- Central issues involved
The major issue of concern resonates around the manner in which vehicle pursuits have been carried out within the County given the fatalities and incidental consequences. Indeed, the issue on vehicle pursuits cannot be observed in isolation to other issues such as the security concerns within the County. It so happens that the area under patrol has reported a number of incidences of insecurity hence justifying additional patrol services. Over and above that, the use of a Taser and the German shepherd by Deputy Ripley also raise central concerns.
- Is the Deputy in compliance with the use of force policy?
Deputy Ripley is evidently not in compliance with the use of force policy. According to the provisions, a pursuit should be occasioned by either a violent felony crime or other circumstances that justify the danger and potential liability. The case facing Ripley does not fall under either of the categorization. In fact, the issues at hand are normal occurrences and do not form a substantive threshold to justify the actions by Deputy Ripley.
- Should the lieutenant end Ripley’s pursuit?
Indeed, the lieutenant would be justified in ending the pursuit by Ripley. The stakes are high in allowing pursuits, and as is stated in the regulation, the pursuit must fall within the mentioned two categories. Since the pursuit falls outside the categories, the Lieutenant ought to end it. In addition, the party in the vehicle being pursued had yet to demonstrate any action that a reasonable man would perceive as likely to cause or lead to crime. In that strain, that party ought to be allowed to enjoy his or her right of movement and enjoyment of property quietly.
- Should the Deputy have fired warning shots under these circumstances? Why or why not?
No, the Deputy should not have fired warning signs under these circumstances. The policy on warning signs state that warning shots should only be used where the circumstances warrant. This gives the discretion to the officer to exercise his or her judgment. In my opinion, the circumstances facing Deputy Ripley did not necessarily warrant the firing of warning signs. This can be seen by the fact that the party he was pursuing did not present any substantive danger to him. The mere fact that they did not stop at his yells does not lead to danger. Deputy Ripley ought to have exercised caution and prudence. In my opinion, he should have pursued the party secretly to be able to observe the occurrences in more detail and be able to make an informed opinion rather than risk making a false alarm hence diminishing the effectiveness and use of warning shots.
- Policies and procedures to cover Ripley’s actions, fault of the deputy and action that could occasion disciplinary action
The overriding objective in any social service such as security ought to be the need for the rule of law to be observed and justice to be administered to either party involved. In accordance to the law, the Deputy Ripley’s action would be guided by the substantive and procedural laws of the Pineville County Sheriff Department. It ought to be observed that the provisions place a burden of judgment on the police officers. As such, officers have the discretion of using deciding in accordance with the prevailing circumstances what cause of action to pursue. However, the law has its limits and the officer ought not to act ultra vires. The deputy was at fault for overrating the incidence. In my opinion, the cause of action he pursued was over and above the required given the prevailing cause of action. However, that does not necessarily expose him to disciplinary action as he merely exercised the discretion allowed by the law. What would lead to disciplinary action on his part is his illegal use of the German shepherd and the Taser. The application of the two was unjustified, unprotected by the law and therefore, illegal.
- Additional policies needed
The provisions in respect of pursuits, warning shots and use of security equipment ought to be clearly stipulated in additional policies. What the current policies offer gives excess discretion to the officers hence exposure to abuse. To limit the risks, stringent policies ought to be developed.
References
Smartt, U. (2008). Criminal Justice. New York: SAGE.
