Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

We read today about yet another tragic ending to a high speed police chase. The police saw a driver make an illegal right turn on a city street. They attempted a traffic stop but the driver took off speeding through city streets in San Jose, California. The police kept chasing and the suspect kept fleeing--through city streets at high speeds. Predictably, the suspect ran a red light, smahed into another car occupied by a family of four, and the 15 year old teenager was killed.
The death penalty was imposed on this innocent child to capture what the police knew to be a traffic violator. Was the price worth it? Of course not. The police should have called off the chase and radioed ahead to be on the lookout for the offender.. If the chase had been terminated, the suspect would not need to keep fleeing at high speeds. He could have disappeared down a side street and probably apprehended later with tag information. But the pursuit was not terminated as it should have been and yet another statistic was created, Yet another innocent victim died when a non violent suspect was being pursued. Quite literally, the innocent teenager could have been anyone that day. All the citizens of San Jose could have been killed in the same way had they been at that intersection.
Finch Mcranie will continue to fight against high speed chases for non violent offenders. Imposing the death penalty on innocent third parties is too high a price to apprehend such suspects. Let them go and catch them later. That is what should be done. It is not the end of the world to let a suspect go, it is the end of the world for the innocent victim.
We have reprinted the article in the extended entry below if you wish to read the story.

Continue reading "Police Chase Results in Death of 15 Year Old" »

Last week we read about what has become an all too familiar pattern, more police chases equal more deaths. In one case in Los Angeles a six year old was killed when the police were chasing suspects who were believed to have been involved in a drug transaction earlier. The death penalty was imposed on this six year old girl in order to catch a suspected drug user. Was the price worth it? Also in Los Angeles, a motorcycle officer was killed during a pursuit when he lost control of the motorcycle. In a police chase in Jacksonville, two police officers and a suspect were hospitalized with serious injuries. These were three separate incidents which occurred on June 10. On the same day there was an article which appeared in the newspaper in Kentucky about another innocent victim of a police chase. In that case, the police were apparently chasing a suspect in a stolen vehicle. During the chase, the suspect lost control and ran into the victim’s car, which incident left three children without a father and a wife without her husband. In the Kentucky case, a father of three was killed because the police felt it was more important to the public safety to catch someone driving a stolen car than it was to protect the lives of innocent motorists who might be endangered by the pursuit.

We have seen these kinds of articles over and over and over again. It is very distressing to read about the carnage caused by these chases. We have never advocated that police chases should be terminated. When the suspect being pursued is violent, has raped someone, murdered someone, or is known to represent a clear danger to the public, there is no alternative, the suspect must be chased and should be apprehended, if possible, with due regard for the safety of the motoring public. However, when non-violent offenders are being chased, the cost to the innocent members of the motoring public is simply too great. We should not impose the death penalty on innocent people in order to capture non-violent offenders. Let the suspects go rather than kill the innocent.

Continue reading "De-Ja Vu : More Police Chases Equal More Deaths" »

Police chases very often end in tragic results. Our Atlanta attorneys have handled many such cases in Georgia which have resulted in the loss of innocent lives while law enforcement officers chased suspects for minor offenses.

Despite the carnage which these chases cause and the pain and grief inflicted upon innocent victims, lawmakers continue to make it more difficult for innocent victims to receive compensation for losses. These restrictions also have the effect of making it easier for law enforcement officers to engage in dangerous chases knowing that they will not be held responsible for reckless actions.

In fact, these chases have become TV entertainment with the advent of cameras in law enforcement cruisers. These TV shows almost always show dangerous chases in which the criminals are caught. What they do not show are the many chases which result in death and injury to innocent victims.

California is known for the frequency of law enforcement chases. This morning, the Los Angeles Times is reporting the death of an innocent 6 year old child as the result of a chase. Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck called the death of a 6-year-old girl who was pinned against a wall at the end of a short police pursuit "an extremely tragic incident."

The accident occurred Thursday evening at the end of a two-minute pursuit by the Los Angeles Police Department. The car police were chasing turned onto a residential street and slammed into the girl as she was playing with other children near her home.

In the neighborhood, residents questioned why the police engaged in a pursuit on a relatively narrow residential street where it is well known that kids often play.
These are the same questions which lawmakers and policy makers within law enforcement need to asking themselves. Unfortunately, these questions will not be asked until it is too late for innocent citizens.

Under Georgia law, a sheriff and only a sheriff is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his or her deputies. A county sheriff employs the deputy and the deputy reports to the sheriff. Thus, if a deputy sheriff is negligent, the sheriff is liable not the County. Notwithstanding this legal liability, however, there is a confusing element of Georgia law when it comes to perfecting claims against sheriffs and their deputies.

While the law is somewhat ambiguous in this regard and in many ways unsettled, anyone that has a claim against a sheriff or deputy sheriff should consider serving an ante-litem notice upon the county where the sheriff’s office exists. Under O.C.G.A. § 36-11-1, there is a provision which specifies that counties should be served with ante-litem notices for claims against counties. Again, a county cannot be vicariously liable for the acts of a deputy sheriff. Nonetheless, until the law is properly resolved, the more prudent approach for the time being would be to file an ante-litem notice with the county and the sheriff’s office if someone has a claim against a deputy sheriff based on allegations of negligence and damage caused thereby.

The county ante-litem notice provides that written notice of claim must be served on a county within twelve (12) months of the date of an occurrence. Thus, even though the statute of limitation for a personal injury claim in Georgia is two (2) years, in reality, if one has a claim against a county, one should assert it out of an abundance of caution within twelve (12) months even if the claim is against a sheriff or a deputy sheriff. Again, the law is somewhat unsettled in this regard although many defense attorneys would contend that it is absolutely settled and that such notice is required. A more prudent and cautious approach for practitioners is to serve an ante-litem notice on both the sheriff and the county where the sheriff is employed so as to preserve all legal rights. This needs to be done until the law is completely clarified and until there is no ambiguity one way or another on the question.

As our firm handles police chases for innocent victims tragically caught up in these dangerous pursuits through no fault of their own, and as we have witnessed many different tragedies in this context, we obviously pay close attention to other similar cases throughout the country. Just this past week we read three different articles about three different pursuits in three different states in which innocent bystanders were killed during these dangerous pursuits. In none of the pursuits that we read about were any of the fleeing suspects being pursued for a felony. One suspect fled from a routine traffic stop, another female suspect was fleeing for reasons unknown to the police in which her baby was killed and a third was fleeing for traffic violations. In all of these cases, the death penalty was imposed upon an innocent third party who had committed no violation of the law and was hit by the fleeing suspect. Had the suspect been safely apprehended, it is likely they would have been given a fine and let go by the court system based on the minor offenses committed. This is an all too familiar pattern.

We have blogged repeatedly about the dangers of high speed pursuits. It makes little or no sense to impose the death penalty on an innocent third party in order to immediately apprehend a non-violent suspect. Thirty-five to forty percent (35-40%) of all police chases end up in crashes. Many of these chases, because of the high speeds involved, involve serious injuries and/or deaths. It is estimated that there may be as many as 1,000 deaths per year in high speed pursuits nationwide. Given these well known statistics, the better approach, which is being followed more and more by enlightened police jurisdictions, is to have a restrictive policy which allows the police to chase only for forcible or violent felonies. Those departments that still allow their officers to chase for non-violent offenses such as minor traffic violations, obviously, are all too willing to risk serious injury or death in order to immediately apprehend a non-violent suspect. We reiterate this makes little or no sense and we have witnessed first hand the tragedy involved in these cases.

We here at Finch McCranie will continue to litigate these cases. We think it is an important public service. If the police adopt restrictive pursuits, research has shown that the number of pursuits will not increase nor will crime increase as this has been documented over and over again. Who can argue against such policies? They save lives, the do not increase crime nor do they increase the number of pursuits in general. It is simply a good policy that should be followed. Until the majority of departments follow these restrictive policies, we intend to litigate against those who refuse to do so and who unnecessarily expose members of the public... the innocent members of the public... to the needless risks of serious injury or death. Let the minor offenders go. It is not worth killing someone to catch them.

Finch McCranie has been representing innocent victims caught up in police chases for over a decade. While the police should chase violent felons who are endangering the public, many of these cases involve chases where the police are pursuing non-violent or mere traffic offenders at high speeds with the end result being a third party killed or injured, caught up by happenstance in the dangerous pursuit. We have long advocated that the police should pursue violent offenders where the risk of the chase to the public is justified by the risk to the public caused by the offender. If the suspect being pursued has merely violated a traffic law or has committed some other non-violent offense or felony, even if they are apprehended, they are liable to be sentenced to a very light fine and perhaps no incarceration. And yet, in order to chase such a suspect, the police are all too often willing to endanger the rights of the innocent motoring public. Unfortunately, innocent third parties are killed during these dangerous pursuits.

Recently, the City of Milwaukee changed its high speed pursuit policy. From now on, Milwaukee police officers must have probable cause that a violent felony has occurred before they will be authorized to pursue a fleeing suspect. This is because four (4) people have already been killed in 2010 in separate incidents by drivers fleeing from the Milwaukee police. The Police Chief of Milwaukee issued a statement in which he stated that he had to consider the risk to the public caused by the changes in evaluating his City’s policies. As he stated: “I have an obligation to my officers, despite the risk they are willing to take, to limit their risk of injury or death, to make sure that the danger represented by the suspect justifies the risk of violent death. All too often it clearly does not justify that risk.” While this is a welcome change in policy and a sensible and rational approach to police chases in general, many other jurisdictions have failed to adopt a similar policy. Accordingly, officers in many jurisdictions in Georgia and elsewhere continue to chase non-violent offenders at dangerously high speeds sometimes with the result that an innocent third party gets caught up in the chase by happenstance and loses their life or sustains serious and permanent injuries.

We have long advocated that the police should chase those where the risk posed to the public by the suspect is equal to or greater than the risk associated with these dangerous pursuits. However, if the suspect has merely committed a traffic offense or other non-violent offense, the risk of these dangerous pursuits to the public is simply too great. Simply stated, to impose the death penalty on an innocent third party in order to apprehend someone who is non-violent makes no sense.

We are pleased there has been a change in policy in Milwaukee and we can only hope that other police departments will consider changes in their policies. The myth that such policy changes actually encourage crime (by encouraging flight) has been proven over and over again to be a false myth. Those jurisdictions that adopt more restrictive police pursuit policies (such as Milwaukee) have not experienced an increase in crime or in flight cases. There is no reason not to change dangerous non-restrictive policies in a sensible, rational way as has the City of Milwaukee. We applaud Chief Edward Flynn for his stance in this regard. He is doing something that makes sense. We hope that other police chiefs and departments will follow suit.

It seems that everyday when our personal injury lawyers open the paper, we read about another wrongful death in the context of a high speed police chase. Today, we read about another tragic police chase, this one in Montana. The Billings Gazette reported that the family of a Billings nurse killed by a drunken teenager who was fleeing from police has filed a wrongful death and negligence lawsuit, claiming city officers and county deputies violated their own pursuit policies. Stahl died shortly before 7 a.m. on April 18, 2008, when her car was hit broadside by a GMC Jimmy driven by 17-year-old Brian Houston. Stahl was on her way to work as an operating-room nurse at Billings Clinic. The collision happened when the Jimmy went through a stop sign and hit Stahl's car.The lawsuit also claims that after the crash that killed 27-year-old Lillian Stahl, city and county law enforcement agencies lied to the public by stating that the sheriff's deputy leading the pursuit called off the chase several blocks before the fatal collision. According to the article, allegations against the law enforcement agencies in the lawsuit include: the first city officer involved in the incident was driving an unmarked police car; the chase was unwarranted because the driver was suspected of committing only misdemeanor offenses and had been partially identified; that numerous patrol cars from both agencies converged on the area and joined in the chase; and that a city officer's written report and patrol car video "don't match up." The teenager was charged as an adult with negligent vehicular homicide and other felonies. He eventually plead guilty and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The full article in the Billings Gazette can be found at http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_8b672cea-bf8d-11de-b6fa-001cc4c002e0.html. A photograph of the innocent victim should remind readers that all citizens are vulnerable to being killed by these senseless and reckless chases. Once again, a high speed police chase occurred involving a non-violent felony and an innocent person paid the price for this reckless disregard of proper police procedure with their life. What the public does not realize is that the number of victims nationwide in high speed pursuits is greater than the number of victims killed in the 911 destruction of the World Trade Towers. Indeed, the number of those killed and maimed in high speed pursuits are similar to the number of those killed and maimed in the Iraq war. This is a nationwide problem which is particularly acute here in Georgia. And yet, the chases (for non-violent offenders) continue and the innocent die. All of these cases read the same - only the names change. As of the writing of this entry to our blog, our lawyers have filed 6 different lawsuits involving 8 deaths in Georgia, all arising in the context of high speed police pursuits.

Our attorneys at Finch McCranie, LLP will continue to represent the interests of innocent victims. Hopefully, litigation will curb these unwarranted and dangerous police chases. The goal is to get the police community to recognize that they should only chase for violent offenders and should not chase when the danger to the public caused by the chase outweighs the danger presented by the suspect. If enough Georgia juries intervene and condemn these chases with their verdicts, hopefully, lives in Georgia will be saved.

From newspaper accounts it appears that the Board of Commissioners of Clayton County may conduct an independent investigation into a police chase which resulted in the wrongful death of two innocent women who were returning from bible study when a pickup truck fleeing from a Clayton County police officer slammed into their vehicle on Old National Highway in Atlanta. The deadly pursuit began when the police noticed a suspect allegedly soliciting a prostitute. Even though this is a misdemeanor and a minor offense, Clayton County police officers began a high speed pursuit of the suspect which ended with deadly results. Even though the Clayton County Police Department policy does not allow for high speed pursuits of misdemeanor offenders, nonetheless, the Police Department has publicly come out in defense of its officers claiming that the pursuit was justified under the circumstances.

There is a way that the Clayton County Board of Commissioners can protect its tax payers and save lives at the same time. The Board of Commissioners should restrict police pursuits to cases involving violent crimes. Unless the fleeing suspect is known to be violent or known to have committed a violent felony, it hardly makes sense to pursue non-violent suspects at high speeds particularly when it is foreseeable that innocent third parties can be killed. If the Board of Commissioners investigates this incident, it should find that a restrictive policy would have protected these women and that there would be no unnecessary loss of life caused by a restrictive policy.

It simply is not worth taking a human life to capture someone for soliciting a prostitute. The need to immediately apprehend the suspect in this case was clearly outweighed by the danger of the chase to the public. And yet, as long as the police department allows its officers to chase under circumstances whenever they individually deem it appropriate, the public will be at risk. Rather than relying upon the judgment of an officer involved in a high speed pursuit, where his adrenalin is pumping and where his judgment may be altered by the natural desire to apprehend a suspect, the Clayton County Police Department should adopt a restrictive police policy which does not allow the public to be exposed to risk of serious injury or death unless a potentially dangerous chase is justified. In our judgment, the only chase that is ever warranted is where the police are pursuing someone for a violent felony. Under such circumstances, the danger to the public posed by the suspect is equal to the danger caused by the chase itself. For non-violent offenses, the dangers presented by the chase will typically always exceed the danger presented by non-violent suspect. We hope the Board of Commissioners will save lives and adopt a restrictive policy. If not the public is at risk, the officer chasing the suspect is a risk and yes, even the non-violent suspect is at risk. Again, the death penalty to the innocent is not worth capturing a “John” in a solicitation case. This may very will happen again if the policy is not changed.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have sued a number of police departments around the State of Georgia for the wrongful death of innocent citizens caused by police chases. Our experience has shown that following a high speed pursuit, the police begin immediately to plan their defense. We have already seen this in last week's outrageous police chase in Clayton County. The police have told reporters that the officer had already slowed down "hoping that the fleeing suspect would slow down". In other words, the police will say, as they always do, that they were not "in pursuit" at the time of the collision. Oh yes, they often contend they had "terminated the pursuit" by the time of the fatal crash. Trying now to put as much distance between the pursuing officer and the crash, they say the officer didn't even see the collision! I wonder whether the police videotape will bear this out or whether it will mysteriously disappear as it does in so many police chase cases. We see the same lame excuses for bad police conduct over and over. Where was the pursuing police officers supervisor in all of this. Did he radio the speeding officer and tell him to back off or terminate the chase or did he not hear such commands, if made.Will this be another case where the radio was not working properly? In handling many of these police chase cases, we discovered a woman whose own innocent daughter was killed as a result of a police chase case. She has a website which every citizen should check out. http://pursuitsafety.org/index.html She posts the photograph of every innocent victim of police chases. When you see the faces of some of the thousands of innocent victims who have lost their livesas a result of "cowboy" police chases over misdemeanor criminal offenses and traffic offenses, you can see why the Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP feel passionate about these cases.

If you have a loved one that has been killed as a result of a police chase, the experienced Georgia police chase lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP would be more than happy to discuss the rights you have to pursue justice. Call us at (404) 658-9070 or toll free at (800) 228-9159.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have several wrongful death lawsuits pending against various police departments throughout the state. They all involve police chases.They all involve police officers violating their own department policy with respect to police chases. They all involve the wrongful death of innocent victims and several involve the Clayton County Police. Will they ever get the message? Yesterday, Clayton County Police officers saw two men in a pickup truck appear to solicit a known prostitute. When they attempted to detain them, the men took off and the police took off in hot pursuit putting innocent citizens at risk of serious injury or death. During the course of the police chase which began in Clayton County and ended in Fulton County, two innocent women were killed when the fleeing suspects slammed head-on into the women’s car. Is it worth imposing the death sentence on innocent citizens to catch two men who have allegedly propositioned a prostitute? I am sure that the families of the two innocent victims don’t think so and most rational people don’t either. Maybe when the counties employing these officers get hit with large enough verdicts, they will either change their chase/pursuit policies or enforce the ones on the books.

If you have lost loved ones as a result of police officers negligently chasing fleeing suspects over minor offenses such as soliciting a prostitute, traffic offenses or misdemeanor criminal offenses, call the Atlanta Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP. We have been representing the families of innocent police chase victims in wrongful death lawsuits for years and have substantial experience handling such cases. For a free consultation call us at 800 228-9159.

If you go on Google and take advantage of a tool known as “Google News Alerts,” Google will send to you via e-mail news accounts in which certain terms are used. I typed in today the terms “police chase killed.” The following are headlines received from newspapers across the country which I received from this Google News Alert:

1) Victim In Police Chase Remembered as Caring Mom;
2) Woman Killed In Crash During Oakland Police Chase;
3) Toddler Killed In Police Chase;
4) One Man Dead After Barrie Police Chase;
5) Woman Hurt In Police Chase Speaks Out;
6) Two Year Old Killed In Police Chase;

If you read these stories which are linked to the newspaper accounts of the alerts, you will find that innocent people were killed during high speed police chases in Alabama, San Francisco and Barrie, Canada, all occurring on August 26, 2009. As indicated, one of them was a 2-year old child, the other an innocent woman and caring mother and the other a male. This is just in one day which is typical of what you see when you use this Google Alert tool. Simply stated, innocent people are being killed each and every day in the United States (and elsewhere) in high speed police pursuits. Query, when the police promise to “protect and serve,” do they not remember that the innocent can be killed during these events? As we have stated before, the police should only chase violent felons during high speed pursuits otherwise they are risking the death of innocent persons in order to apprehend a non-violent individual. The societal costs are too great to continue these dangerous chases when the suspect being chased at high speeds is not dangerous but the pursuit is. High speed pursuits can kill the innocent. They should be reserved for occasions when the risk to the public is justified.

We read this week the tragic news of eight (8) deaths in a police chase in California. According to news accounts, the police were trying to stop a Dodge Neon over alleged traffic infractions when the pursuit began. Is it worth risking the death penalty to innocent members of the motoring public to catch a traffic violator? There is nothing in the news accounts indicating that this violator was known to the police to be violent. Nonetheless, even though police chases present much greater dangers to the public themselves than do mere traffic violators, nonetheless, the pursuit ensued and the end result was the death of eight (8) individuals. It is not known whether one of the eight (8) was the suspect, but obviously at least seven (7) of the eight (8) were totally innocent in the premises and tragically many of the decedents were children ages 1 through 7.

This case is a classic example of what is wrong with police chases throughout this country. The police continue to believe that they have to chase violators otherwise they will be promoting a disregard for the law. Research and statistics show that if you terminate chases like the one in issue, there is no corresponding increase in the number of violations which later occur. There is a decrease, however, in serious injuries or deaths caused by unreasonable and unsafe police chases.

Our condolences go to the families involved in this great tragedy. Sooner or later the law enforcement community is going to have to accept the reality that being that police chases are too dangerous to justify unless the suspect being chased is known to be dangerous. Yes, the police should chase violent felons, rapists, murders, and carjackers. No, they should not chase mere traffic violators or non-violent offenders unless it is clearly safe to do so. If the roads are empty, it is late at night, and there are no other motorists on the road then chase such a suspect, however, if the chase is being conducted in an urban setting where other motorists are on the road, it is not worth imposing the death penalty on the innocent in order to catch a traffic violator

According to a report issued by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty jumped twenty percent (20%) during the first six months of 2009. The number of officers killed in traffic related incidents increased seventeen percent (17%) during the first six months of 2009 from 30 to 35 deaths. Of interest is the fact that more officers are killed in the line of duty in traffic related accidents than they are with incidents involving firearms.

We have blogged before about the dangers to the public caused by high speed police chases. Obviously, officers in the line of duty are endangered when they engage in these pursuits. While such pursuits are justified when the offender is dangerous to the public such as a carjacker, armed robber, suspected rapist or murderer, the same cannot be stated for situations involving minor traffic offenders and other non-violent offenses. In short, when the suspected offender has done nothing which is dangerous to the public and thereafter a high speed pursuit ensues at speeds approaching 100 miles per hour, not only is the innocent public endangered by such a pursuit, the officer himself can be endangered as he/she can lose control of their vehicle quite easily at such speeds.

We continue to advocate that high speed pursuits should be limited to those situations where the danger to the public caused by the chase itself is justified by the dangers to the public presented by the suspect. If the danger to the public caused by the chase itself is greater than the need to apprehend a non-violent offender as an example, the pursuit should be terminated. Research and statistics show that if pursuits are terminated, the suspect ceases to flee, shows down and deadly collisions are avoided. Of interest is that crime does not increase in those jurisdictions that have restrictive pursuit policies.

We read yesterday in the paper about a tragic case in Charlotte, N.C. involving a police chase which resulted in the death of an innocent 84-year old woman who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught up in the chase, resulting in her death. According to the news reports of the incident, the police were chasing a suspected shoplifter who had committed a petty offense at a local shopping mall. Although the news reports are sketchy, it appears that the merchant called the police and shortly thereafter the police spotted the vehicle being operated by the suspected thief. A three mile chase ensued at high speeds and during the chase, the suspect lost control of his vehicle and struck the vehicle being operated by the innocent victim. Her death resulted. The petty thief has now been charged with murder.

We have blogged before in the past about the reasons why there should be policies prohibiting these kinds of chases. The death penalty to the innocent is the end result and in our judgment the death of this innocent lady cannot be justified by the need to apprehend a suspected petty thief. The news reports are sketchy as to what was stolen, but it appears that it was merchandise probably worth less than $100.00. In order to apprehend a petty thief, the police made a decision to expose innocent members of the motoring public to the possibility of serious injury or death. When balancing the risk to the public caused by a dangerous high speed chase against the need to apprehend the offender, it is our judgment, and that of many experts in the field, that public policy demands that in such circumstances, when the police are chasing a non-violent offender, they should terminate such a chase because it is foreseeable that an innocent third party might be seriously injured or killed if they do not. Because this chase happened over a three mile span, the police should have known that the suspect was not going to pull over and that the risk to the public caused by the chase itself was a greater danger to the public than was the suspect himself.

The police are defending the chase, as they always do. They are stating that the suspect was found to be on probation and had a criminal record for other theft offenses. These facts, probably discovered after the fact, were probably not known to the pursuing officer. Facts discovered after an incident can hardly justify an officer’s actions at the time of the incident. In this case, according to the news accounts, the officer only knew that the suspect he was pursuing at high speeds was a petty thief. Why would the police condone a chase where a death occurs when the need to apprehend was so slight and the danger to the public presented by a petty thief was far less than the danger to the public presented by the chase itself?

Of course, we do not know all the facts surrounding this case and can only base our views on what little information has been publicly released. Nonetheless, it is our strong belief and that of many experts throughout the country, including many involved in law enforcement, that law enforcement must do a better job of policing itself and must not condone dangerous high speed police chases in the context of a non-violent offense where the suspect/offender poses little or no danger to the public and the chase itself poses considerable dangers, oftentimes resulting in serious injury or death. This tragic case in Charlotte is no different from many others throughout the country. Indeed, our firm is handling a similar case in Augusta where the police were chasing two shoplifters which resulted in the death of three individuals. We pose the question: Was the death penalty to the innocent justified by the need to apprehend the suspect and the danger to the public presented by the petty thief? We think not.

Continue reading "Police Chase For Non-Violent Crime Turns Deadly" »

The simple answer to the question posed is - No. Some police chases are necessary in order to protect the interests of the public. If someone through a violent act commits the crime of car jacking, is a cop killer or otherwise is attempting to escape law enforcement for the commission of a violent felony where the suspect clearly poses an imminent and present danger to the public, then under such circumstances, the dangers presented by police chases are warranted from a societal standpoint. It is a different case altogether, however, when the police are chasing a minor traffic offender at high speeds and at the same time are creating great danger to the public where the need to immediately apprehend the suspect is outweighed by the danger presented to the public by the chase itself. Most experts in this area do not advocate banning police pursuits altogether. In cases involving violent felonies, even if the chase itself poses dangers to innocent members of the motoring public, nonetheless, the suspect being pursued is dangerous and needs to be apprehended if possible in order to protect the public. Again, however, the situation is different when the suspect really does not need to be apprehended immediately, poses little danger to the public and yet the chase itself kills or seriously injuries innocent members of the motoring public under such circumstances.

Most enlightened police departments throughout the United States have restrictive pursuit policies which limit the ability of their officers to chase non-violent offenders. If someone has a missing taillight it would hardly be justifiable to chase them at high speeds approaching 100 miles per hour while approaching a congested area or a school zone. People are likely to be killed because it is foreseeable that serious injury or death will occur during a high speed police chase. The law enforcement community has long known that approximately 400 to 500 people per year are killed in police chases and many thousands injured across this country. Because it is foreseeable that serious injury or death can result from a high speed police pursuit, such foreseeable risks should be minimized if at all possible particularly when the fleeing suspect does not present an inherent danger to the public.

There are many police policies that do not restrict the activities of their officers but nonetheless allow them to exercise their “discretion” as to whether they should continue a pursuit once initiated. Most such policies have language to the effect that if the danger to the public caused by the chase itself is greater than the danger presented by the suspect that the pursuit should be terminated. This is excellent policy language but the problem is it is difficult to implement and consequently the public is still being exposed under such policies to unnecessary risks of serious injury or death when non-violent traffic offenders are involved. It would seem that the better policy would be to have a restrictive policy that clearly spells out for officers what they can and cannot do in situation involving non-violent felonies. Nonetheless, until there is a uniform policy adopted by the law enforcement community restricting the rights of officers to expose the public to serious injury or death in situations involving non-violent felonies, at the very least, policies that provide discretion to its officers should be enforced and officers should not be permitted to expose the public to unnecessary risks of injury or death unless the need to immediately apprehend the suspect substantially outweighs the danger to the public presented by the chase itself.

We read last week about another tragic ending to a police chase case in Atlanta on January 15, 2009. Unlike many other such matters where the death is not worth it from a societal standpoint, this case appears to be an example where the dangers to the public caused by the police chase were warranted under the unique circumstances involved.

Apparently, the police were chasing two men in connection with armed robberies which had occurred near Roswell, Georgia. In one of these robberies, the perpetrators had pistol whipped one of the victims. The other armed robbery also involved aggravated assault. Thus, on this particular occasion, the police were chasing dangerous felons in possession of firearms. Unfortunately, during the chase, the suspects’ car overturned and a juvenile in the backseat was killed. It is not known whether the juvenile was involved in the robberies or was simply in the vehicle by happenstance or through relation to one of the suspects.

In many cases, the dangers to the public presented by a police chase case outweigh the need to apprehend the suspect. It makes little or no sense to pursue a suspect at high speeds in urban areas for a missing taillight or minor traffic offense. When the police are chasing a minor offender when they could inflict serious injury or death on an innocent member of the motoring public, it is hard to justify a dangerous chase. In this case, however, the police were trying to apprehend dangerous felons in possession of firearms who had terrorized other members of the public. In this situation, the police were fully authorized under proper police procedure to attempt to apprehend these suspects notwithstanding the dangers to the public caused by the chase. This, of course, is far different from the cases we have been involved in where we are representing innocent victims killed during a chase where the police are chasing the perpetrators for non-violent minor offenses. In the latter case where the chase itself is much more dangerous to the public than in the suspect being chased, the chase can hardly be justified. In this tragic occurrence which occurred here in Atlanta on January 15, 2009, it appears from the public accounts of this incident that the police were observing proper police procedure and that they were fully justified in attempting to apprehend these dangerous felons. We have no problem whatsoever with such activity because it is in compliance with proper police procedure. Indeed, one of the reasons that we continue to monitor these police chase cases is to stand up for the right of the law enforcement community to engage in police chases where the need to apprehend is great and the need to expose the public to the dangers of the chase is fully justified by the aggravated circumstances involved.

Continue reading "Atlanta Police Chase Results In Death" »

According to news reports, Atlanta Police Officer Sgt. Darrell Johnson was killed on Friday morning, October 24 when his vehicle was struck head-on by a fleeing suspect during a high speed police chase. Not only was the police officer killed, the fleeing suspect was killed as well.

The newspaper reports are sketchy, however, it appears that the high speed chase began when authorities received a 911 call from a member of the public who had spotted the suspect’s car while weaving. The officers apparently attempted to make a traffic stop of the suspect. When the suspect refused to stop for the suspected traffic violation, he took off, thus initiating a “high speed” chase. During the chase, the suspect lost control, crossed the center line and hit Sgt. Johnson’s vehicle head-on.

According to the news accounts of this tragic incident, it appears that the fleeing suspect was a veteran of the Iraq war. He may have had personal issues based on his experience there. The police allege that he was driving while drunk, but there is no indication whether this is based on a blood alcohol test or just based on his driving at the time. Either way, it seems evident that a drunk driver who is not being pursued by the police is not nearly as dangerous as is the drunk driver who is attempting to elude officers while traveling at high speeds while impaired. At least one expert, Professor Geoffrey Alpert of the University of South Carolina, has been known to say that the one thing that is much worse than a drunk driver is a drunk driver being chased at high speeds by the police.

While it is difficult to evaluate this particular case based on the sketchy news reports, what is troubling about the account is that it appears that this high speed police chase was initiated for a traffic violation only. Clearly, the danger to the public presented by a high speed police chase can be greater than is the danger presented by a mere traffic violator. The police should not be chasing someone for a mere traffic offense when other innocent members of the motoring public are placed at risk of either serious injury or death. To impose the death penalty upon an innocent member of the motoring public in order to apprehend a traffic violator makes little or no sense. The police simply need to recognize that sometimes the suspect has to be allowed to escape so that the chase itself will not endanger the innocent motoring public.

Having seen many other innocent persons killed or injured during high speed police chases, we continue to advocate that the police should chase at high speeds only when the public itself is endangered by the suspect. Yes the police should chase murderers, rapists, carjackers and other armed violent felons, but to chase someone at high speeds for a traffic violation is to unnecessarily place the entire public at risk. When the death penalty is imposed upon the innocent for a minor traffic offense, we would submit that the public is neither served nor protected which, of course, is the paramount duty of all law enforcement officials.

Continue reading "High Speed Chase Ends In Two Deaths: Was It Worth It?" »

It was reported by the news media on Friday, August 15, 2008 that an innocent motorist was killed on 8/14 when inadvertently caught up in a high speed police chase in Clayton County, Georgia. While the media reports are sketchy, it appears that the fleeing suspect was speeding and driving in an erratic manner. The police began to chase the driver and during the chase, the suspect struck an innocent motorist who was on a motorcycle. As a result, the motorcyclist was killed.

We do not know enough about the facts of this case to assess whether the police chase violated Clayton County’s policies and procedures for high speed pursuits. Nonetheless, Clayton County has a well known track record of having been involved in numerous police chases where serious injuries and deaths have occurred. Our law firm currently has 3 wrongful death suits pending against Clayton County and one serious brain injury case all arising out of high speed police chases. In each of these 4 cases, we have alleged that the pursuing officers recklessly disregarded proper police procedure in their decision to initiate the chase and/or their failure to terminate it after it became clear that the risk of injury or death to innocent third parties caused by the chase outweighed the need to apprehend the suspect.

In this case, it appears that the fleeing suspect was wanted for traffic violations. We have indicated before that the dangers associated with high speed pursuits are so great that unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the public to immediately apprehend the suspect, in many cases, termination of the pursuit is the best way to protect innocent third parties from the dangers presented by a chase. In this case, it is clear that the Clayton County officers involved did not terminate their pursuit with the result that yet another innocent third party motorist was killed. As in our other cases, this third party was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and was doing nothing wrong and yet paid the price for this apprehension with his life. The question again arises. Is the death penalty to the innocent worth the price of catching a suspect who is wanted for mere traffic violations? We have said it before, we say it again: We think not.

Since the seminal case of Scott v. Harris as decided by the U. S. Supreme Court there seems to be a prevailing mood that “the gloves are off” and the police can chase a suspect who defies their orders to pull over for as long as possible notwithstanding the dangers to the public. Fortunately, even though this has been the reading by some of the Supreme Court Opinion, the legal landscape is hardly as bleak as some would think. Indeed, state laws like that enacted by the Georgia Legislature (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-6) still provide protections for innocent members of the motoring public when the chasing police officer fails to exercise “due regard” for the safety of the motoring public. An interesting question arises, however, when the police claim that they have a need to chase a fleeing suspect notwithstanding the dangers to the motoring public. While this may be true in some cases with respect to the suspect himself the question arises as to what should be done in the context of a fleeing suspect when he or she has in their vehicle passengers who may be completely unconnected with the reasons for the chase.

A typical example of what we are concerned about is the situation in which a teenage driver with teenage friends in his car is asked to pull over by a police officer. For whatever reason, the teenage driver decides to take off. The teenage driver may be driving without a license, he may be joy riding, he may be on juvenile probation, he may be in violation of his parents orders to return home at a certain time, etc. In short, teenage drivers are known to panic for a variety of reason unconnected with their danger to the public. And yet, if the police decide to chase such a suspect, not only are they endangering the fleeing suspect’s life and other members of the motoring public, they are clearly endangering the rights of the passengers trapped inside the vehicle.

We have been involved in several cases dealing with trapped passengers. Passengers in vehicles do not know what the driver may or may not have done in all cases. In some cases, the passengers may be in on the criminal acts being investigated by the police. In many other cases, however, there may be no evidence whatsoever that the passengers in the vehicle have done anything wrong and yet because they are trapped inside the vehicle, they are exposed to the risk of death by the police as chases continue in some cases for miles. We continue to believe that passengers like other third parties involved in these chases have rights which must be recognized by police. If the police have a reason to chase a suspect, so be it, however, when the danger to the public caused by the chase itself exceeds the danger to the public caused by the suspect’s alleged transgressions, then in that event, the police must exercise due regard for the rights of passengers just as they must exercise due regard for the safety of innocent third party motorists.

The cases that seem to attract the most attention in this area are those involving deaths to pedestrians and other third parties who have no involvement whatsoever in the chase and are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Such cases are obviously very tragic. However, innocent passengers trapped in a vehicle are just as likely to be innocent victims of police chases as are innocent third party motorists unconnected to the chase. Innocent passengers have rights that must be recognized by the police. Until and unless the police factor those rights into the calculus of making the determination whether the dangers presented by the chase are justified, tragedies will continue to occur, passenger’s rights will continue to be ignored, and deaths involving innocent passengers will continue unabated. The fact that our firm is currently handling 2 separate cases involving passengers killed in chases for non-violent offenses allegedly committed by the driver is evidence of this.

Having handled police chase cases for over a decade, I have yet to see a case in which the police admitted wrongdoing when a high speed pursuit turned out badly. Obviously, when a high speed pursuit ends in tragedy and someone is killed or seriously injured, the police know that immediately. In cases where the pursuit should not have been initiated and/or continued, the wagons are then circled and numerous explanations and rationalizations are provided as to why the police were merely “doing their duty” and were doing absolutely nothing wrong. Many times this is exactly the case. The police were doing their duty and they were doing nothing wrong and had every right to be chasing a dangerous offender who may have committed a forcible felony as an example. However, in many other cases, the police have done something wrong. That is, they were exposing the public to great risk of serious injury or death with virtually no need to chase the offender (such as situations involving missing tail lights or minor petty or misdemeanor offenses) and the pursuit then “turned out badly.” In situations where the police are chasing minor offenders at high rates of speed on congested roadways the danger to the public always will always outweigh the need to apprehend the suspect. And yet, in such circumstances, when the pursuit ends in tragedy, the police will “have done nothing wrong” and were merely “doing their duty.” The wrong was committed by the fleeing suspect, not the police so they will say. But the suspect (a minor transgressor) was no serious danger to anyone until they were chased.

The rationalizations we often see in these cases are that “the pursuit had not begun, we were merely trying to catch up to the suspect.” By offering this rationalization the police hope to convince the public that they did not violate their pursuit policies because they were not actually in a pursuit. Another common defense is that “we were not in pursuit, we are acting in emergency mode attempting to warn the public up ahead of the dangers presented by the motorist.” Another rationalization is “we had no intent to immediately apprehend the suspect,” meaning that if we did not have an intent to apprehend, we could not have been in pursuit but were merely following the vehicle. Indeed, “following the vehicle” or “tailing” the vehicle is another rationalization offered rather than “pursuing the vehicle.” Another defense: “it was the officer’s discretion” under the policy to chase or not to chase. (Therefore, he can never be wrong). Another defense: we had terminated the pursuit and had resumed normal speed. (Videotapes are often missing when this one is used). The rationalizations and explanations are endless but having practiced in this area for many years, the point to be made is that according to themselves the police very rarely do anything wrong, even in those situations where they do.

Regrettably, the natural human instinct to deny wrongdoing when a mistake has been made is what is preventing change in this area. Nothing will change unless the parties who have made the mistakes acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them. As long as rationalizations and explanations are offered necessary change will not occur and the innocent will continue to die. Regrettably, in this particular field, police chases continue unabated with hundreds of innocent people dying annually and thousands of others being seriously injured. Until and unless the law enforcement community is willing to admit that they sometimes have made mistakes, they will never learn from them and the innocent public will continue to pay the price for them.

To err is human. Police sometimes err just as well as we all do. The law enforcement community needs to admit its errors in these cases if lives are to be saved. Otherwise, we can count on more deaths and injuries in needlessly reckless and dangerous police pursuits where the danger presented to the public by the suspect is outweighed by the dangers of the chase itself.