Scenario based

            It is clear that the police officers are responsible for serving as well as protecting the people but they are however not immune to causing accidents especially while driving in pursuit of a criminal. Most of the police officers have thus been found at accountable for all those accidents that have ended up causing death, injuries and damages of innocent people’s lives and properties. It is quite clear that improper backing system by the police officers has led to many police officers to stand to be blamed. Failure to maintain control or too much attention and determination to seize the criminal has also contributed towards departmental related accidents. Some of these accidents have resulted to injuries both to the police officers as well as to the public. This is quite devastating and hurting especially to the families of the victims or the injured victims themselves[1]. This paper therefore will focus on discussing of the scenario of police officer Speedy from the Saint Leo police unit and the hot pursuit that led to an accident. It will summarize the facts of the case, the issues that are presented, the arguments of the case and the applicable law in the case, recommendations and reasons for the recommendations.

Summary of the fact

            In this case, the defendant was patrolling around midnight in her cruiser while he witnessed a black sports type of car speeding to a point of almost hitting the cruiser. It was after this scenario that the officer decided to pursue the car but he did it in a very high speed that exceeded 100mph through the downtown. At that time there were some people in the area as the bars were closing. It is at this point that he lost control and he crushed a curb and ended up hitting a passerby on the sidewalk.

That’s when the criminal who drove the sports car looked back but he unfortunately hit a phone pole that killed him. Both the relatives of the passerby and the criminal driver are hostile as they want to sue the sheriff and the employer.

Issues presented

            Standard of care that the police officer ought to implement in his hot pursuit is one of the issues presented in this case. The police officer was required by law to exercise reasonable care as well as poses a certain level of special knowledge in their training.  Thus the officer must be able to behave in a consistent way that is consistent to the training that he had received. Thus he should have applied the special knowledge from the training so as to be able to maintain high degree of care. In this case, the police officer was expected to examine the emergency of the case situation so as to determine whether it was reasonable enough to go after the criminal and if he would have exercised the due regard he would have been able to realize that the pursuit would have jeopardized the safety of other people as there were drunk people still on the road[2].

            However the law requires the police officers to balance the need to seize the criminal and the essence to show that hot pursuit from the law is not a way to liberty. He therefore was supposed to balance the high speed threat to everyone within the range that including the passersby, the criminal and the other drivers. However in his case he failed in balancing his speed and protecting the public within his range during his pursuit and this led him into killing a passerby.

 

 

 

Arguments presented

            The case has two sides or argument that is from the plaintiff sides that is the two families who lost their beloved ones in that accident and the defendant side which includes the police officer, the top manager in the department that is the sheriff and their employer. The plaintiff therefore may argue that the individuals’ officer conduct was as a result of his negligence. The plaintiffs would argue that the officer did drive recklessly as he drove off at a very high speed that exceeded 100mph which led to the loss of lives of two people. They would argue out that the police officer would have prevented the accident if only he slowed down and maintained control and this would not have led to the accident. However the defendant side would argue that the sports car driver was the one who was in the wrong and the fact that he was driving at a high speed and even had attempted to make an accident made the officer make the decision of making the hot pursuit. The fact that the driver did not stop even after he was asked to stop by being pursued by the officer made him guilty of his crime. Though the accident occurred it was for the greater benefit as seizing the criminal would have helped to stop accidents that the driver would have caused.

Applicable law

            According to the law, the burden of the individual police officer should not be passed on to the highest management and their employer due to the negligence of one officer. The Statute grants police officers permission to drive at any speed in cases of emergency while using the police cars. Thus they are given the privileges of special driving however the law requires them to care and offer security to themselves and to the public.

Therefore according to the law, the police officer is not imperiled to the posted speed limits and he is not also deemed to negligent as people may say it due to fast driving. The police officer in pursuit is thus free from the violations of other traffic rules and lights. This immunity is however only offered to those police officers who prove to have taken some precautions during the pursuit such as the use of the sirens or flashlights by the court[3].

            A similar case occurred between Gravas versus Thomas where the court ruled that though the police officer was driving at a high while pursuing the teenage criminal who had refused to stop he was right. His subjective aim at arresting the criminal and his decision to engage bin the hot pursuit did not shock the sense of right and wrong. There was no indication that the officer had an intention of inflicting harm on the criminal driver. Therefore the police officer, the department and their employer was declared not liable to the death of the driver as the driver failed to maintain con troll during the pursuit[4].

            Another similar case is a case where the plaintiff, the parents of the dead motorcyclist who died in an accident argued that the police officer did it intentionally so as to stop the pursuit. The court found out that there was no intentional misconduct during the hot pursuit and he jumping into the motorcyclist was not intended to harm him[5].

            Therefore the standards that is required to establish liability under the State of law differs considerably in many cases as it involves the extent of various immunities that are available under the law in a certain jurisdiction. Hence as the court impose liability on the police officers due to death and injuries that have been caused by over speeding pursuit basing on the intentional indifference would ignore the truth about the decisions that the officer has to make as to whether to engage in the pursuit of the offender in haste and under pressure to seize the criminal without having to take much time to think[6].

Recommendation and reasons

            It is thus important that all the police officers should ensure that they offer intensive training to the police officers so as to enable them to be able to prevent accidents and also to be able to learn from the mistakes of others and be able to move on from that. This will also help the department to ensure that all the police officers are well prepared so that they can be able to perform safely even when faced with difficult scenarios in the road while carrying out their patrol.

            Discipline ought to be given to the police officer who was involved in the accidents and he should as well be accountable for his actions. The department should therefore cite the officer who was involved in the case so as to issue out internal discipline to the officer; this may range from reprimanding him to suspending or terminating him if necessary. This would help to discipline the officer thus preventing further related accidents from other officers in the department[7].

            Regular conduction of re-training programs and testing system of the police officers so as to be able to test whether the officers’ skills are good enough to be able to handle the demanding timed scenarios on the road. This will help increase professionalism thus reducing the number of similar accidents thus protection and safety of the public and the police officers as well.

            It is recommended that the department should set up internal departmental policies which involve policies on hot pursuit. This acts as guidelines so as to guide the police officers in the department on making the pursuit. Therefore, when the officers comply with these formal policies and regulations, it is an indication of good faith in their performance while on official duty. Hence in any case where the officer has acted in good faith according to the policies in the department, the department, the employer and the officer are protected by the policies.

Core values

            Integrity is one of the core values in Saint Leo and it ensures that the members are able to meet the excellence demands by fulfilling the promises that they made. Thus in this case, integrity was applied as the police officer was trying to provide safety to the people by arresting the criminal which is a promise that he had taken while taking the profession. Responsibility is another core value where the Sherriff is responsible for his employees and thus he had to protect the officer from his department.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

            Archbold, C. A. (2005). Managing the bottom line: risk management in policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 28(1), 30-48.

            Cook, C. G. (2008). Analysis Of Police Officer Perceptions And Attitudes Regarding Vehicle Pursuits. ProQuest.

            Farber B.J. (2007). AELE Monthly Law Journal. AELE Law Enforcement Legal Centre.

            Nicholson, W. C. (2013). Emergency response and emergency management law: cases and materials. Charles C Thomas Publisher.

           

 

 

[1] (Archbold, 2005)

[2] (Nicholson, 2013)

[3] (Farber, 2007)

[4] (Farber, 2007)

[5] (Farber, 2007)

[6] (Farber, 2007)

[7] (Cook, 2008)