home

High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health Problem

by TChris

Unless a law enforcement officer is trying to stop a suspected murderer or other serious felon, there's little reason to engage in a dangerous high speed pursuit when a driver fails to heed a squad car's red and blue lights. It makes no sense to put innocent drivers and pedestrians at risk to stop a common offender when he or she can be arrested more safely at work or at home the next day.

In March, TalkLeft wrote about proposed legislation in California that would repeal a law giving immunity to officers who engage in a reckless pursuit. That bill was introduced after a police officer chased a 15-year-old driver who stole her mother's car. Speeds increased as the girl tried to elude the pursuing officer, until she collided with a van, killing a 15-year-old passenger.

CNN reports (text here, "A police chase gone bad" available in today's "most watched video" section) on the languishing legislation, and on the larger issue of "dinosaur police chiefs" who refuse to adopt policies that would limit the discretion of officers to pursue at high speeds. As this article suggests, high speed chases are "an emerging public health problem," one that accounted for more than 7,000 deaths between 1982 and 2004.

While some cities have adopted policies that prohibit high speed chases of fleeing drivers who aren't known to be dangerous felons, it's still common -- too common -- to read of unwise pursuits.

St. Louis - May 24, 2006: "A high speed police chase lasting for more than 20 minutes through rush hour traffic on eastbound I-70 saw dozens of close calls. ... At one point, they raced by a loaded school bus, and seconds later narrowly missed a collision with other drivers."

Dallas - May 26, 2006: "One man is dead and a police officer hurt after a high speed chase through Dallas."

Monroe County, PA - May 28, 2006: "Wright plowed into a state police cruiser and was taken into custody."

Los Angeles - June 6, 2006: "California Highway Patrol officers were in pursuit of a motorcyclist when the bike hit another vehicle and crashed."

Fremont, CA - June 12, 2006: "High-speed police chase ends in crash" ("One other car was hit during the pursuit, but no one was hurt, the sergeant said.")

Jackson - June 12, 2006: "Driving west on McDowell Road in the stolen late-model Jeep, Dearman and Carson collided with the side of a Nissan Sentra driving north on McFadden Road at 5 p.m. Sunday. WLBT weather forecaster Eric Law and his wife, Cristina Law, were in the other vehicle. They were taken to Central Mississippi Medical Center. Eric Law has a broken collarbone, and Cristina has a broken leg and other injuries. She was moved out of intensive care this morning, but neither have been released, said Dan Modisett, WLBT's general manager."

Nolanville, TX - June 12, 2006: "A Nolanville police officer was injured Monday at the end of a chase that reached speeds of more than 100 miles an hour."

Houston - June 13, 2006: "Police chase leads to crash at Lockwood exit."

Jacksonville - June 13, 2006: "Man Arrested After Two-County Pursuit Ends In Head-On Crash"

San Antonio - June 14, 2006: "San Antonio police and Lackland security forces made three arrests, but not before the chase stirred up quite a commotion, disrupting three flights and damaging about 100 feet of fence line and a Port Authority of San Antonio security car [after they drove onto an airport runway]."

Syracuse - June 14, 2006: "Carncross is accused of being the motorcyclist involved in a high-speed chase with State Trooper Craig Todeschini. Todeschini crashed his SUV in the chase, and was killed."

Frederick, MD - June 14, 2006: "A Frederick man who led police on a high speed chase and killed a motorcyclist back in November will spend some time behind bars."

< Pentagon Kicks Press Out of Guantanamo | A Simple Plan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    186,000 miles per second is how fast a radio message travels. 200 MPH is how fast a helicopter travels. But being allowed to drive at high speed and beat a 'perp' if you catch him ... priceless.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#3)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    St Loius link- No comment on whether the suspect was a violent felon or not. Dallas Link - Reason was "registration inspection", suspect was the one killed. No comment on whether he was a violent felon or not. Monroe County PA - Suspected DUI, would have been a chase anyway. Los Angeles, Speeding, nothing about the "dangerous pursuit," Driver suffered scrapes whe he crashed. Fremont - DUI again, no injuries. Jackson - Stolen car, not gonna chase those anymore? Nolanville - Suspicious activity. No mention of whether the suspect was a violent felon or not. Houston - Burglary suspects, that's a violent felony in california. jacksonville - Suspect tried to run over officer on car stop. I guess you guys wouldn't cosider that a violent felony. san antonio, stolen vehicle, no injuries. Syracuse, Doesn't say why pursuit happened. Frederick - Dui, but occ'd in November, link was report on sentencing. I guess I don't get the point of the links, DUI would still be chased pursuant to this new legislation. In fact many of the articles cited would still have happened. If you're just trying to show how many occur in a short time, you've missed many of them I'm sure. Like on the other thread, the decision to pursue should be something that is decided at a local level, based on available assets and other information. It is impossible to make a law that will work in every situation. sailor, Yeah, whatever. You've been watching too much TV again.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:53:28 PM EST
    The cops have been watching too much t.v. Smile for the copter cam.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#5)
    by ras on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    Drunk drivers kill far more innocents than do high-speed chases. Allow drunks (among other criminals) to flee at will and those numbers will only rise.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:06:58 PM EST
    ras-
    Drunk drivers kill far more innocents than do high-speed chases.
    Nice non-sequitur. Wanna add more statitics about cigarette smoking, war, cholera, or old age?

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#7)
    by jazzcattg1 on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    Cops can't be too bright or they wouldn't be cops in the first place.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#9)
    by roxtar on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:39:45 PM EST
    Allow drunks (among other criminals) to flee at will and those numbers will only rise. It's only "fleeing" if they are being chased. If the guy is going 90 mph to begin with, yeah, he has to be stopped. But 40 in a 55 with a slight weave can turn into 90 into a schoolbus if a flotilla of angry cops with lights and sirens initiate hot pursuit. Speed kills....and so does adrenaline.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:42:38 PM EST
    Jazzcattg1-
    Cops can't be too bright or they wouldn't be cops in the first place.
    you must have meant: Cops can't be too bright or they couldn't be cops in the first place.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#11)
    by ras on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:21:07 PM EST
    Squeaky, Nice non-sequitur. ??? Um, ok, I thought the connection was crystal clear, but since I apparently underestimated you, let's try again: If cops can't give chase, then drunk drivers will be able to flee at will. Arresting them "in the morning," as TL proposed, would be too late, even presuming that they don't kill someone before then, that the car they are in is their own, and that their is solid evidence that they were the driver at the time. They will have every incentive to flee, none to pull over. DUI would then become a crime that could no longer be proven except in rare cases where obliging drunks choose to be prosecuted. Its incidence will rise, with the corresponding death toll rising in parallel.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#12)
    by TChris on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:40:34 PM EST
    When it becomes clear that a drunk driver is fleeing, giving chase immeasurably increases the danger that the drunk driver already poses. Most people go home if the chase ends (where the police are often waiting), and even if they manage to avoid a drunk driving charge, the consequences of an eluding charge are likely to be more severe than the DUI. This makes flight an unattractive option, even if the driver knows the officer won't pursue at a high speed.

    i was very disappointed with the quality of the "topless bandit" video i found instead at the CNN link. the bandit, that is, not the video. non-sequitor anyone?

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:50:00 PM EST
    If cops can't give chase, then drunk drivers will be able to flee at will.
    Uhh, no. Drunks will go home feeling relieved they didn't get caught. Actually chases are an ideal case for statistics and consensus. Stats: What exactly are the stats on who runs, what reason and how many are injured/killed? Consensus: At what point as a society do we draw the line? Short version: how many people do we think it is OK to kill for what starts out as a traffic violation?

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:51:02 PM EST
    roy-did you mean something like cigarette smoking causes more death than high speed chases? Or maybe what you meant to say was that drunk high speed chases are a really bad idea which cause unnecessary damage and death, and drunk driving kills.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:52:19 PM EST
    sorry roy I meant ras in the above response.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#17)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:55:30 PM EST
    T-chris, And when we stop chasing the person who we suspect is drunk and they drive down the road and kill someone, you'll be first in line calling for the lawsuit won't you? Ambulance chaser.....

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#18)
    by ras on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:04:23 PM EST
    Sailor, Uhh, no. Drunks will go home feeling relieved they didn't get caught. That should read: "Uhh, yes. Drunks will go home feeling relieved they didn't get caught. They didn't get caught *cuz* they ran, so you have two probs now: first, drunks are not getting caught and are still driving drunk; second, they will have to speed to get away, cuz even if the cops don't give chase and merely drive the limit, the drunk must then do much more than that to get completely out of their sight.

    Interestingly enough, one of the technologies featured in Popular Science this month and being considered by the LAPD would allow police the shoot a GPS tracker at a fleeing car and then back off.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#20)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    Cops can't be too bright or they couldn't be cops in the first place.
    Squeaky, That's clearly a problem you don't have. Apply.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#21)
    by ras on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:18:19 PM EST
    Sailor, The stats on drunk drivers are readily available, thru MADD and others, as are the lives saved by clamping down on drunk driving. In general, as many people were being killed back in 1982 (TL's first chosen year for her hi-speed crashes sampling) in that single year as by all hi-speed crashes in the full *22* years that TChris cited. Enforcement has cut the alcolohol-related death total almost in half. Given the increase in the number of vehicles and drivers over those years, let's just round off to the obvious ratio and say it cuts the fatality *rate* roughly in half. To do so requires enforcement, which must include chasing down the drunks when they run. Statistically this saves 11 times more lives than a no-chase policy. And that's just for DUIs. Other criminals would, of course, also benefit from a no-chase policy and would take full advantage of it. DUI is just the first and most obvious argument in favor of enforcement, not the only one. No one is perfect, but the logic seems clear to leave chase/no-chase as an officer's decision at the time. The odds are an order of magnitude in their favor on this one issue alone. You are, of course, welcome to verify the stats for yourself. Let me know if you find different.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:53:48 PM EST
    They didn't get caught *cuz* they ran, so you have two probs now: first, drunks are not getting caught and are still driving drunk;
    The point was they did get caught, just not after a high speed chase. And not all/most of these cases are drunks. And I never asked for stats on drunk drivers, honest ones are easy to find, and MADD's don't qualify. Did you see how the latest DD stats were determined? They assume folks were drunk if they died and weren't tested. I asked for stats on the whole chase scenario, i.e who runs, what reason and how many are injured/killed. It's a reasonable question to ask. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are times a chase needs to happen, but those times should be according to a policy that was established on logical, and dare I say it, scientific grounds.
    Statistically this saves 11 times more lives than a no-chase policy.
    That is the worst extrapolation of numbers I have ever seen. None of the variables I mentioned were accounted for, the data was skewed and the result was pulled out of your ...

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:15:08 PM EST
    Statistically this saves 11 times more lives than a no-chase policy.
    Wow. Fancy statistics. Too bad that they are not credible. Altough your point still is a non sequitur. It's something at least.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#24)
    by ras on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:18:12 PM EST
    Sailor, You can run the numbers any way you want; drunk drivers are the far greater danger. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are times a chase needs to happen, but those times should be according to a policy that was established on logical, and dare I say it, scientific grounds. Beware of micro-managing from on high with that attitude. Empirically, the better approach is to push the decisions out to the field as much as possible, rather than creating more rules ("there oughtta be a law") whose whole is always less than the sum of their parts.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:04:59 PM EST
    ras- Many things cause more deaths than high speed car chases. This thread is not about the many things that cause more death than high speed car chases, including drunk driving, No one here is comparing the two, except for you, Now the question to chase or not, that is a different question, and a quite pertinent one. The impulse to chase can be for a variety of reasons, The chaser, all caught up in the chase, often loses sight of the bigger picture and unintended bad things happen as a result. More prudent methods could have accomplished the goal We will all be much safer if chasers are restricted from acting as if they were the star in some glitzy high budget action movie.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#26)
    by ras on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:30:22 PM EST
    Squeaky, Unfortunately, the two issues are related since w/out chases (and/or the credible threat thereof) drunk driving deaths would return to their previous levels, a cost that exceeds the benefit.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:59:18 PM EST
    ras
    Unfortunately, the two issues are related since w/out chases (and/or the credible threat thereof) drunk driving deaths would return to their previous levels, a cost that exceeds the benefit.
    Your logic is skewed. In order to make your claim you would have to figure out the percentage representing chases compared to all the other enforcement methods that have effectively reduced the death rate by half. My guess is that chases represent a very small part of drunk driving enforcement.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:55:45 AM EST
    You can run the numbers any way you want; drunk drivers are the far greater danger.
    IOW, I pulled the #s out of my ... Next!
    Empirically, the better approach is to push the decisions out to the field as much as possible
    You say emperically, I assume you have numbers and proof? Advocating that the cop on the beat in the heat of the moment should decide is an invitation to disaster. We have guidelines for when force is used and how it is escalted and for deadly force and, considering the potential loss of life, we should have guidelines for this situation as well.

    A few days ago I was nearly hit by a cop driving at least 100mph with no lights on whatsoever(at night) in persuit of a speeding car. He came so close to my car the whole vehicle shook as he went by. I thought to report it but then feared the consequenses. The funny thing is that I'm quite sure he pulled over the wrong mustang. It was a different model than the one I saw speed past me.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:50:22 AM EST
    Squeaky once again you put the resonsibility on government and not the individual. Why am I not suprised? If the driving public at large learns that the only thing they need to do to escape from a traffic stop is run then what do you think will happen? Instead of focusing on the minute issue, deaths from high speed chases, why not focus on the result from you misguided law. Let the police do their job and get out of the way please. I'm willing to risk a few traffic accidents from high speed chases in order to put criminals in jail.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:53:24 AM EST
    If the driving public at large learns that the only thing they need to do to escape from a traffic stop is run then what do you think will happen?
    Why does this argument keep getting made? Get a Lic #, radio ahead, call a helicopter ... there are many alternatives to 2 idiots driving way too fast.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:16:08 AM EST
    Really, they should all just be happy their not in Iraq -- we'd just send a drone with a missle after them. Or just open fire. Hey now, wait a second...we accept collateral damage in other places, why not here? All those high-tech bombs and missles, why can't we put them to good use right here in the USA?

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:21:14 AM EST
    Slado, The police have as much responsibility not to put MORE people in danger with a pursuit that isn't necessary. No one is going to argue about the culpability of idiots fleeing the cops -- and that IS NOT THE POINT here. It's about trying to do a better job of keeping more people safe. Period. You act as if there's NOTHING to be done but take a dangerous situation and make it MORE dangerous. Cops have a tough enough job, and this is about making is less tough when it can be made so.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:38:01 AM EST
    I seriously wonder how much of an increase (if any) there's been in high speed pursuits since the advent of these "reality" cop shows in which high speed pursuits seem to take up 90% of the show.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    Slado-
    Squeaky once again you put the responsibility on government and not the individual. Why am I not suprised?
    So are you saying that once a police officer puts on a uniform s/he stops being an individual? The problem is human. The problem is poor judgment because of mental impairment by two individuals caught up in a primitive chase. The public deserves to be protected from this sort of thing. If the government had no power over the individual, (arrest, imprisonment or execution, ) this would not be an issue. Individual responsibility is clearly important here, but not the issue of this thread. The issue of the thread is public safety and how a heavy handed approach to it often creates a worse problem than the initial one. What if police were given uzies and allowed to shoot into crowds in order to catch a armed robber? Should the focus be on the armed robbers individual responsibility or the individual responsibility of the members in the crowd to get out of the way from errant machine gun spray? Yes this thread is about responsibility of government in a situation where public safety is at risk. Odd that for you guys gladly give up fourth amendment rights for the greater good of public safety as in checkpoints, but when it comes to cowboy cops, who cares who they kill while trying to catch a suspect. Must be the influence of chase scenes in movies, because your position certainly is not rational.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:17:47 AM EST
    "Im willing to take a few traffic accidents" Or a few caualties in Iraq, a few degrees global temp increase; anything to thwart the bleeding heart "big government" liberal agenda. That is until MY kid gets run down, then we get the Brady (Slado) Bill.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#37)
    by Patrick on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:01:56 AM EST
    Jondee, FWIW, I haven't noticed an increase in chases in and around my jursidiction. Dadler, You might be on to something there. How much is a fully mission ready predator drone? I think the law is a bad idea because it does not take into account the variables. Yeah, helicopters and cameras are nice, if you have them available, but they cost $$$. It's not always possible to get close enough to get a license plate and even if you do, it doesn't prove who was driving. Increasing penalties won't fix it either, cause people make the decision to flee, not after careful review, but in the heat of the moment. Not chasing won't work either because once the threshold becomes known to serious crooks, they will exceed it to get away, and many people don't slow dowm for miles after the think they've gotten away. Terminated pursuits have also resulted in accidents and fatalities down the road. This seems like feel good legislation after a tragedy and my sympathies go out to the family in the video who lost their daughter in 2002. That's horrible and I think of how I would feel if I lost mine, but the police and the pursuit policy are not the culprit. It should be up to the voters in the county, city or whatever, and based upon the available resources. Departments in California are required to have a pursuit policy in place, which must conform to state standards. If those two requirements are met and the policy was not violated during the pursuit, there should be no liability on the part of the department or officers. What you see on TV is edited for effect.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#38)
    by Patrick on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:03:54 AM EST
    Umm, voters should have been, elected officals. Voters can change them if they don't like the policies they enact.

    I seriously wonder how much of an increase (if any) there's been in high speed pursuits since the advent of these "reality" cop shows in which high speed pursuits seem to take up 90% of the show.
    That's a good point Jondee. As I imagine there might be some attraction for some high-speed eluders to be on TV, to brag to their friends, get some street cred, etc., I wouldn't be opposed in theory to a ban on news choppers following such chases. Such a ban would probably be unconstitutional, however.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:29:46 AM EST
    Patrick thanks for the assist of common sense. Squeaky I hear what your saying but we cannot ban all chases or highly discourage most because of a few accidents. If a cop breaks the law or a policy while chasing he should be punished. If a cop goes on an unauthroized chase he should be punished. But ban all chases or ristrict them to the ultimate outcome that they'd never occur seems silly. This girl ran from the cops and killed another girl. It's her fault. Period. Not the fault of the cops that chased her and a stupid new law won't change that. Has anyone on this site run from the cops? I've been pulled over (4) times in my life and I probably stopped within 5 seconds of the first sign of bright lights. If you run you will be chased and if an accident happens as a result it's your fault, not the cops.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    Dadler, See above if cops violate procedures etc.. then I agree they shouldn't chase but I get the feeling from this law that its more about an unrealistic reaction to a bad story. How bout laws that make resisting arrest or running a felony?

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    but we cannot ban all chases or highly discourage most.....
    No one is saying that here. It is about balance. Usually is is not a question when firearms are involved, but when another deadly weapon, a car, is involved rational thought ceases. As I said, it must be from the influence of the movies.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#43)
    by Patrick on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:16:13 PM EST
    It is about balance
    Squeaky, If that's really what it's about, then how can you support a general regulation that doesn't take into account all the variables. Los Angeles is different than say, Modoc County. Let the elected officials decide what's right for their jurisdiction. They, after all, control the police departments.

    Re: High Speed Chases: Treating A Public Health P (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    Patrick-Yes the law needs to be written with respect to high density areas where high speed chases are a public menace. It is simply not an issue in the desert as far as I can tell. Evidentially it is a big issue and not some frou frou over one or two deaths. Google comes up with 13,400 hits for Statewide rules on high-speed chases:

    TChris.... Most people go home if the chase ends (where the police are often waiting), And if they kill someone on the way home? Patrick... you'll be first in line calling for the lawsuit won't you? Ambulance chaser..... Nah... don't you get the left yet? If there was a lawsuit, it would be on behalf of the drunk driver! Any accident would be somebody else's fault.. (IE - The bar that served him, the auto maker of the car he was driving, or in this case, the police that are chasing him) no way is he going to be responsible for his actions. It's the Leftie montra! "you can always lay the blame with somebody else"!

    Okay, coming to this one late (knee deep in work and all), but I feel like Squeaky's pretty much won this particular debate. A tangential question is one of reckless police driving in general. It becomes less tangential because an officer who has damaged property or caused bodily harm to someone might be inclined to say he or she was in the midst of a chase. If seen this a good deal. Last year, I saw a cyclist hit by an off-duty officer driving his squad car, who then got out of his car and laughed at the kid, who was taken away in an ambulance. The year before, I came within an inch of my own life riding my bike when cops blew a residential stop sign, in no apparent chase, going fast (40-50+ mph). And before that, I was witness to malicious driving by officers in Chicago public housing, who struck a middle aged man named Nevles Traylor. This was a man whose main goal in life was to drink a beer and walk around listening to the Cubs game on his headphones. Not a Big Criminal or a major risk to others. What about plain old reckless driving by law enforcement personnel?