews and Fridell’s (1995) look into cost efficiency of pursuits they found that the

chances of catching an offender are 44.1 % greater than an accident occurring, or put another

way the odds are 4.5 times greater that the offender will be caught than that there will be an

accident. A look into statistics closer to home revealed that Metro-Dade Police found less than 1

percent of accidents were attributed to police pursuits (Alpert and Dunham). During 2006, there

were twenty-two motor vehicle traffic fatalities during police pursuits in Florida (NCSA). Of the

twenty-two fatalities 11 of the descendants were from the pursued vehicle, 10 were occupants

of another vehicle and one was a non-occupant. None of the fatalities during 2006 were

occupants of police vehicles.

- 8 -

Table 2. Pursuit DurationSource: International Association of Chiefs of Police

Table 3. Pursuit DistanceSource: International Association of Chiefs of Police

Table 4. Injury StatisticsSource: International Association of Chiefs of Police

- 9 -

PIT Maneuver

The PIT maneuver is one of the available methods for officers to end pursuits; however,

it is not often taught or employed due to perceived danger. The PIT Maneuver first gained use

during the 1970’s and its origins can be found in Germany (Wikipedia). Zhou et al. state that the

first law enforcement agency to employ the PIT as a technique to halt pursued vehicles was the

Fairfax County Police Department of Virginia in 1985. The PIT maneuver can be defined as, “a

method by which one car pursuing another can force the pursued vehicle to abruptly turn

sideways to the direction of travel, causing the driver to lose control and stop,” (Wikipedia).

There are few agencies that actually teach these methods, and research shows that

more county agencies use the

maneuver than do

municipalities. Kenney and

Alpert (1997) showed in their

analysis of pursuit elements that

far fewer agencies permitted

vehicle immobilization

techniques (5%) and that county

officers were significantly more

likely to be permitted to employ

roadblocks, spinouts, or barrier

strips than officers from

municipalities. When used

properly, the PIT maneuver is a very safe and effective way to end pursuits. Police personnel

can improve the use of this method in many ways. Supervisory input can help officers determine

when the use of the PIT maneuver is appropriate. Outfitting police vehicles with safety

Figure 2. PIT ManeuverSource: TruTV

- 10 -

mechanism can also increase the chances for success. Strict adherence to policy will most

likely contribute the most to successful use of the PIT maneuver.

MythsThere are many myths that have formed about the PIT maneuver, and these myths have

become the reasons that many agencies don’t employ the maneuver. The first myth is that the

PIT maneuver is basically just ramming, but this is simply not true. Captain Travis Yates states

that, “Ramming a vehicle is considered deadly force and banned by most police departments.

The PIT is a precision maneuver that requires substantial training. When done correctly, very

little damage will be done to the vehicle and the officer and suspect will have no injuries,”

(2004). The second myth is that the PIT is difficult and training is expensive and takes too long.

However, in reality, the maneuver itself is not difficult, but making the decision of when to use

the technique may be. Yates states that, “The average training course for PIT is just 1 day, and

the updates can take as little as 4 hours per year,” (2004). The last myth is that the PIT should

only be used when deadly force is appropriate. Yates claims that, “When used correctly along

with adequate training an officer can place a suspect vehicle to a predetermined point, and

injuries are rare and the success is very high. By considering the PIT maneuver as an

intermediate force, officers can utilize it much more often to stop dangerous police pursuits,”

(2004).

LiabilityNo area of police work holds more issues with liability than that of pursuits and pursuit

ending techniques. “As with any other law enforcement operation, the risk of lawsuit can be

avoided, diminished, or at the very least controlled by policy and training. With proper policy and

training the performance of officers in conducting pursuits may be brought into conformity with

existing legal mandates,” (Public Agency Training Council). Agencies can reduce the risk of

liability issues with a very detailed policy and adequate training. To help fund liability issues,

- 11 -

should they arise, the option for a grant is available. There are grants that focus on PIT

maneuver training and paying for liability. When it comes to liability, one of the main concerns

for many agencies is that the PIT maneuver was a constitutional violation of the fourth

amendment. However, in 2007 the Supreme Court sided with law enforcement and found that

this is not the case.

Scott v. HarrisThe issues surrounding the PIT maneuver have made their way to the Supreme Court.

In Scott v. Harris, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the police (2007). In this case, Officer

Scott was attempting to terminate a pursuit and rammed the back of Harris’s vehicle; Harris lost

control of his vehicle and crashed ending up a quadriplegic. The Supreme Court ruled that, “A

police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed chase that threatens the lives of

innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth amendment, even when it places the fleeing

motorist at risk of serious injury or death, “(2007).

AlternativesSince there are many agencies that don’t employ the PIT maneuver, alternative methods

to end pursuits have been developed. The most commonly used alternative method is spike

strips, also known as a tire deflation

device. Spike strips are devices

used to impede or stop movement

of wheeled vehicles by puncturing

their tires (Wikipedia). The IACP

(2004) found in their study of police

pursuits that of the 123 pursuits

ended by police intervention, 45 (36.5%) were ended by tire deflators. Even though this is the

preferred method of use, the use of spike strips can be very dangerous. “The use of “stop

Table 5. Intervention MethodSource: International Association of Chiefs of Police

- 12 -

sticks” or spike strips that puncture a car’s tires has raised serious safety questions,” (Hurst).

The danger of stop sticks occurs as the officers are placing and removing the devices. Between

1996 and 2005, there were 14 officers killed while deploying spike strips (Floyd). The main

perception is that the spike strips are a safer alternative to the PIT maneuver, but statistics show

that this is not the case. The PIT maneuver is not foolproof; however, data has shown that

mishaps are rare (Hurst).

Content AnalysisA review of twenty articles was completed to determine how the PIT maneuver is viewed

by the media and public eye. Of the twenty articles, seventy percent (14) of the articles were

deemed positive. These articles noted how successful the method was, even if slight damage or

injury occurred. Many of the articles praised the officers for ending the pursuits in such an

efficient manner. Only six of the articles had negative connotations. These articles employed

such emotional words as catastrophic and disastrous. These same articles detailed the

improper uses of the PIT maneuver, and how when it is used incorrectly dangerous situations

may arise. In general, the content analysis showed a positive response to the use of the PIT

maneuver.

SPD PIT Maneuver Survey

Between September and November of 2008, a survey of forty police departments and

sheriff’s offices located throughout Florida was accomplished. The survey asked questions

regarding the agencies pursuit policy, use of the PIT maneuver, and officer crash statistics for

the 2008 year thus far.

Survey LimitationsAlthough every effort was made to gather data in the most effective way possible, the

survey contained some limitations. The majority of the questions required a simple yes or no

- 13 -

answer; however, a handful required the respondent to answer open ended questions. These

questions tended to be left blank, and would have been more effective if phrased differently.

When the open-ended questions were answered, insufficient explanation was often given. More

questions could have been presented to delve deeper into the subject matter. The questions at

hand merely grazed the surface.

The other issue that limited the survey was that of sensitivity. Pursuit policy and the PIT

maneuver are two very controversial issues and people tend to tread lightly around them. The

survey was created so that the sensitive questions were not the first questions asked with hopes

for increased response.

Response RateForty agencies were asked to participate in the survey, and of the forty agencies only

fifteen responded for a response rate of 37.5%.

DataAnalysis of the survey data uncovered that only four of the fifteen responding

agencies use the PIT maneuver (see table 6). Interestingly, three of the four agencies fall within

Seminole County. It was previously noted that county agencies tend to employ the PIT more

than city municipalities, but the data at hand shows an even split.

The two cities that employ the use of the PIT maneuver have very similar geography in

respect to Sanford, and have success with their use of the PIT maneuver. It might be expected

that the agencies that employ the PIT maneuver have the highest occurrences of accidents;

however, this is not the case. The use of the PIT maneuver did not increase the number of

accidents that occurred YTD.

- 14 -

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Forthcoming In Use Liability No Need

Agency#

Sworn

FormalizedDefensive

Driving Training

PitUsed

#Accidents

YTD

AccidentsDuringPursuit

YTD

Indian River SO 218 Yes No 5 0

Port Orange PD 84 No No 11 0

Casselberry PD 56 No No 4 0

Daytona Beach Shores 40 No No 7 0

Hialeah Gardens PD 38 No No 0 0

Flagler County SO 150 Yes No 7 0

Lake Mary PD 39 Yes Yes 2 0

Seminole County SO 1000 Yes Yes UN UN

Deland PD 65 No No 4 0

Lee County SO 1029 Yes Yes 176 12

Ocoee PD 66 No No 8 1

South Daytona PD 30 No No 5 0

Longwood PD 40 Yes Yes 6 0

Maitland PD 42 No No 0 0

Altamonte Springs PD 105 Yes No 40 2

Table 6. Agency Survey ResultsSource: Amerault

When asked why the agency opted not to use the PIT maneuver as a technique to end

pursuits, the most common response was liability (see table 7). Ten out of the fifteen

respondents claimed that upper management saw the use of the PIT maneuver as a dangerous

liability. One

agency responding

that their agency

saw no need for it,

and another that

their agency was

going to shortly

begin using the

maneuver.

Table 7. Reason Not to Employ PITSource: Amerault

- 15 -

Recommendations

The occurrence of fleeing suspects is going to be a continuing issue in police work, and

how to safely end these pursuits should be determined. The following recommendations are all

based on the larger proposal to in fact teach the PIT maneuver to the officers of the Sanford

Police Department.

PolicyAs stated earlier, a large portion of the problems associated with the PIT maneuver can

be quashed by a clearly defined policy. The following elements are suggested to be included in

the policy concerning the employment of the PIT maneuver.

In order to use the maneuver, the authorization must be received from a supervisor.

The maneuver may only be used with the pursuit of extreme felonies.

The maneuver may only be used when the speed of the pursuit is not over 35 MPH.

The maneuver may only be used on non-residential streets with no curbs.

The maneuver should only be employed when stop sticks are not available for use.

TrainingAlong with policy, training is another important way to reduce the risk of improper use of

the PIT maneuver. The following elements are recommended for training for the use of the PIT

maneuver.

All officers should be trained in the use of the maneuver.

The training should be completed through the local Sheriff’s Office.

The officers should be required to take an annual refresher course.

EquipmentThere are products that can improve the likelihood for a successful employment of the

PIT maneuver. The following items are suggested for the officer’s vehicles.

- 16 -

Pit Bumpers- to decrease the damage and problems associated with different bumper

heights during the maneuver.

In vehicle cameras- to document the entire incident for court purposes.

FundingWith the diminishing economy, one of the concerns of police agencies is where to get

the money to fund the training and liability issues (should they arise) of the PIT maneuver. The

proposed ways to fund the installment of the PIT maneuver are:

Reallocation of current funds (agency level).

Local City and State funds

Grants

Conclusion

There are many aspects of police work that are considered highly dangerous, and

probably one of the most dangerous aspects is that of pursuits. After catching a criminal in the

act, it is unlikely that the criminal is going to hand themselves over. Typically in these situations

pursuits ensue. It is the responsibility of the officer to end these pursuits in the safest manner for

themselves and the community. The PIT maneuver has proven to be one of the most effective

ways to end pursuits. After research and analysis, the PIT has shown to be not as dangerous as

always thought to be. Proper policy and training can lead to successful pursuit ending measures

that protect the citizens and officers alike.

- 17 -

Works Cited

Alpert, Geoffrey P., and Patrick R. Anderson. "The Most Deadly Force: Police Pursuits." Justice

Quarterly 3.1 (1986): 1-14.

Alpert, Geoffrey P., and R. G. Dunham. Police Pursuit Driving: Controlling Responses to

Emergency Situations. New York: Greenwood, 1990.

Amerault, Radley. "Sanford PD PIT Maneuver Survey." Survey. (2008).

Becknell, Conan, G. Larry Mays, and Dennis M. Giever. "Policy Restrictiveness and Police

Pursuits." Policing 22.1 (1999): 93.

Boxleitner, Grant. "PIT Maneuver Ends High Speed Chase." NBC2 News (2008).

Court, 511 US Supreme. "Scott V. Harris." 2007. Vol. 127 S. Ct.

Crew Jr, Robert E., and Lorie A. Fridell. "Probabilities and Odds in Hot Pursuit: A Benefit-Cost

Analysis." Journal of Criminal Justice 23.5 (1995): 417.

Crew, Robert E., Jr., and Robert A. Hart, Jr. "Assessing the Value of Police Pursuit." Policing

22.1 (1999): 58.

Daniels, W., and L. Spratley. "Brainpower Not Horsepower: Teaching Officers When and How to

End Pursuits." Law and Order 51.7 (2003): 5.

Eisenberg, C. "Pursuit Management." Law & Order 47.3 (1999): 73-77.

Floyd, Craig W. "Spike Strips Pose Own Element of Danger, While Making Vehicle Pursuits

Safer." American Police Beat (2008).

Hurst, Nathan. "Police Say Maneuver Safely Halts Fleeing Car." The Seattle Times (2006).

IACP. Model Policy: Vehicular Pursuit. Washington DC, 1990.

IACP, Managing Police Pursuits. Washington DC, 2004.

- 18 -

Kenney, Dennis Jay, and Geoffrey P. Alpert. "A National Survey of Pursuits and the Use of

Police Force: Data from Law Enforcement Agencies." Journal of Criminal Justice 25.4

(1997): 315.

MacDonald, John M., and Geoffrey P. Alpert. "Public Attitudes toward Police Pursuit Driving."

Journal of Criminal Justice 26.3 (1998): 185.

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Fatality Analysis Reporting System. "Fatalities in

Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes Involving Police Pursuit." (2006).

Noble, Jeff. "Police Pursuits: Law Enforcement or Public Safety?" Journal of California Law

Enforcement 33.1 (1999): 4.

Page, Jonathan W., et al. "Pursuit Driver Training Improves Memory for Skill-Based

Information." Police Quarterly 11.3 (2008): 353-65.

Payne, Dennis M., and John C. Fenske. "An Analysis of the Rates of Accidents, Injuries and

Fatalities under Different Light Conditions a Michigan Emergency Response Study of

State Police Pursuits." Policing 20.2 (1997): 357.

Public Agency Training Council. "High Speed Vehicle Pursuit Liability." <

http://www.patc.com/courses/liability-vehicle.shtml>

United States. Census Bureau. 2007 Population Estimates (2007).

---. ---. 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights (2000).

Wikipedia. "Pit Maneuver". 2007. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIT_maneuver>.

Wikipedia. "Spike Strips". 2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_strip>.

Yates, Cpt. Travis. "Pursuit Intervention Technique: Myth vs. Fact." PursuitWatch (2004).

Zhou, Jing, et al. "Vehicle Dynamics in Response to the Maneuver of Precision Immobilization

Technique." Dynamic Systems and Control (2008).

- 19 -

Appendix 1 – Sanford PD PIT Maneuver Survey

Sanford PoliceDepartment

Crime Analysis Unit

Pit Maneuver Survey

Name of Agency:

Number of sworn personnel:

Size of jurisdiction:

Does your agency have a pursuit policy? Yes No

What does the policy say?

(or attach policy)

Do you assist other agencies with pursuits? Yes No

Do other agencies assist your agency with pursuits? Yes No

Do you teach your officers defensive driving techniques? Yes No

Does your agency have formalized training for defensive driving? Yes No

Does your agency employ the pit maneuver? Yes No

If yes…

- 20 -

what kind of training do your Officers/Deputies go through to learn the maneuver?

What does your policy say about the use of the maneuver?

(or attach policy)

Does your agency assist other agencies with the use of the pit maneuver? Yes No

Do all of your officers/deputies learn the maneuver, or just a few? All Few

If no…

Why not employ the maneuver?

Does your agency receive assistance from other agencies when the pit maneuver is needed? YesNo

How many accidents involving Officers occurred at your agency thus far this year?

How many accidents that occurred were during pursuit?

- 21 -

Appendix 2 – Survey Respondents

The following police agencies replied to the survey conduction on the PIT maneuver between

September and November 2008. Their response and assistance is valued:

Altamonte Springs PD

Casselberry PD

Daytona Beach Shores PD

Deland PD

Flagler County SO

Hialeah Gardens PD

Indian River PD

Lake Mary PD

Lee County SO

Longwood PD

Maitland PD

Ocoee PD

Port Orange PD

Seminole County SO

South Daytona PD

- 22 -

Appendix 3 – Sanford Police Department Pursuit Policy

SANFORD POLICE DEPARTMENTPP 01-55

SUBJECT: VEHICLE PURSUITDATE: 02/05/08 REV # 2SUPERSEDES:APPLICABLE CFA STANDARDS:

CONTENTS:

I. PurposeII. PolicyIII. DefinitionsIV. Procedure

I. PURPOSE: The purpose of this directive is to describe the Department’s Vehicle PursuitPolicy.

II. POLICY:

A. The Sanford Police Department will make every reasonable effort to apprehendfleeing violators. Sworn officers will always consider the safety of the public whenresponding to calls, pursuing violators, or conducting felony stops. Officers will alwaysconsider the dangers of a vehicle pursuit in relation to the lives or property of innocentusers of the roadways, law enforcement employees, or the violator. Officers deciding togive chase must balance the need to stop a suspect against the potential threat to everyonecreated by the pursuit. It must be so important to apprehend the suspect that officers arejustified at placing an innocent third party at risk of losing their life and/or property.

B. Cases where an officer “follows” a subject vehicle, but does not engage inapprehension efforts, do not constitute “pursuits.” To “follow” means to drive in closeproximity to a subject vehicle without using any apprehension efforts (such as handsignals, use of emergency take-down equipment, etc.). The police vehicle must adhere totraffic laws and traffic control devices. Following a subject vehicle for more than 15minutes requires supervisory notification. However, once a subject vehicle speeds awayor takes any evasive action in an effort to distance itself from police, regardless ifemergency take-down equipment has been activated, the officer shall immediatelydiscontinue following the vehicle unless it meets the criteria for a pursuit as described inthis policy.

C. Once disengaged from a pursuit, officers shall not attempt to re-engage the violator’svehicle if it is again seen in a relatively short time period from when the pursuit was

- 23 -

terminated, unless the status of the violator again authorizes pursuit.

D. If apprehension efforts are used, any driver of a suspect vehicle who fails to yield toapprehension efforts is nevertheless subject to prosecution for appropriate charges offleeing to elude, resisting, or obstruction. Willfully fleeing in an attempt to elude a policeofficer is a felony of the third degree.

III. DEFINITIONS:

A. The following definitions are applicable to this policy.1. Authorized Emergency Pursuit Vehicle: A police vehicle operating with itsemergency equipment activated and warning all other traffic by use of anaudible signal siren and emergency lights.

2. Emergency Equipment: Emergency equipment on police vehicles includesemergency lights, sirens, hazard warning lights, spotlights, and public addresssystems. When an officer has a need to utilize emergency equipment,employees shall exercise good judgment and keep transmissions on the publicaddress system at a professional level.

3. Vehicle Pursuit: A multi-stage process by which a police officer attempts toinitiate a traffic stop and a driver resists the directive to stop and increases speedor takes evasive action and refuses to stop the vehicle. Once the driver refusesto obey the police officer’s directive to stop, and the officer continues to attemptto apprehend the vehicle in a police vehicle with both emergency lights andsiren activated, the terms of this pursuit policy will apply.

4. Vehicle Apprehension: The tactics and strategies that are designed to take asuspect into custody who is in a moving motor vehicle that includes, but is notlimited to, traffic stops, tactical vehicle takedowns, utilization of tire deflationdevices, stationary roadblocks or other approved tactics to apprehend a suspectin a moving vehicle.

5. Reasonable Suspicion: For the purposes of this policy, an officer must be ableto articulate specific facts which, when taken in the totality of thecircumstances, reasonably indicate that the suspect did commit or has attemptedto commit the act or offense outlined in section VI.B.1.of this policy.

6. Traffic Stop: The use of police vehicle, with the use of emergency equipment,to conduct a traffic stop or otherwise apprehend occupants of a motor vehicle. Anofficer may take steps reasonably necessary to apprehend the offender but mustdo so with due regard for the safety of all persons and property.

IV. SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES:

A. Overall responsibility for the decisions concerning continuance or termination of a

- 24 -

pursuit rests primarily with the watch commander. The watch commander shall assertcontrol of the pursuit by monitoring and directing specific units into or out of thepursuit, re-designating primary, and back-up units, approving or ordering alternativetactics, or terminating the pursuit if appropriate.

B. Upon being notified of the pursuit, the watch commander or hisdesignee shall initially verify the following:

1. The reason for the pursuit2. No more than the required number of units are involved in the pursuit as persection VI.C.3.a of this policy.3. Proper radio frequency is being utilized4. Affected inter-jurisdictional agencies are notified

V. COMMUNICATION CENTER RESPONSIBILITIESA. Upon the notification that a pursuit is in progress, Dispatch shall:

1. Initiate emergency radio traffic and advise all other units that a pursuit is inprogress, providing all relevant information.2. Immediately notify the watch commander and the supervisor when a pursuit isinitiated.3. Receive and record all incoming information on the pursuit and the pursuedvehicle.4. Perform relevant record and motor vehicle checks.5. Control all radio communications during the pursuit.6. Coordinate assistance under the direction of the watch commander or thesupervisor.7. Ascertain the availability of aerial and K-9 units and report their status to thesupervisor and/or the watch commander.8. Notify any affected area agencies of the pursuit.9. Continue to monitor the pursuit until it has been terminated.

VI. PROCEDURE:A. Pre-Apprehension Tactics

1. Officers should consider known factors that may indicate a suspect vehicle islikely to flee when apprehension efforts are initiated, and consider using approvedtactics to prevent flight. Known factors include:

a. Vehicle or driver known to have fled law enforcement in the pastb. BOLO on vehicle for failing to stopc. BOLO on vehicle for involvement in crimed. Stolen vehicle “hit” on tag or descriptione. Known driver with felony warrants or felony PC for arrestf. Aggressive driverg. Slow-speed DUIh. Suspected of being involved in a crimei. Furtive movements by the driver suggesting they are likely to flee

2. Approved tactics to prevent flight include:a. Having marked back up units positioned ahead of the direction of travel

- 25 -

b. Blocking or boxing in the vehicle when it is stopped at a traffic light orotherwise stopped, when approved by the watch commander.c. Calling for air support to spotlight the vehicle

NOTE: Tactical considerations, such as creating crossfire, may preclude the useof boxing or blocking techniques when suspects are known to be armed.

B. Vehicle Pursuits Initiated by the Sanford Police Department within the CityLimits

1. Decision to Pursue: Members are authorized to pursue suspects whohave committed or attempted to commit a Forcible Felony with actual orthreatened use of deadly force.NOTE: The fact that a law enforcement officer had to move from the pathof a fleeing vehicle does not necessarily constitute a Forcible Felony.

2. Officers may also continue apprehension efforts when there is reason tobelieve the driver is impaired to the extent they present an immediatephysical threat of bodily injury to the public, and then for the primarypurpose of warning other vehicular or pedestrian traffic of the threat orstopping the threat by approved tactics. This exception is primarilyintended for situations involving intoxicated drivers, drivers experiencinga medical condition, and extremely young drivers who clearly are notcapable of the basic concepts of vehicle operation.

3. The decision to initiate a pursuit must be based on the officer’sconclusion that the immediate danger to the public created by the pursuitis less than the immediate or potential danger to the public should thesuspect remain at large. Many factors have bearing on this decision,including, but not limited to:

a. Alternative means of apprehension.b. Nature of the suspected offense.c. The potential for endangerment of the public caused by theeluding acts of a fleeing violator.d. The amount of vehicle and/or pedestrian traffic.e. Possibility of identifying the operator and/or vehicle at a laterdate.f. Daylight or darkness.g. Weather conditions.h. Road conditions.i. Type of police vehicle.j. Vehicle speeds.

4. Once the decision has been made to engage in pursuit, these factorsshall continue to be given careful consideration in determining themaximum safe speed at which officers’ vehicles may travel throughout the

- 26 -

pursuit and whether to continue with the pursuit. In addition, membersshould end the pursuit as soon as practical under these guidelines.

5. Officers, supervisors, and commanders at all levels have a responsibilityto closely monitor the progress of each pursuit. The need for apprehensionmust be constantly weighed against the potential danger created by thepursuit.

C. While in Pursuit1. Upon engaging in a pursuit, officers will maintain safe and maneuverablecontrol of their vehicles and shall immediately radio Communications to indicatea pursuit is in progress, giving location, direction of travel, and speed. Further, thecolor, year, make, body style, license (CYMBAL) of the pursued vehicle, and thecrime or suspected crime for which the pursued is wanted shall be transmitted.

2. Existing conditions and the availability of other field units will determine thecourse of action to be taken to accomplish the apprehension. Only the supervisoror a watch commander will direct other units to converge. No other units,whether uniformed, investigative, or administrative will enter into emergencyoperation unless specifically directed to do so by the supervisor or watchcommander.

3. The following tactics and conditions will be adhered to while engaged in apursuit:

a. No more than three Sanford Police Department police vehicles may beengaged in a pursuit unless authorized by the watch commander. These arethe primary unit and the assigned backup unit. The third unit will be a K-9unit or third marked patrol vehicle, if available, for apprehension purposesor for the application of a felony stop.Assigned backup unit responsibilities include:

1) Upon joining the pursuit, it shall immediately notify dispatch of itsidentity. If practical, the assigned backup unit should assumeradio communications responsibility for the primary unit.

2) The assigned backup unit should maintain a safe distance from theprimary unit, but be close enough to render assistance.

3) Should the primary pursuit unit become disabled, the assigned backupunit will become the primary unit, and the Watch commander willdesignate a new assigned backup unit.

b. If appropriate, a supervisory unit may also engage in the pursuit if in amarked vehicle, however, no more than three Sanford Police Departmentpolice vehicles may be engaged in a pursuit unless authorized by the watchcommander.

- 27 -

c. To reiterate, the watch commander shall always be in ultimate and completecommand of vehicle pursuits occurring during his/her duty shift. Additionalassistance, if authorized, will be determined by:

1) Nature of the offense.2) Number of suspects.3) Number of officers present.4) Other clear and articulated facts that would warrant the increased hazard.

d. Pursuing officers and any assigned parallel units shall respond withemergency equipment activated.

e. Motorcycle units will not engage in pursuits.

f. "Caravanning" (a group of police vehicles traveling together) of unassignedunits is prohibited.

g. Units shall not follow a suspect vehicle the wrong way on a limited accessroadway or on a one-way street.

h. Units shall not pass one another unless the lead vehicle grants permission.

i. Units shall terminate any pursuit when communications with dispatch or thesupervisor is lost, unless the provisions of section VI.E.1.b.of this policy aremet.

j. A pursuit may be terminated if the suspect has or can be identified for laterprosecution.

k. A pursuit shall be terminated if the officer loses sight of the suspect vehicle,other than for a 15-second period. The supervisor will be immediatelynotified of this event.

l. Rolling roadblocks, high speed boxing in, heading off, and closing parallelapproaches are not permitted.

NOTE: Watch commanders or supervisors may take advantage of situationswhere the suspect vehicle is slowed to a near stop by traffic conditions orother obstacles and direct assisting police vehicles to box in the suspectvehicle.

m. The watch commander has authority to approve, cancel and determine thestaffing requirements for roadblocks. If approved by a watch commander, astationary roadblock may be used for containment purposes, such as when asuspect is in a parking lot or cul-de-sac with limited opportunity to reach

- 28 -

high speeds. Only police vehicles with emergency equipment activated shallbe utilized. The containment roadblock must provide the suspect vehiclewith an opportunity to stop (e.g., no roadblocks on curves). No privatevehicles will be used in a roadblock situation. The officer initiating aroadblock will remain in charge at the scene until relieved by a supervisor.

n. Units may not ram a fleeing vehicle unless deadly force is authorized.Approval from a watch commander must also be obtained, unless the use ofsuch force is immediately necessary to protect human life from death or greatbodily harm.

o. Units shall not engage in pursuits initiated by other jurisdictions unlessapproved by a watch commander and the pursuit would be proper under ourpolicy. If the pursuit would not be justified under our policy, officers shallbe limited to blocking traffic at intersections within the City limits with thewatch commander’s approval. The watch commander is also responsible forinforming the initiating agency that the pursuit is not authorized underSanford Police Department policy.

p. Air support units shall be utilized whenever possible. The presence of an airunit may negate the need for the continuance of a pursuit and allow officersto proceed at a reduced rate of speed to assist in the apprehension. If so, theofficers will deactivate their emergency equipment, follow directions fromthe air unit, and obey all traffic laws.

q. Unmarked vehicles properly equipped with emergency lights and siren arepermitted to engage in pursuits, but will be relieved by the first availablemarked vehicle. Unmarked vehicles will act as backup units until a secondmarked vehicle is present, at which time the unmarked vehicle willdiscontinue pursuit mode.

r. Tire deflation spikes may be used in authorized vehicle pursuits.Note: If the pursuit continues beyond the City limits, all personnel involvedin the operation shall adhere to guidelines established in Section VI.E of thispolicy.

D. Termination of Pursuit:

1. The decision to pursue or to discontinue the pursuit will rest with the pursuingofficers up to the point that the supervisor or the watch commander becomesaware of the situation. At that time, the supervisor, the watch commander, andthe pursuing officers each have an obligation to discontinue the pursuit whencircumstances indicate that it is no longer justified or it is unreasonable tocontinue. Any officer ordered to cease a pursuit by a superior officer shall do soimmediately. A pursuit shall be considered to have been terminated when thefollowing has occurred and it has been confirmed by the watch commander

- 29 -

and/or supervisor.a. The primary and assigned backup officers have turned off all policevehicleemergency equipment.

b. The primary and any backup officers have turned their police vehiclesin another direction of travel away from where the suspect’s vehicle waslast seen heading, or have pulled to the side of the road if on a limitedaccess roadway.

c. The officer operating the primary police vehicle has informed Dispatchthat the pursuit has been terminated and also provides the last knownlocation of the fleeing vehicle’s, direction, and approximate speed.

2. The pursuit is also considered to be terminated if the fleeing vehicle stopsduring the pursuit.

E. Inter/Intra-Jurisdictional Pursuits:

1. Pursuits Beyond the City Limits: When a Sanford Police Department officer,under the guidelines established in this policy, has initiated a pursuit within theSanford Police Department’s jurisdiction, the pursuit may be extended beyond theCity limits. All of the guidelines concerning pursuit within Sanford PoliceDepartment’s jurisdiction shall apply outside the City limits.

a. Dispatch Responsibilities: Contact the jurisdiction the pursuit is enteringand advise the jurisdiction of the following details of the pursuit:

1) Location.2) Reasonable suspicion that the occupants have committed an actor offense outlined in this policy.3) Other charges.4) Number of units involved.5) Level of command authorization.6) Type of assistance needed.7) Request assistance and relay initial information to other unitsand agencies.8) Within any jurisdiction on the 800 MHz system, attempt topatch Communications between Sanford Police Department unitsand the jurisdiction through which the pursuit is proceeding.

b. Traveling Outside Radio Range: The Watch commander must approve apursuit that extends beyond radio range. Dispatch will direct the units inpursuit to a talk group with maximum radio range. Radio range will varydepending on location, but is generally limited to Seminole County. Ifapproved, the following shall be accomplished:

- 30 -

1) The jurisdiction through which the pursuit is proceeding (i.e.,county sheriff) will be asked to take over the pursuit if requestedby the Sanford Police Department watch commander.

2) Unless otherwise approved by the Watch commander, no morethan two Sanford Police Department units may remain engaged atthis time, with one preferably being a supervisor.

3) If at the lead, Sanford Police Department units will adjust totake up a support role (for continuity and probable cause).

4) Command will be turned over to the jurisdiction.

5) Updates shall be maintained by the Communications Divisionvia text pages, cell phones, etc.

6) Sanford Police Department units may continue in a support rolefor continuity and probable cause as long as conditions allow andwith the approval of the governing jurisdiction.

7) Request Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) toturn on the Mutual Aid TAC Repeater.

3. Pursuits Within the Sanford Police Department’s Jurisdiction by OutsideJurisdictions

a. Sanford Police Department units will only engage in these pursuitswhen the following conditions exist:

1) The pursuit meets Sanford Police Department’s criteria forengaging in a pursuit.

2) There is a specific request for Sanford Police Departmentassistance from the pursuing jurisdiction.

3) All Sanford Police Department policies concerning pursuits androadblocks will apply, regardless of the type of request from thepursuing jurisdiction.

4) Sanford Police Department units will not follow or providerolling, paralleling tactics around an inter-jurisdictional pursuitunless the pursuit meets Sanford Police Department’s criteria forpursuit and it is requested by the pursuing agency.

5) Sanford Police Department units may be dispatched to or remainin area through which an inter-jurisdictional pursuit is proceedingto provide support in the event that the pursuit were to end withinSanford Police Department’s jurisdiction.

- 31 -

4. The Use of Tire Deflation Spikes While Assisting Other Agencies

a. Generally, tire deflation spikes may be used to assist another agency,either inside or outside our jurisdiction. The following conditions mustfirst be met:

1) The pursuit meets Sanford Police Department’s criteria forengaging in a pursuit.2) Another agency requests assistance.3) A watch commander authorizes the use of the tire deflationdevice.

F. Post-Pursuit Apprehension Efforts

1. Whenever a vehicle has eluded an officer, investigative efforts should continueto identify the driver and/or owner of the vehicle. Even when the driver cannot beidentified, if the owner of the vehicle can be determined, investigative effortsshould lead to the owner being contacted and interviewed to determine who wasdriving the vehicle and to put the owner on notice their vehicle was involved in acrime. Investigative efforts may include:

a. Going to the registered owner’s address, or asking the local lawenforcement jurisdiction to respond to the registered owner’s address, tointerview the owner.b. Sending certified letters to the registered owner.c. Creating a CAFÉ report when a tag is known.d. Clearing the call with the disposition code “M”.

G. Vehicle Pursuit Form

1. The watch commander shall ensure that every vehicle pursuit is documented bycompleting Attachment (A) and an arrest and/or incident report. Every vehiclepursuit shall be documented by a Vehicle Pursuit Form (Attachment A). In thecase of an arrest, or if a tag number is recorded, a separate CAFE report will becreated.

2. The watch commander will respond to the scene to ensure all necessaryinformation is collected and that all required reports forms are completed andsubmitted by the end of the tour of duty. The Vehicle Pursuit Report Form will becompleted whether the pursuit was approved or not.NOTE: The Vehicle Pursuit Report Form is not a substitute for an internalinvestigation. When the watch commander determines that an Initial Notice ofInquiry (INOI) is necessary, it is his responsibility to initiate the INOI.

3. The watch commander will forward the Vehicle Pursuit Report Form andcopies of the appropriate reports (i.e. arrest affidavit, incident report, Risk

- 32 -

Management forms for vehicle damage, Defensive Tactics Form for use of tiredeflation spike usage report device) to the Chief of Police via the chain ofcommand and the Professional Standards for filing.

H. Attempted Vehicle Apprehension

1. When an officer attempts to initiate a traffic stop and the driver of the vehiclerefuses to stop, and the officer does not initiate a pursuit, the officer will clear thecall with the disposition code “M”.

- 33 -

Appendix 4 – Scott v. Harris Syllabus

1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time theopinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisionsfor the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

SCOTT v. HARRIS

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 05–1631. Argued February 26, 2007—Decided April 30, 2007

Deputy Timothy Scott, petitioner here, terminated a high-speed pursuitof respondent’s car by applying his pushbumper to the rear of the vehicle, causing it to leave the road and crash. Respondent was renderedquadriplegic. He filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983 alleging, inter alia, the use of excessive force resulting inan unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The District Court denied Scott’s summary judgmentmotion, which was based on qualifiedimmunity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on interlocutory appeal,concluding, inter alia, that Scott’s actions could constitute “deadly force” under Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S.1; that the use of such force in this context would violate respondent’s constitutional right tobe free fromexcessive force during a seizure; and that a reasonablejury could so find.

Held: Because the car chase respondent initiated posed a substantial and immediate risk of serious physicalinjury to others, Scott’s attempt to terminate the chase by forcing respondent off the road was reasonable, andScott is entitled to summary judgment. Pp. 3–13.

(a) Qualified immunity requires resolution of a “threshold question:Taken in the light most favorable to theparty asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?”Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 201. Pp. 3–4.(b) The record in this case includes a videotape capturing the events in question. Where, as here, the recordblatantly contradictsthe plaintiff’s version of events so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court shouldnot adopt that version of the facts for purposesof ruling on a summary judgment motion. Pp. 5–8.(c) Viewing the facts in the light depicted by the videotape, it isclear that Deputy Scott did not violate theFourth Amendment.2 SCOTT v. HARRIS

- 34 -

SyllabusPp. 8–13.

(i) Garner did not establish a magical on/off switch that triggers rigid preconditions whenever an officer’sactions constitute “deadly force.” The Court there simply applied the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” testto the use of a particular type of force in a particular situation. That case has scant applicability to this one,whichhas vastly different facts. Whether or not Scott’s actions constituted “deadly force,” what matters iswhether those actions were reasonable. Pp. 8–10.(ii) In determining a seizure’s reasonableness, the Court balances the nature and quality of the intrusion on theindividual’s FourthAmendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests allegedlyjustifying the intrusion. United States v. Place, 462U. S. 696, 703. In weighing the high likelihood of serious injury or death to respondent that Scott’s actions posedagainst the actual and imminent threat that respondent posed to the lives of others, theCourt takes account ofthe number of lives at risk and the relative culpability of the parties involved. Respondent intentionallyplacedhimself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in reckless,high-speed flight; those who mighthave been harmed had Scott not forced respondent off the road were entirely innocent. The Court concludes thatit was reasonable for Scott to take the action he did. It rejects respondent’s argument that safety could havebeen assured if the police simply ceased their pursuit. The Court rules that a police officer’s attempt toterminate a dangerous high-speed car chasethat threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate theFourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at riskof serious injury or death. Pp. 10–13.

433 F. 3d 807, reversed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C. J., and KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., and BREYER, J., filedconcurring opinions. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.