LE UOF Video thread

[0ddl0t]

If a non-fed LEO shot and killed a dude over a hit and run where no one was injured, they'd be in jail.

A fleeing felon whose continued evasion is increasingly putting police and the public in danger? Maybe in SF...

[John Hearne]

The use of deadly force to stop an ongoing, dangerous pursuit is a well established matter of jurisprudence in 2019. From the most recent SCOTUS case "The Court has thus never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the Fourth Amendment, let alone to be a basis for denying qualified immunity." Mullenix v. Luna (2015) Fleeing from the police is effectively an act of wielding a deadly weapon in the commission of a violent felony at least as dangerous as arson.

We can argue about how "dangerous" the pursuit was. We don't have video footage from the original pursuing unit to see how the driver was behaving prior to the start of the video we have. The pursuit did move from a fairly open highway to a residential neighborhood at 7:00 in the evening. Are these facts as "dangerous" as Plumhoff v. Rickard or Scott v. Harris - obviously, the investigators thought they did. The SCOTUS has been very clear that if you run from the police what happens next is "on you" - see Sykes v. United States (2011)

And from personal experience, the U.S. Attorney's Office doesn't discuss ongoing cases. We had a misdemeanor case in which a driver almost struck several of our officers. We wanted to release the video to the media as a public awareness piece. We could not get permission to release the video until the case was adjudicated. Of course the driver, didn't show and by the time the matter was settled, it was almost two years later and the video was stale.

[TGS]

Park Police turned the investigation over to FBI and DOJ several days later. Until tThe announcement that no federal charges would be filed, FBI, DOJ, USPP, NPS, and DOI were saying absolutely nothing. This included refusal to reply to Congress.

…

I have my doubts about the OIS, but I understand that things are not always as they appear. On the other hand, I find it outrageous that the federal government sits on an OIS like this for two years with no comment or decision for the decedent's family or the involved cops. I see no reason for the government to treat either the bad guy's family nor the cops (now in the station on admin duty for close to two years) like this.

I think it's weird that it took this long to decide not to prosecute, but the "no comment" piece is standard for federal affairs. Federal LE and USAOs are not in the practice of publicly opining on investigations prior to completion, unlike local governments.

As for the Congress piece, does that anger you? They're Congress. They have exactly zero special privilege, authority or right to insert themselves into and influence investigations. They try that shit all the time thinking they have some special status, and their requests are universally ignored/refused. I dealt with that a ton at my last assignment where every swingin'dick do-gooder called in thinking they had some right to investigations.

I think it's fairly safe to say that this is what law enforcement looks like when we don't have asinine policies placing the value of the perps life over everyone else, and what the PA piece looks like when you don't have state/local politicians looking to make a name for themselves and put their foot in their mouth prior to the completion of an investigation.

[voodoo_man]

A fleeing felon whose continued evasion is increasingly putting police and the public in danger? Maybe in SF...

Hit and run where no one was injured is a misdemeanor, at most. Fleeing the police is a felony, however, none of which requires the use of deadly force.

Like I said, there has to be something which is being left out.

[voodoo_man]

The use of deadly force to stop an ongoing, dangerous pursuit is a well established matter of jurisprudence in 2019. From the most recent SCOTUS case "The Court has thus never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the Fourth Amendment, let alone to be a basis for denying qualified immunity." Mullenix v. Luna (2015) Fleeing from the police is effectively an act of wielding a deadly weapon in the commission of a violent felony at least as dangerous as arson.

We can argue about how "dangerous" the pursuit was. We don't have video footage from the original pursuing unit to see how the driver was behaving prior to the start of the video we have. The pursuit did move from a fairly open highway to a residential neighborhood at 7:00 in the evening. Are these facts as "dangerous" as Plumhoff v. Rickard or Scott v. Harris - obviously, the investigators thought they did. The SCOTUS has been very clear that if you run from the police what happens next is "on you" - see Sykes v. United States (2011)

And from personal experience, the U.S. Attorney's Office doesn't discuss ongoing cases. We had a misdemeanor case in which a driver almost struck several of our officers. We wanted to release the video to the media as a public awareness piece. We could not get permission to release the video until the case was adjudicated. Of course the driver, didn't show and by the time the matter was settled, it was almost two years later and the video was stale.

In reference to the above, if an officer working in a large city did this, they'd be arrested for homicide.

[TGS]

Hit and run where no one was injured is a misdemeanor, at most. Fleeing the police is a felony, however, none of which requires the use of deadly force.

Like I said, there has to be something which is being left out.

Remember, they didn't shoot him because he left a scene or is evading arrest.

They shot him because he was going to run again, and doing so would present a risk of death or grievous bodily harm to the general public.

A given department may have a non-pursuit policy that would have prevented the officers from pursuing in the first place and/or discouraged them from using lethal force, but that nor what any anti-law enforcement DA from a big city would do is not relevant here.

The same case law that allows a Trooper to shoot a big-rig driver with a rifle from an overpass who fails to stop for inspection and drives dangerously in doing so is the same case law that makes the UOF "objectively reasonable" in the case of these officers. It's also the same case law that makes it objectively reasonable for officers to use a PIT maneuver at high speed, which can be considered deadly force.

[John Hearne]

In reference to the above, if an officer working in a large city did this, they'd be arrested for homicide.

The city of Memphis sought to convict the Arkansas officers in Plumhoff with homicide charges as well. The SCOTUS sorted that out.

[kwb377]

Remember, they didn't shoot him because he left a scene or is evading arrest.

They shot him because he was going to run again, and doing so would present a risk of death or grievous bodily harm to the general public.

I think here locally, it would be a hard sell (and we have a very supportive DA office). Just from the part of the video we see, he looks to be obeying traffic laws...he's signaling turns, maintaining lane, and speed looks to be reasonable (I couldn't listen to the audio...don't know if they were calling out speeds). Saying he was a danger to the public would probably be a stretch.

The big difference in the Arizona case is that he was on the wrong side of the interstate going against on-coming traffic.

Admittedly, I was involved in an OIS of a vehicle driver a little over a year ago. But my guy was spinning around in a yard, bouncing of the rev-limiter trying to run over myself and another officer, armed with a handgun and AR15 while fueled on meth/heroin.

[John Hearne]

Hit and run where no one was injured is a misdemeanor, at most. Fleeing the police is a felony, however, none of which requires the use of deadly force.

The Supreme Court would disagree with you, I think they're ruling is binding. Taken from Sykes v. United States:
"When a perpetrator defies a law enforcement command by fleeing in a car, the determination to elude capture makes a lack of concern for the safety of property and persons of pedestrians and other drivers an inherent part of the offense. Even if the criminal attempting to elude capture drives without going at full speed or going the wrong way, he creates the possibility that police will, in a legitimate and lawful manner, exceed or almost match his speed or use force to bring him within their custody. A perpetrator’s indifference to these collateral consequences has violent—even lethal—potential for others. A criminal who takes flight and creates a risk of this dimension takes action similar in degree of danger to that involved in arson, which also entails intentional release of a destructive force dangerous to others. This similarity is a beginning point in establishing that vehicle flight presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."
…
"Because an accepted way to restrain a driver who poses dangers to others is through seizure, officers pursuing fleeing drivers may deem themselves duty bound to escalate their response to ensure the felon is apprehended. Scott v. Harris , 550 U. S. 372, 385 (2007) , rejected the possibility that police could eliminate the danger from a vehicle flight by giving up the chase because the perpetrator “might have been just as likely to respond by continuing to drive recklessly as by slowing down and wiping his brow.” And once the pursued vehicle is stopped, it is sometimes necessary for officers to approach with guns drawn to effect arrest. Confrontation with police is the expected result of vehicle flight. It places property and persons at serious risk of injury.
Risk of violence is inherent to vehicle flight. Between the confrontations that initiate and terminate the incident, the intervening pursuit creates high risks of crashes. It presents more certain risk as a categorical matter than burglary. It is well known that when offenders use motor vehicles as their means of escape they create serious po-tential risks of physical injury to others. Flight from a law enforcement officer invites, even demands, pursuit. As that pursuit continues, the risk of an accident accumulates. And having chosen to flee, and thereby commit a crime, the perpetrator has all the more reason to seek to avoid capture."

SCOTUS from Scott v. Harris:
"We think it appropriate in this process to take into account not only the number of lives at risk, but also their relative culpability. It was respondent, after all, who intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in the reckless, high-speed flight that ultimately produced the choice between two evils that Scott confronted."

[0ddl0t]

I think here locally, it would be a hard sell (and we have a very supportive DA office). Just from the part of the video we see, he looks to be obeying traffic laws...he's signaling turns, maintaining lane, and speed looks to be reasonable (I couldn't listen to the audio...don't know if they were calling out speeds). Saying he was a danger to the public would probably be a stretch.

Obeying traffic laws? He's running from the police and trying to drive around/through a roadblock.

No one would argue against a PIT maneuver being justified, right? But crashing a vehicle is using potentially lethal force too.