Oakland is considering allowing police to chase property crime suspects. Geoffrey Alpert, the author of OPD’s current policy, says that will cause more crashes.
Robberies, burglaries, and car thefts have increased in Oakland over the past four years, leading many people to wonder what more the city can do to respond to crime. Some city leaders and residents think that part of the problem is Oakland’s policy around police chases. Compared to other cities, Oakland’s policy is cautious: officers can chase violent and armed suspects, but they’re not supposed to speed around the city going after people who’ve only stolen property or committed other nonviolent crimes. Why? Police chases often lead to crashes and injuries and sometimes deaths. Oakland’s policy recognizes the riskiness of chases and limits them to try to prevent harm.
But some Oaklanders believe that if the people committing property crimes know that the cops aren’t likely to chase them, then they’ll keep breaking the law and things will get worse.
Last month, Councilmembers Kevin Jenkins and Treva Reid introduced legislation that would have the Oakland Police Commission review OPD’s pursuit policy this summer and offer up changes that could better help fight crime.
OPD’s policy was written over a decade ago following a 2011 audit by the department’s Inspector General, which found that many chases led to serious injuries to officers, suspects, and bystanders.
As Oakland gears up to reconsider its policy around police chases, we thought it would help to talk to one of the foremost experts on the topic
Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina, has studied police chases and other high-risk police activities since the early 1980s. He has also consulted with numerous cities and written police chase policies, including Oakland’s. He’s worked with the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to create training modules for police officers so they better understand the risks involved.
The following conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
You and other researchers have been writing about the dangers of police chases for at least 20 years. Why did it take so long for cities like Oakland to consider policies that would limit chases only to violent crimes?
Well, anytime you make large movements in reform, particularly on hot-button issues like uses of force or pursuits or any other strategic issue in the department, there’s going to be resistance. Back then, [Oakland’s policy] was probably one of the better policies. But as we learn more, we refine our policies.
You got involved in this field of work in the 1980s. What changed back then that led the police to want to learn more and update their policies?
In the mid-to-late-eighties, police chiefs started seeing more people dying, seeing their officers injured and dying, and, most importantly, they started collecting statistics. I think the first report done by a law enforcement agency was in 1983 by the California Highway Patrol. Their conclusion was that if you don’t chase, there’s not going be havoc on the roadway. If you chase, it will continue until the fleeing suspect stops or crashes.
And that’s where we’re today, too. Most of the time a suspect crashes. He doesn’t just voluntarily stop.
At the time, I was working as a professor at the University of Miami. I developed a relationship with Miami-Dade County police chiefs in the aftermath of the Miami riots when I was asked to do their after-action report of their use of force. One of those chiefs brought the issue of police chases to my attention. He was president of the Dade County Police Chiefs Association. We looked at data from all 27 departments there. We then went to Washington and got money to study chases because police chiefs were concerned about pursuit numbers.
It’s really important to get the point across that this was a data-driven decision. Chiefs looked at the data, saw officers and civilians killed, and said, ‘This isn’t right. We’ve gotta fix it.’ And of course, you can’t fix the problem if you don’t know what the problem is.
The most recent national report by the federal Justice Department and Police Executive Research Forum, which you helped write, says police shouldn’t chase anyone unless they’re wanted for committing a violent crime. Has there ever been a time when chasing suspects for any and all types of crimes actually led to crime reduction?
I don’t think it’s ever had any impact on crime reduction. I think the numbers [of people that they catch] are too small.
Are there speed limits in chases, or can cops drive as fast as possible?
If the person just killed someone or something like that, then I think officers can raise the risk to the public to apprehend them. It’s all about risk. When you say, ‘drive as fast as possible,’ you could drive faster on a freeway than you can in downtown Oakland, but it is all about risk. So how much risk are you willing to place on members of the public? How risky do you want to make it for your 16-year-old daughter who’s driving home from work? How risky do you want to make it for grandma driving home from shopping?
What are the alternatives to police chases?
The alternative to police chasing is not chasing. It’s a dichotomy. There’s no intermediate chase. It’s either a chase or not a chase. And if it’s a chase, it’s risky. If it’s not a chase, it isn’t.
How does an officer decide whether or not to chase someone?
If there’s no probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed or a violent crime is committed, you don’t chase. You don’t raise the risk to the public on a whim. You can raise it on what you know, not what you think, not what you speculate
There isn’t one national definition of what a police chase is, and there isn’t a single policy all departments can follow. Does each city having its own chase policy lead to problems?
If you’re a police chief with a chase policy, you also have training, supervision, and accountability. You’ll need to have all four of those to manage pursuits, and you need to make sure you don’t just give someone a 10-page policy and assume they’re going to read it and understand it. You need very specific training for that policy. That’s how officers learn. You’ve got to test on it, or bring them in and talk about it. You can’t just rely on cops to read and understand it. You gotta give the officers the chance to ask questions to learn about the specifics.
We’ve heard stories about Oakland police officers telling residents they can’t go after suspects who burglarized their business or car because the city’s chase policy is too restrictive. What do you think about that?
You have to remember police, especially young cops, find it exciting to chase people. Some years ago that was a reason people would sign up to be an officer, just for the adrenaline rush, for the thrill of the chase.
I think they need to explain to the public why they can’t chase. You’re going to have some cops bitching and moaning, saying, ‘The chief won’t let me do this. It’s handcuffing me, and it’s horrible.’ But the bottom line is they need to go out there and manage the public’s expectation of why they’re not allowed to chase.
They’re not being allowed to chase because of the risk to the public. When I train cops, I always ask them how they would feel if their 16-year-old daughter were hit by a fleeing suspect in a stolen car who’s being chased by one of their fellow officers. I ask them, is that worth it?
What do they say when you tell them that?
They respond, ‘Well, you can’t ask that, that’s making it personal.’ And my answer is easy: It’s always personal to someone.
My point is you can’t let cops in public meetings say they’re being handcuffed when the fact is they’re doing their job. You’re not raising the risk inordinately to the public. I’ve seen situations where a cop goes to a place where a TV’s been stolen out of a house and the guy says, ‘Well, that’s the guy right there. He is just driving down the street with my TV in the back of his truck.’ And the cop says, ‘You know, I’ll go try to stop him, but I can’t chase him.’ And the person gets upset at the moment, but the point is that’s the job. You’re not gonna put someone’s life at risk for a stolen TV. Maybe you left your house unlocked, maybe they broke in your window and you didn’t have a deadbolt. We’re not raising the risk to the public over a piece of property.
What do you think about police using tracking devices and drones to follow suspects and do away with the need to ever chase anyone?
I think the answer is technology. We have StarChase, which shoots out GPS trackers that stick on cars. We also have drones that follow them. OnStar technology can also shut a car down. So, we have the technology, but we’re just not using it for various privacy reasons.
Oakland leaders recently asked for a new analysis of our pursuit policy, with one bringing up the possibility of allowing for more chases at night when fewer people are driving around or walking the streets. What do you think about that idea?
They can couch it however they want, but it’s all about risk. I mean, look, bars, get out at two at night. Factories get out at that time. So just because it’s midnight or one in the morning, is that lower risk than other times? If they’re defining nighttime as lower risk, I’m not sure they are correct.
How much training do think officers need to make good decisions about whether or not to chase someone?
You can’t pare it down to a number of hours. The point is you have to get officers to understand what they’re doing. They need to have basic skills, just like a firearm. You get a gun, learn how to take it apart, learn what it does, learn how to clean it, learn target acquisition. In the vehicle industry, we call that emergency vehicle operations. You learn about the car, how to drive it, and when to use those skills. And that’s called decision-making training. How to make good decisions comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes.
What’s the biggest thing a cop can learn to improve their decision-making around police chases?
You gotta learn about the consequences. You need to know the numbers. How many people get away, how many chases end up in collisions, and what’s the benefit of chasing? It’s a cost-benefit ratio. What’s the government’s interest in apprehending this person, and what’s the risk? That’s a classroom discussion that needs to happen before you get out on the track.
According to city residents who recently spoke with Oakland police, the California Highway Patrol recently engaged in pursuits on Oakland streets following their policy, which isn’t as cautious as OPD’s rules. They did it to, they said, make streets safer by lowering crime. What do you think of the situation?
It happens all the time. Not just with highway patrol, but with different cities. You can have a city cop that crosses a boundary and when he comes into my city, I can’t tell him to stop. I can’t tell him to do anything. I’m not able to help him or assist him. Highway patrols are brought in to do things the city can’t do. And it’s not good for the morale of the city cops. It’s not good for law enforcement. It’s good for politics.
Is it safe? Is it good for residents? No, because it’s raising the risk. The highway patrol has a different set of rules than Oakland and they’re gonna be more liberal with chases.
What is the role of the supervising officer in a police chase?
Supervisors are people with rank and more training. They know more. We usually want them to be what we call detached supervisors. Officers get caught up in chases so the supervisor comes in and says, ‘Cut it off. The risk is too great. It’s not worth it.’ Sometimes it’s not easy because supervisors don’t want to tell cops they can’t do something, but that’s their job.
Have you seen examples of how an agency’s culture can lead to bad decisions?
If you have a culture of kicking ass and taking names, the officers are gonna chase till the wheels fall off. If you have a confined or refined culture where officers are restricted from doing some things, chasing will be one of them. Different departments serve different purposes and it just depends on where you are and what the political climate is.
A few cities and states are returning to riskier chase policies, including Florida. What do you think about that?
Look at what happened in Indianapolis a few years ago. They had a restrictive policy. The police chief loved it and supported it. His bosses at the public safety committee said, under political pressure, we’re gonna change it so everyone knows we loosened up the standards [to be tough on crime]. Well, you can imagine what happened. The number of people who died while fleeing from the police increased and two cops also died.
You’re in conversations with these departments. What do you say to them when they bring back more police chases?
I tell them they’re signing death warrants.
If they think stopping a few property crimes or stolen cars is worth a life, then so be it. But it’s not worth their life. It’s not worth their family’s life. Well, then whose life is it worth? Because that’s what they’re saying.
They’re saying it’s worth putting other people’s lives at risk for traffic offenses or it’s gonna stop people from running, which they don’t know. Or it’s gonna do a lot of things that are theoretical.
