Foot and Vehicle Pursuits

Pursuits, whether on foot or in vehicles, represent critical moments in law enforcement where interactions with the public can quickly escalate into forceful interventions. While foot pursuits do not always lead to the use of physical force, they are being increasingly acknowledged as interconnected with a police agency’s use of force policies. This linkage is highlighted by policies discouraging officers from engaging in foot pursuits that might put them at a tactical disadvantage or where an immediate apprehension is not crucial, thereby reducing the instances where force may become necessary. Likewise, vehicle pursuits, traditionally seen as separate from use of force, are now viewed as potentially lethal situations that could benefit from alignment with use of force principles.

Both foot and vehicle pursuits demand close examination within a comprehensive use of force policy framework. As an example, when the U.S. Department of Justice negotiates a consent decree with a police department over unconstitutional policing practices, modifications to policies, procedures, or training related to vehicle pursuits are often required as a part of broader use of force policy reforms. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police interventions influencing a pursuit subject's driving could constitute uses of force or seizures, which are subject to Fourth Amendment standards. Integrating foot and vehicle pursuits into use of force policymaking can yield more comprehensive and effective guidance for officers.

It is essential to acknowledge the inherent risks associated with both types of pursuits when formulating effective policies. Pursuits can present hazards to officers, individuals, and uninvolved bystanders like other drivers and pedestrians. Given the high-stakes and dynamic nature of these situations, written policies should underscore their potential risks and provide officers with clear directives. By addressing pursuits within the broader context of use of force policies, law enforcement agencies can better manage and mitigate risks, improving safety for the entire community.

Foot pursuits: balancing safety & apprehension

Foot pursuits pose risks to officers, the individuals being pursued, and bystanders, even though they are not inherently forceful.^[1] A foot pursuit propels officers through a neighborhood at high speeds, leaving them uncertain about what they might encounter around each turn. Hence, officer safety—and public safety—should be the paramount consideration for a police department and its officers when deciding whether to initiate a foot pursuit and, once begun, whether to continue it.

The outcome of a chase or apprehension is always uncertain, so if an officer questions whether there is adequate justification for a pursuit, the decision should weigh against the pursuit and in favor of alternative strategies such as surveillance and containment. Recognizing these realities, the Model Policy recommends including a clear statement to that effect in a foot pursuit policy, ensuring that no officer or supervisor will face criticism or discipline for choosing not to engage in a foot pursuit, if the perceived risks to any officer or the public outweigh the potential benefits of catching the person.

Given that officers are often concerned with the risk of losing sight of an individual suspected of criminal activity, the policy recommends highlighting some of the inherent risks associated with the decision to pursue an individual on foot, thereby equipping officers with a more comprehensive understanding of how to balance those risks. For instance, the Model Policy highlights that an officer's judgment may become impaired during a pursuit due to adrenaline or fatigue.^[2] Officers involved in a foot pursuit may experience distorted perception, causing them to misread an individual's sudden movements as threats, which can lead to unnecessary escalations of force with potentially lethal outcomes that could have been prevented.^[3]

In recognition of the inherent dangers of foot pursuits, the Model Policy outlines preventative steps that can sometimes eliminate the need for a pursuit by reducing the chances that an individual will attempt to flee from police interaction. These strategies include maintaining a composed demeanor, engaging in constructive dialogue with the individual, and using tactical positioning to limit the individual’s avenues for escape. Based on an officer’s evaluation of the situation and the individual's response, the officer might find it beneficial to position themselves in such a way that the individual feels at an advantage, such as by sitting. Conversely, in some instances, the officer might opt to exert control over the situation through verbal or nonverbal cues.

Importance of clear rules in avoiding dangerous and unnecessary foot pursuits

Over the past decade, America's police departments have started to embrace policies that guide officers in evaluating the risks and rewards of pursuing suspects on foot. Such clear guidelines can minimize the instances of pursuits ending in lethal confrontations.^[4] Many police departments, however, have not instituted policies governing foot pursuits, despite having comprehensive policies for vehicle pursuits.^[5] The absence of these rules may stem from beliefs such as: a formal policy on foot pursuits is unnecessary; foot pursuits are quintessential police activities that can be addressed in training alone; or the fear that a policy might be overly restrictive in a field where officers must exercise considerable discretion. These views can overlook the significant risks associated with chasing a person on foot.

Not only have foot pursuits led to police shootings in a string of recent, high-profile incidents,^[7] but various studies also reveal that a significant percentage—between 12% and 48%—of officer shootings in several U.S. cities were preceded by foot pursuits.^[8] Thus, the risks are real and present a compelling case for better guidance. Formal policies on foot pursuits can equip officers with consistent, actionable principles to discern when a pursuit is warranted.

The Model Policy underlines that officers’ judgments should be shaped by the unique circumstances of a pursuit and their own policing experience. Yet, it also delineates criteria to consider and sets defined rules where the dangers of a pursuit will clearly outweigh the advantages of apprehending a fleeing person—for instance, if the person has committed a non-arrestable offense.

While some police departments have chosen to omit bright line rules, favoring officer discretion, these policies still furnish officers with a consistent set of criteria to assess pursuit dangers. Others make explicit that their foot pursuit guidelines are merely advisory, and non-compliance will not lead to disciplinary actions. Departments wary of implementing any foot pursuit policies might consider either or both of these approaches, still offering situational, environmental, and individual factors to evaluate before initiating a foot pursuit without punishing deviation from those guidelines.

Advisory guidelines that are rooted in discretion can still address some of the key issues covered by the Model Policy’s provisions on foot pursuits. Much of the peril in a pursuit arises from making rapid decisions under uncertain circumstances, possibly while physically drained or under the influence of surging adrenaline.^[9] Advisory policies can expose officers to a catalog of factors they should consider in these situations, long before the officers find themselves in the position to make these decisions.^[10] This proactive approach equips officers with some of the tools they need to avoid engaging in hazardous and unwarranted foot pursuits.

However, this module advocates for a non-advisory foot pursuit policy, outlining situations where pursuits are prohibited. The policy aligns with departments favoring more restrictive pursuit policies, acknowledging scenarios where the risks grossly outweigh the benefits. In these circumstances, officers should not have to deliberate whether to pursue but can act decisively on alternative methods such as coordination and containment. This clear stance underscores the critical role of definitive guidelines in avoiding unnecessary pursuits.

Authorizing and initiating a necessary foot pursuit

Policies that determine when officers are permitted to pursue individuals on foot stand as some of the most critical rules for law enforcement operations. The Model Policy explains that an officer is authorized to initiate a pursuit only when there is probable cause to believe a subject has violated a law or ordinance, or when there is reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a Terry stop.^[11] A person’s flight from police, without additional legally sufficient suspicion of the person’s criminal activity, does not alone justify initiating a pursuit.

The Model Policy also emphasizes that, even when an officer has legal justification to initiate a foot pursuit—probable cause or reasonable suspicion—a foot pursuit is only authorized when the benefit of immediately apprehending a person suspected of committing a crime outweighs the risks to public and officer safety. To help facilitate this determination, the policy includes a specific, but non-exhaustive list of practical factors that officers should consider relating to the risks of a pursuit. These factors are based on a list developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in its Model Policy for Foot Pursuits.^[12]

In addition to outlining the major risks of foot pursuits, the Policy follows the IACP approach in including a list of alternatives to a foot pursuit that officers should consider before initiating a pursuit: aerial support, containment, a canine search, saturation of the area with patrol personnel, or, when enough information is available, apprehending the individual at another time and place.^[13] The Model Policy also emphasizes that containment and surveillance are often the safest tactics for apprehension, and that these tactics should be used instead of foot pursuits whenever circumstances allow.

Within this framework of authorization and initiation, the policy proposes clear rules for scenarios where a foot pursuit would be inappropriate, barring extraordinary circumstances. This includes, among others, a prohibition on foot pursuits for specific classes of offenses, like those that are non-arrestable. The policy’s stance aligns with the reasoning of a growing number of police departments that, in certain situations, the minimal benefits are overshadowed by the substantial risks, rendering foot pursuits unjustifiable.^[14]

Key Force Regulations in Policies of 100 Largest U.S. Cities

Pursuit Regulations in Policies of 100 Largest U.S. Cities

Foot pursuit policies that prioritize safety, minimize risks, and ensure accountability

Once a foot pursuit has been initiated, the situation's dynamic nature presents complex challenges and risks. Policies governing the unfolding pursuit must be carefully crafted, providing officers with guidance that both improves safety and reduces the likelihood of force being employed. The Model Policy recognizes the various factors at play, from coordination among officers to the tactical use of technology and communication.

The policy recommends that when deciding to initiate a foot pursuit, an officer immediately activate their body-worn camera. The initiating officer should ensure that their body-worn camera stays activated throughout the entire pursuit. Officers should also identify themselves and order the fleeing individual to stop. They should communicate their decision to initiate a pursuit to the department’s communications center, providing necessary details. If this information cannot be effectively communicated at the outset, the pursuit should be terminated.

Aligning with the IACP model policy and many existing department policies, the Model Policy includes detailed provisions regarding the communication systems and channels to be used throughout a foot pursuit. These details may vary by department but the underlying principle that communication is key remains constant. Another central element of the policy is the oversight of a supervisor with the authority to terminate the foot pursuit at any point. If the supervisor decides to stop the pursuit, all pursuing officers must immediately comply.^[16]

When a pursuit proceeds, a primary officer should work with assisting officers to establish a perimeter around the fleeing individual. The primary officer’s goal is not to catch the person, but to keep them in sight until there is an opportunity to safely take them into custody. A supporting officer should be responsible for coordination and communication and should endeavor to stay close to and in communication with the primary officer throughout the pursuit. Importantly, the policy states that one officer should not attempt to pursue multiple individuals.

The same principles apply when two officers pursue multiple people who flee in different directions. Officers may be inclined to split up as well and to continue separate pursuits. But, under the Model Policy, it is preferable to successfully contain one of those individuals than for the officers to split and each continue a splintered pursuit on their own. Coordination is key to a successful foot pursuit, and the policy’s provisions reflect that it will be more effective for officers to engage in pursuits with support, wherever possible.

All officers should proceed with extreme caution when drawing and using firearms during a foot pursuit. The policy follows the Houston Police Department’s recommendation that firearms should be holstered while officers are running in pursuit, in most circumstances. An officer who perceives the need to unholster their firearm while running must proceed with significant caution and keep their trigger finger outside of a trigger guard unless they are justified in using deadly force and have made a conscious decision to do so.

Special considerations for pursuits involving plainclothes and undercover officers

The Model Policy recommends special considerations for plainclothes and undercover officers who become involved in foot pursuits. These officers, not being immediately recognizable as police, create risks for themselves and the public during a fast-moving pursuit. Policies should stipulate that such officers (1) alert a dispatcher of their status and clothing description, (2) follow a uniformed officer's commands during a pursuit, (3) end their participation once enough uniformed officers have joined, and (4) if in plainclothes, attempt to make themselves visible as police by wearing a raid jacket or other identifiable outer garment.

When to end a foot pursuit

Pursuits present unique challenges to law enforcement, requiring that officers continually assess whether to proceed with the operation or make the difficult decision to end it, even when an apprehension appears within reach. The Model Policy emphasizes an officer's responsibility to terminate a foot pursuit if instructed by a supervisor, and stresses the need for ongoing evaluation of changing conditions. It directs both pursuing officers and supervisors to consider specific factors that may weigh in favor of terminating the pursuit, except when there is an immediate threat to the safety of others.

Those factors, discussed in more detail in the policy, suggest that terminating a pursuit should be considered as fatigue sets in, as tactical advantages are lost, if the need for immediate apprehension diminishes, or if the environment becomes less conducive to an effective pursuit and apprehension.

Independent of these factors, the policy notes that a pursuit must stop when the danger of continuing the pursuit outweighs the need for immediately apprehending the person. A clear statement should be included that the supervisor is responsible for the decision to terminate as soon as it appears that the pursuit is no longer justified, both legally and factually. For example, termination must occur if another suspect is apprehended elsewhere, nullifying the reasonable suspicion for the pursued individual.

When a pursuit is terminated, whether because the fleeing person was apprehended or based on a decision to stop pursuing, the primary officer should notify the coordinating communications center of their location and what assistance, if any, is needed. The supervisor should then travel to the location to support and control the situation as needed.

Vehicle pursuits: a restrictive approach for safety

Unlike foot pursuits, police departments are likely to address vehicle pursuits in a policy separate from the department’s use of force policy. But vehicle pursuits are intrinsically tied to the concept of force. Motor vehicles can cause lethal harm and car chases rarely end without a show or use of force by officers.^[17] For these reasons, aligning vehicle pursuit policies with the principles in use of force policies can be essential.^[18]

The U.S. Department of Justice has acknowledged this when intervening to address unconstitutional policing practices, sometimes requiring an agency to revise its vehicle pursuit policies during a reform of broader use of force policies.^[19] Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized that police interventions affecting pursuit subjects' driving can constitute uses of force or seizures that are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.^[20]

Even where officers never make contact with the subject of a pursuit, a vehicle pursuit itself poses risks to the involved officers, the occupants of the vehicle being pursued, and uninvolved third parties, including other drivers, pedestrians, and bystanders.^[21] Because vehicle pursuits present dangers to all these persons—and are likely to be undertaken in fast-developing situations where an officer is motivated to apprehend a fleeing person—it is important for department policies to make clear that vehicle pursuits pose considerable risks and provide clear guidance to officers in making decisions under these circumstances.^[22]

The Model Policy encourages a restrictive approach, rather than one that elevates discretionary decision-making by line officers and supervisors. It states that in specific circumstances, the unavoidable dangers of a vehicle pursuit may overshadow any potential benefits. The policy thereby prohibits vehicle pursuits except where the pursued vehicle is occupied by a person who is suspected of committing a crime of violence and who poses an ongoing, imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to others if not apprehended. Recognizing that this rule represents a significant shift from many current practices, this module explains the reasoning for this important decision.^[23]

Why restrictive approaches towards vehicle pursuits are gaining traction

A 2019 report issued by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights explained that, at a minimum, pursuit policies should set “clear parameters dictating when officers may initiate a vehicle pursuit.”^[24] A version of this recommendation was advanced in the early 1990s, by a group of researchers associated with the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice.^[25] Those researchers, who studied a sample of “restrictive” police pursuit policies in existence at the time,^[26] concluded that a police pursuit policy should “[s]tat[e] the rules for initiating a high-speed pursuit,” “[n]am[e] the types of offenses for which high-speed pursuit is allowed or not allowed,” and “[e]xplicitly describe[e] tactics that may or may not be used” in a pursuit.^[27]

During the same period, IACP adopted a model policy that preserved discretion over whether to pursue a fleeing vehicle for officers on the ground.^[28] That IACP model policy provided officers with a set of criteria to consider, but did not impose any absolute restrictions on the situations in which officers could undertake pursuits.^[29] The revised version of the IACP model policy adopted in 2015 added more criteria, but maintained the same approach of encouraging officers to consider various logistical and environmental conditions, without articulating bright line rules about when pursuits would or would not be permitted.^[30]

By 2013, research suggested nearly 80% of sworn law enforcement officers in the U.S. worked under vehicle pursuit policies that imposed some restrictive criteria and the percentage of officers who worked in agencies that left pursuit decisions entirely to officers’ discretion had declined.^[31] These more restrictive criteria started to have an impact. During 2012–2013, officers at police agencies that imposed restrictive pursuit criteria engaged in fewer pursuits when compared to officers at agencies that left pursuit decisions up to line officers’ discretion.^[32]

Yet even as police departments imposed restrictions on officer discretion, the number of vehicle pursuits rose overall from 1990 to 2013.^[33] A study of the IACP’s pursuit database during a similar time period found that more than 40% of pursuits were initiated in response to a fleeing driver who had committed traffic violations, as opposed to a more serious or dangerous offense. An additional 18% of pursuits were initiated because the vehicle was believed to be stolen, a serious offense but an offense that does not present an ongoing risk of harm to the public.^[34]

The harm caused by vehicle pursuits themselves can be significant: vehicle pursuits can result in serious bodily injury or death, most frequently of uninvolved drivers or pedestrians.^[35] And the risk of harm resulting from a vehicle pursuit is not distributed equally: a study of vehicle pursuits in 2013 and 2014 found that Black drivers were more likely to be pursued than white drivers, that deadly pursuits of Black drivers were more likely to begin over a minor or nonviolent offense, and that Black individuals—whether involved in a vehicle pursuit or not—were killed at a disproportionate rate as the result of police pursuits.^[36]

Recently, some police departments have recognized that their discretionary vehicle pursuit policies permit chases in situations where the risks of the pursuit are unjustified, when compared with the risk posed by the fleeing vehicle. These departments have revised their pursuit policies. The Atlanta Police Department instituted a “no-chase” policy in 2020 following an incident where officers pursued suspects in a stolen vehicle and the pursued vehicle crashed into a third car, killing two people.^[37] Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields acknowledged “this will not be a popular decision” and that it might “drive crime up”; however, she identified other factors that rendered the risk of harm to officers and other members of the public far too severe to justify the benefits of vehicle pursuits.^[38] However, Atlanta ended its moratorium on vehicle pursuits at the end of 2020 and now permits its officers to undertake pursuits but only when an occupant of the pursued vehicle has committed or attempted to commit one of an enumerated list of forcible felonies.^[39]

The Model Policy’s restrictive approach to vehicle pursuits

The Model Policy adopts a restrictive approach to vehicle pursuits. This approach is influenced in large part by vehicle pursuit policies developed in New Orleans and Seattle, as well as the strategy employed by the Atlanta Police Department in 2021 after its one-year moratorium on pursuits.^[40] Because vehicle pursuits present acute risks to officers, fleeing individuals, and bystanders alike, the policy contends that these risks are not often justified by the potential benefit of apprehending a fleeing person, except when the person has committed or attempted a violent felony that makes the suspect a continuing danger to the community. The policy does not permit vehicle pursuits for the sole purpose of protecting property, or when the evading person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to others.

Police departments may need to adjust elements of their pursuit policies to account for their patrol environments.^[41] For example, officers undertaking vehicle pursuits in densely populated and highly trafficked urban environments will likely consider different risk factors than officers who patrol less dense suburban or rural environments. The policy requires officers to consider their general surroundings when conducting pursuits, but the environment becomes especially relevant when an officer considers whether and when it is safe to undertake a pursuit intervention tactic.

The Model Policy also follows the approach of restrictive pursuit policies in determining that certain intervention tactics—including fixed roadblocks, ramming, and discharging firearms to stop a moving vehicle—are categorically prohibited. However, other interventions, which still pose risks to officers, fleeing individuals, and bystanders, may be undertaken by properly trained officers who have received authorization from the pursuit’s supervisor, when the fleeing vehicle presents risks that outweigh the risks of the intervention tactic. This provision is intended to cover the use of interventions like stop sticks and the “precision immobilization technique,” or “PIT” maneuver—a pursuit tactic involving using a pursuing police car to cause the fleeing car to turn sideways, lose control and stop.^[42] But the Policy leaves the questions of whether and when officers will be trained to use these interventions to individual agencies. Even permitted intervention tactics present serious risks to pursuit participants and the public, and PIT maneuvers, in particular, have been responsible for deaths and serious bodily injuries.^[43] While some evidence suggests that PIT maneuvers may be undertaken safely in limited circumstances, and may remain a viable option for ending a pursuit where the officer has sufficient training and knowledge and the risk is justified, high-profile examples of deadly PIT maneuvers show that further research is needed on this tactic, including how and when it can be deployed safely.^[44]

Another key difference among law enforcement agencies concerns the availability of supporting technology to aid in a pursuit or even make it unnecessary. The policy acknowledges that certain tools, such as air support or GPS tagging devices, may be out of reach for some agencies due to size and funding constraints. Consequently, the policy does not rely on these resources as consistent aids in pursuits. Yet, when such technology is accessible, research indicates that these alternatives can enhance the safety of a pursuit or aid officers in locating and apprehending people who have evaded capture.^[45]