Wellford Mayor Sallie Peake Defends No Chase Policy

[Big Don]

Wellford Mayor Sallie Peake Defends No Chase Policy

Chris Cato
WSPA EXCERPT:

Updated September 18, 2009
(Wellford, SC)—The Mayor of Wellford is defending her policy which bans police officers in that city from chasing suspects. Sallie Peake says the policy also includes vehicle chases along with pursuits on foot.
A memo issued on September 2nd from Peake to all Wellford officers reads:
“As of this date, there are to be no more foot chases when a suspect runs. I do not want anyone chasing after any suspects whatsoever.“
WSPA first reported the mandate on Wednesday after an anonymous citizen faxed a copy of the memo to our newsroom. Peake was out of town and unavailable for comment. On Friday, reporter Chris Cato caught up with her in her office and questioned her about the origin of the policy. Peake says she issued the mandate because several officers have been injured during chases, driving up insurance costs for the town.
“The officers are costing us more money on insurance than most citizens here in the city of Wellford are even earning,“ says Peake.
She says the city is paying out $20,000 annually in workers’ compensation claims, much of it due to the police force. In July, two officers wrecked their cruisers while chasing suspects and had to go to the hospital for minor treatment. The police chief says three officers have been injured during foot chases in the last two years.
Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright says the policy prevents police from upholding the law—a direct violation of their constitutional oath.
“If a bank robber or a drunk driver or a shoplifter or somebody with a warrant runs on foot, it’s our obligation to do what we can do to bring them to justice,“ says Wright.
But when we asked Peake about her order impeding an officer from stopping a crime in progress, she became defensive and irate. The conversation went as follows:
Reporter: “Are you telling your officers if they witness a crime - they witness someone commit a crime on someone else and they’re ten yards away - they can’t go stop that person?“
Peake: “Is that in there?“ (referring to policy)
Reporter: “It says no chases whatsoever.“
Peake: “Well, that’s what I said, no chases, didn’t I? I didn’t say nothing about a crime. If you see a crime, this that and the other -“
Reporter: “Well, that’s what a chase is - “
Peake: “Well, I told them no chase on foot, and (the police chief) know exactly what I mean, so you’re trying to twist what I -“
Reporter: “No, I’m not. You said no chases. No chases means no chases.“
End Excerpt
That's it, I'm flying to SC and robbing a damn bank

 

[Tez3]

Is each police force funded by the town/city it's in? If they are does that mean politicians can literally lay down the law in each place as in this case?

 

[jks9199]

Is each police force funded by the town/city it's in? If they are does that mean politicians can literally lay down the law in each place as in this case?

Each state has a slightly different structure, but generally, each locality funds its own law enforcement agency, if they have their own. For example, I work for a town, and the PD's budget (including my salary) is part of the town budget. I think (but I'm not certain) that they receive a little bit from the state -- but it's not much. The county PD is paid out of the county coffers, as is the sheriff's office, though the sheriff's office gets more from the state due to the peculiarities of Virginia's state constitution.

So -- yes, the town manager and the town council can have a very big influence on what we can do. Fortunately, they tend to leave police policy decisions in the hands of the cops, under the guidance of the town attorney.

With regard to this no chase policy... it's dumb. There are legitimate reasons to restrict both foot and vehicular chases. For example, we can't chase a car unless the circumstances meet specific criteria, spelled out in our General Orders. But a no chase policy, especially one so poorly understood by the person who drafted it!, is just dumb.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Foot chases being forbidden - I don't get it.

Car chases - well, that one's a bit iffy.

People get upset when a police pursuit of, say, a carjacker, ends up in some innocent person being killed, whether it is by the carjacker or by the police car.

People also get upset when a jurisdiction forbids pursuits and then someone gets away because a pursuit is called off and then later injure or kill someone else.

It's a no-win situation. You can't guarantee that innocent people are not going to be put at risk when you engage in a pursuit. You also cannot guarantee that a fleeing suspect will not later engage in other crimes that put the public at risk.

I also understand that in these litigious times, many smaller cities and counties simply cannot afford the liability insurance for lawsuits stemming from such incidents. Public outrage is one thing, but a couple of huge settlements with the family of an innocent person killed in the line of police pursuit can bankrupt a city or county pretty quickly, or end up getting their liability insurance rates so high they can't pay them.

I wish there was an easy answer for this, but I don't see one.

 

[Cryozombie]

Sweet, I can Mug someone and flee and Im scott free. Woo! You Go Sallie!

That's a Campagin Slogan: "Sallie Peake, Empowering Criminals in your Community"

 

[arnisador]

Can't chase someone on foot? Sheesh!

 

[MJS]

Wellford Mayor Sallie Peake Defends No Chase Policy

Chris Cato
WSPA EXCERPT:

Updated September 18, 2009
(Wellford, SC)—The Mayor of Wellford is defending her policy which bans police officers in that city from chasing suspects. Sallie Peake says the policy also includes vehicle chases along with pursuits on foot.
A memo issued on September 2nd from Peake to all Wellford officers reads:
“As of this date, there are to be no more foot chases when a suspect runs. I do not want anyone chasing after any suspects whatsoever.“
WSPA first reported the mandate on Wednesday after an anonymous citizen faxed a copy of the memo to our newsroom. Peake was out of town and unavailable for comment. On Friday, reporter Chris Cato caught up with her in her office and questioned her about the origin of the policy. Peake says she issued the mandate because several officers have been injured during chases, driving up insurance costs for the town.
“The officers are costing us more money on insurance than most citizens here in the city of Wellford are even earning,“ says Peake.
She says the city is paying out $20,000 annually in workers’ compensation claims, much of it due to the police force. In July, two officers wrecked their cruisers while chasing suspects and had to go to the hospital for minor treatment. The police chief says three officers have been injured during foot chases in the last two years.
Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright says the policy prevents police from upholding the law—a direct violation of their constitutional oath.
“If a bank robber or a drunk driver or a shoplifter or somebody with a warrant runs on foot, it’s our obligation to do what we can do to bring them to justice,“ says Wright.
But when we asked Peake about her order impeding an officer from stopping a crime in progress, she became defensive and irate. The conversation went as follows:
Reporter: “Are you telling your officers if they witness a crime - they witness someone commit a crime on someone else and they’re ten yards away - they can’t go stop that person?“
Peake: “Is that in there?“ (referring to policy)
Reporter: “It says no chases whatsoever.“
Peake: “Well, that’s what I said, no chases, didn’t I? I didn’t say nothing about a crime. If you see a crime, this that and the other -“
Reporter: “Well, that’s what a chase is - “
Peake: “Well, I told them no chase on foot, and (the police chief) know exactly what I mean, so you’re trying to twist what I -“
Reporter: “No, I’m not. You said no chases. No chases means no chases.“
End Excerpt
That's it, I'm flying to SC and robbing a damn bank

I dont think the Mayor knows what the hell she is talking about. She's thinking one thing and trying to say another. First, pursuit policy in a car will most likely vary from state to state. For example, here is CT's pursuit policy. Each agency can make a change, but it will not conflict with what is written. If we look at procedures, we see that the seriousness of the crime is taken into consideration. Additionally, this line:

(1) The decision to initiate a pursuit shall be based on the pursuing police officer’s conclusion that the immediate danger to the police officer and the public created by the pursuit is less than the immediate or potential danger to the public should the occupants of such vehicle remain at large.

So, officers where I work have initiated a chase for simple m/v violations. Car refuses to stop. In the 7yrs that I've worked there, I've yet to see a chase continue for things like running a light/stop sign, expired plate, etc. Now, an armed robbery...well, chances are that will continue.

As far as foot chases go, I don't believe there is any written rule on that. In this case though, the Mayor seems to be pretty much giving the green light for crime in that area. So, any bad guy that mugs someone, rapes someone, kills someone, once he/she starts running away or driving away, they are free birds???

This woman is nuts IMO. God help the residents of that town, as it seems like it'll be a safe haven for scumbags.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Are they allowed to walk quickly towards the bad guys?

 

[Cryozombie]

Are they allowed to walk quickly towards the bad guys?

Only if the bad guys don't walk quickly away.

 

[Archangel M]

Who is the "ball less" chief of that dept?

This dimwit mayor just assured that every crook is going to run.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Wellford stats

Population in July 2007: 2,198.
Males: 996 (45.3%)
Females: 1,202 (54.7%)

Estimated median household income in 2007: $35,311 (it was $32,426 in 2000)
Wellford: $35,311
South Carolina: $43,329

Estimated per capita income in 2007: $19,178
Wellford: $19,178
South Carolina: $23,137

http://www.city-data.com/city/Wellford-South-Carolina.html

With a population that small, the officer might be able to identify the perpetrator on sight. Maybe they don't do foot chases that often and are getting sprains and pulls from not stretching first.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Someone should mug her. We'll see how long the no-chase policy lasts.
She has set a new all time record for la-la-land stupidity imo.

 

[stone_dragone]

I have to say that this is the dumbest **** I have ever heard of...today, any way.

Perhaps with health care reform, the cost of insurance for the city will be lower and the police can afford to run again. If not, the cost of crime will have to go up so that the criminals can afford health care of their own and then they won't need to be criminals in the first place.

Never mind, this is pure genius...

No. Never mind. It belongs in the same pile as the DVD Rewinder.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

2, 3 lawsuits against the PD and city for letting criminals escape may wake her up. Maybe not. Whens she up for reelection again?

 

[geezer]

Someone should mug her. We'll see how long the no-chase policy lasts.
She has set a new all time record for la-la-land stupidity imo.

Seriously, you are not far off the mark. If I lived and paid taxes in that town, I'd be tempted to get a large group of my fellow citizens together, put on masks and walk into her office and each of us would steal the office supplies right off her desk, then run away. Maybe we could have a few friends who were cops conveniently stand idly by just to really rub it in! Oh, and you can bet we'd call the local TV news guys in advance too!

PS I'd get dibs on the candy bowl. You could have her paper clips!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not as clear-cut as you guys seem to think it is.

The mayor in this case sounds a little frazzled and possibly has overstepped, due to the high costs her city is experiencing from on-the-job injuries to cops running after bad guys and from skyrocketing insurance costs.

You guys are throwing stones at her - tell me, what should she do about those costs? Ignore them? When a city goes bankrupt, they lose the police department, that's the fact. We've got several small cities here in Michigan which no longer have police departments at all.

One reason that pursuits are sometimes banned is that pursuits kills cops:

http://www.policedriving.com/article68.htm

There are different types of pursuit policies. No agency I ever worked for had a wide-open, all-pursuits-permitted policy.

The encyclopedia of police science, Volume 1
By Jack R. Greene

And when some innocent person gets hurt due to a police chase - even one that is a 'good' chase for a good reason, citizens get up in arms, and cities get sued.

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/091809_kvue_police-pursuit_changes-tg.1935853e0.html

Four injuries and one death have all been the result of people running from police in the past three weeks in Austin. Now as the latest victim fights for his life some are calling for change.

The latest victim was man who was hit while sitting at a bus stop in his wheelchair. He’s now in a hospital bed in critical condition.

Remember Wasilla, Alaska? Here's a fun one:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/matsu/story/936387.html

WASILLA -- The City of Wasilla has agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit filed last year by a woman injured during a high-speed police pursuit of a drunk driver.

In August 2006, Jennifer Setters was driving the Glenn Highway home to Wasilla when a red pickup driven by 35-year-old Martha Harper with patrol cars in pursuit swerved across the median and smashed into Setters' Ford Expedition near the Knik River bridge.

It's just not cut-and-dried.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

2, 3 lawsuits against the PD and city for letting criminals escape may wake her up. Maybe not. Whens she up for reelection again?

What about the lawsuits that cities experience when the police are involved in pursuits and innocent citizens get injured and sue? Those don't matter?

 

[Archangel M]

No..it's not "cut and dry". But a "pursuit policy" is NOT "no chasing ever..not even on foot". Thats plain silly.

We can "follow for a short time and distance" on simple traffic violations and misdemeanor crimes. The intent being to get a description/plate and then the pursuit will be terminated. We can pursue for felony crimes but it is the supervisors responsibility to monitor the chase and terminate it if necessary. There is more of course but THAT is a policy.

Reporter: “Are you telling your officers if they witness a crime - they witness someone commit a crime on someone else and they’re ten yards away - they can’t go stop that person?“
Peake: “Is that in there?“ (referring to policy)
Reporter: “It says no chases whatsoever.“
Peake: “Well, that’s what I said, no chases, didn’t I? I didn’t say nothing about a crime. If you see a crime, this that and the other -“
Reporter: “Well, that’s what a chase is - “
Peake: “Well, I told them no chase on foot, and (the police chief) know exactly what I mean, so you’re trying to twist what I -“
Reporter: “No, I’m not. You said no chases. No chases means no chases.“

This mayor cant even explain this policy. The counting of beans is being placed over common sense and some officer who probably understands this "policy" even less than the mayor is going to be the one hung out to dry in the end.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No..it's not "cut and dry". But a "pursuit policy" is NOT "no chasing ever..not even on foot". Thats plain silly.

Probably, yes. But it looks like the mayor got all wound up and is now trying to climb down, but the interviewer wasn't going to let her.

We can "follow for a short time and distance" on simple traffic violations and misdemeanor crimes. The intent being to get a description/plate and then the pursuit will be terminated. We can pursue for felony crimes but it is the supervisors responsibility to monitor the chase and terminate it if necessary.

Sounds like what my old department had. We also had only the primary unit allowed to run code three to a call, all backup units had to obey speed limits and not use lights or siren. This may not have always been strictly obeyed, but it was the rule. And code three responses were not supposed to go more than 10 mph over the speed limit - again, often ignored.

The point is that there are serious insurance and liability issues to be considered - you can't just chase everyone. If a city goes bankrupt or can no longer afford liability insurance, that's no good. And for all those who get upset that an agency decides to put a no-pursuit (or only some pursuit) policy in place, there are plenty more citizens who get bent out of shape when a police pursuit ends up injuring an innocent citizen. It's a no-win.

 

[Archangel M]

I would like to know what the old policy said..if there was one.

Of course you shouldnt chase EVRYONE. But that sure as hell shouldnt mean that you chase NO ONE.

Some kid on a bike getting run over by a cop going 120 mph through a school zone to go to a shoplifting complaint is one thing, BUT even if we were chasing a serial killer with 3 co-eds in the trunk and it caused a wreck...yeah we will still get sued. That is the nature (unfortunately) of our litigation happy society. Wise administration means looking past the bottom line to see that sometimes this job COSTS. You place limits to deal with minimizing risk, but if you try to run an operation "risk free" you may as well pack it up and go home.