As a former LASD Sergeant who is still, after 43 years of law enforcement service, an active practitioner in the profession I am disturbed at the recent thirty page “policy” Sheriff Baca has published regarding foot pursuits.  I am disturbed by it for a number of reasons not the least of which is the fact that the Sheriff and his brain trust felt it necessary to handcuff his Deputies even more than they have already been.

I read, and then re-read, the “policy” in its entirety.  Frankly, several things struck me about it.  One, I was struck by the obvious “political correctness” motivation for it being written in the first place. Two, I was struck by the fact that today’s LASD must be a very different sort of agency than it was when I worked there.  There is not one sentence in that “policy” that any good Deputy would need as guidance if said Deputy had any reasonable level of street experience and any reasonable amount of common sense.

Third, I was struck by the apparent fact that Baca’s command staff, who were allegedly involved in the development and review of this “policy”, are not much more than “yes men”.  Any self-respecting professional police manager would have been forced by his/her training and experience to oppose this document for a number of reasons.  Perhaps they did and the Sheriff simply imposed his will.  That would not surprise me.

What do I find objectionable about the policy?  Based on my time in this business, a lot;  First, it suggests that in a potentially life threatening encounter with a person armed with a deadly weapon a Deputy needs to add one more “policy” to the matters s/he must “think about” before making a decision.  The delay involved in “thinking about” this policy (and the administrative consequences of deviating from it) could well cost a Deputy his life.  Two, I find the suggestion that in many cases “chasing to contain” is the best course of action almost laughable.  Just how likely is it, that chasing to contain is even a physical possibility for a lone Deputy?  Not very likely! 

Even more at issue is the psychological shift a Deputy transitioning from chase to capture to chase to contain goes through.  If I am chasing to capture, I am well aware of the potential for a confrontation and I am well prepared mentally if that should occur.  If the objective is changed, from capture to contain, the natural human tendency is to “relax” a bit psychologically.  It is a subtle difference, but if in my mind the objective is to contain not confront my mental preparation if a confrontation should occur may not be sufficient.I find the policy objectionable because it does the citizens of Los Angeles County a huge disservice.  By making containment rather than capture acceptable it guarantees that some violent offenders who previously would have been apprehended (when capture was the objective) will escape.  Remember, it is nearly impossible for a lone Deputy to contain someone who is bent upon escape.

Finally, I find the policy objectionable because it is, effective immediately, and just one more tool in the crook’s toolbox. Criminals who know that the objective may be to contain rather than capture will become even more brazen.  In addition, those bent on killing a Deputy now have both a psychological and tactical advantage in doing so.  A Deputy approaching with the purpose of containing is less prepared for ambush and his actions more predictable.  Advantage street thug.

In days past, previous Sheriffs who had more street sense, more focus on the troops instead of on their own political survival, and who were more cops than politicians would have approached the issue another way.  The approach used by Sheriff Baca only makes more difficult the task of policing the streets of L A County and has brought ridicule, both from within the profession and without, to the world’s largest Sheriff’s Department.  Sad!

Jerry Boyd

LASD 1968-1975

(Chief of Police, Retired)  

    C o m m e n t a r y - F o o t   P u r s u i t   P o l i c y