Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Hi officers, just a quick question I've been curious about:

What is the rule/law when it comes to initiating a police chase against a vehicle you know you can't catch? Are you obligated to do it regardless, or do you just let the driver go in order to prevent him from driving more erratic?

This question was brought up between me and some friends a few days ago, and then I recalled a story I heard from another cop back in in 2006 when I was working for a 7-11 store. Cops would always come in to get free coffee and I befriended a few of them, and one evening an officer came in and as I was ringing him up he told me about how just a few minutes ago some guy passed him in the opposite lane on SR-60 going about 150mph and that he was ORDERED to not pursue the vehicle because he'd never catch the guy before he got out of his jurisdiction.

Any input?

Jurisdiction does not work like it does in the movies. Here, if the offense happens here, I can chase, subject to other limitations to follow. If I move into someone else's jurisdiction they might become the primary agency (which makes sense) but I don't have to turn around with my tail between my legs and leg the guy go.

Now, LEGALLY, there are no limits placed on me on when I can chase and when I cannot. I can chase for any suspected violator of the law, by statute. This may be different in your state, I don't know. But procedurally, different agencies have different policies. If I go on a 120mph chase down city streets because someone has a taillight out, I will not only be ordered to stop, but will probably be ordered a psych exam.

There is no "rule/law". It's going to vary from agency to agency, watch commander to watch commander, circumstances to circumstances, etc. That being said, we all generally operate under the guidelines of driving with due regard for the safety of everyone, constantly evaluating the situation, and weighing the need for apprehension vs the dangers of the pursuit...

Same here, when one of "my guys Im responsible for" per our policy I have to take into account the offense, suspect speed, traffic conditions and location and weather conditions. Pretty much in that order. If its a minor offense and they at least get a tag etc.bI will terminate the pursuit. If its a DUI/Fleeing felon, Stolen Vehicle then I will allow.

There are a lot of variables, but if a guy goes by at 150mph and noghing else then I notify surroundibg agencies and call the pursuit off.

I will say that there is no way to catch a car doing that speed opposite of you, however he cant outrun the radio.....

There are a lot of variables, but if a guy goes by at 150mph and noghing else then I notify surroundibg agencies and call the pursuit off.

I will say that there is no way to catch a car doing that speed opposite of you, however he cant outrun the radio.....

I agree, and that's pretty much how the cop in my story described the scenario. He simply called in the speeding car and it's direction, but never took chase because it was impossible to catch and felt no need to risk his own life trying to reach over 150mph to catch up to the speeder.

Speed is only one factor when considering to initiate a pursuit. I'm not going to get into all the tactics on a public forum, but some agencies have specific policy outlining when exactly an officer can (or cannot) pursue. Even if the officer is pursuing according to policy, the supervisor in charge can still decide whether to keep it going or call it off.

As far as jurisdiction, that is a fallacy. Jurisdiction doesn't matter anytime an officer has initiated a pursuit, no matter what method he is pursuing (car, foot, boat).

I have been out of state twice in pursuits. Longest one was 33 miles in 19 minutes and I still got him.