Rank-and-file Cleveland cops are bewildered and wonder if one of their police supervisors has their back or not. The justified hysteria and feelings of betrayal stem from an April 10, 2018 police pursuit through the streets of Cleveland after one of three suspects in a possibly-stolen car opened fire at him. As the incident transpires and the ensuing pursuit is recorded via typical police protocols involving a play-by-play chronicle, a police supervisor crabbily gets on the radio and terminates the active chase of suspects involved in the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer.
Why the no-go?
Recorded on police frequencies, the reason the police supervisor gave for calling-off the pursuit was a lack of information. The terminator’s exact words are as follows: “5-Sam-33, I can not get through on the radio…you’re gonna have to terminate that pursuit. You’re not allowing me to get info. All cars, do not engage! Terminate that pursuit!” He got through to say that on the radio.
To be fair, earlier in the radio transcript was a supervisor’s voice (believed to be the same one who eventually ceased the pursuit) authorizing three cars to respond/support the lead officer initiating/conducting the pursuit. Police pursuit policies vary, but that is basic protocol in most departments. The radio goes abuzz with excitement and cross-chatter, often hodge-podging imperative transmissions. Nothing new there either. It is a fusion of professional/personal angst borne of catching the quarry and not letting it get away. It is human nature. It is cop culture.
Nevertheless, if other cops with whom I conferred can comprehend this particular police pursuit as it unfolded, why couldn’t the on-duty supervisor? Although there may have been some excerpts of radio chatter whereby involved cops are “walking on each other” it was nonetheless clear enough to maintain the intent to capture suspect(s), seize the firearm used in the attempt murder of a cop, as well as recover the stolen license plate attached to the fleeing vehicle which days earlier rammed a Cleveland cop car. (Incidentally, one excerpt also conveyed in the transmission was that the suspect car was believed to be “taken from the lot” which is cop-speak for stolen from an auto dealer’s outdoor inventory.)
Replying to the order to “terminate that pursuit,” the pursuing officer engages the supervisor via radio, rhetorically saying, “89-10…Sergeant [unintelligible], this male shot at me, are you telling me to disengage? Is that what you’re telling me?” You can hear the disbelief in his tone. His questions are unmistakably rhetorical. Kind of like a socially-sanctioned hunter within grasp of a killer waving a firearm and willingly using it while careening through a metropolis in an illegal automobile…then ordered to take an about-face.
The supervisor rebuts: “Yeah, you’re out of control. You’re not allowing me to monitor the radio. Okay? That’s part of the, uh, policy. And who is this in pursuit?”
The response: “Sergeant [Slovak]. Who is this that terminated the pursuit?”
“It’s Sergeant Arvin, 5-Sam-33. And when you’re done I need you to return back here to the district please. Fifth district” to which 89-10 acknowledged “Not a problem.” For a supervisor to quash a police pursuit and then say “when you’re done” seems counterintuitive, nonsensical. Or perhaps it is a certain sergeant’s way of saying Take your time, cool down. Despite coming up empty, a police report must be generated, so perhaps that motivated the thinly disguised olive branch.
In any event, such a termination order in the context of pursuing bad guys trying to murder a full-fledged cop in a clearly-marked police cruiser is a frustrating example of softness which fuels the nation’s de-policing grains we are witnessing. In fact, it defines de-policing. What’s the point of policing a society when blazing guns at cops is countered with a you’re-free-to-go signal? Such circumstances water nasty seeds giving birth and bravado to anarchy. We certainly have choices to consider. And one of those choices is for lawbreakers seeing the front of a cop car in their rearview mirror, not the cruiser’s tail end going in the opposite direction of crime.
Radio Etiquette
As a police intern many moons ago, I learned fast: shut up and listen-up whenever the radio squawks. Same thing as an effervescent police trainee: “Stop talking when the radio is active!” It didn’t take long but, again, human nature is difficult to overcome sometimes. Cops became cops to get in the game of resolution, not take the easy way out and walk away.
It is endemic police culture to overhear distress calls from cohorts and get in the game pronto. With the heightended anti-police climate nowadays, that bar is raised quite high. Bear in mind, connected by radio means no one is prescient enough to foretell who else is thinking the same thoughts and doing the same thing simultaneously: Picking up the radio mic to talk.
Some glitchiness will prevail over utopia. In this case, it seems the district supervisor may have missed a beat and did not wish to take any chances in having a partial picture. However, the highlights were crystal clear and the pursuit car speaker was as audible and intelligible as it gets. The barely faint siren sounds means the officer’s windows were up, aiding clarity in communications.
At the outset of this closeted police pursuit, the radio exchanges persisted, in essence putting some closure to this chapter. Another officer “monitoring” the radio well enough to understand what transpired asks Cleveland police dispatchers “Alright…Radio, can we get a description of that vehicle just in case he shoots at another officer or rams another police car?” The response from police dispatch was “I was given a Honda Clarity [irony?] with a stolen plate.” She conveys the stolen plate characters.
Ultimately, “89-10” pipes-up one last time as he is presumably destined for Fifth District to have a pow-wow with Sergeant Arvin. He transmitted, “I hope no one gets shot tonight, that’s all!” Indeed infuriating, given the context of what happened and how it deflated from within.
How about the meat and potatoes in its entirety? Following is the radio transmissions’ dialogue related to what the Cleveland police dispatcher eventually labeled as a “felonious assault on a police officer”:
Police Pursuit Persona Non Grata
There is no denying the inherent perils stemming from police pursuits. Police academies across the nation mandate sharp driving skills via blocks of instruction called Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC), so the indoctrinations in automobile handling and skillsets are honed. That is an asset in the cause. The problems arise when external, unforeseeable elements crop up, adding obstacles for cops to contend. Police pursuits have been a source of debate for years, especially in the past decade or two.
David Thornton, an OpsLens Contributor and retired policeman wrote a comprehensive analysis pertaining to police pursuits with a focus on the enormous liability quotient. Thornton pretty much summed-up what may have been the basis for what did or didn’t happen in the Cleveland pursuit debate: “Pursuing a vehicle is probably the most high-risk task you will ever take as a police officer. It causes exhilaration for officers that are actively engaging in the pursuit, and stress headaches for administrators anxiously monitoring the radio.”
That implies there may be a price to pay. The Cleveland chase hinges on a suspect shooting at a cop and being allowed to flee versus continuing the chase an incurring all inherent perils along the route. Who is to say which one is optimal? Unless clairvoyant, how would anyone know? I’d want to blaze trails after anyone who took a shot at me, but serving the public also means one must consider how many citizens could be up ahead. There is no easy answer.
Undoubtedly, at least two sides to the pursue/don’t pursue argument exist. In this case, the two sides are police sergeants with diametrically opposing viewpoints and, some may argue, jurisdictional capacity. After listening to the audio excerpts (above) 11 times, it pares down to one sergeant from a different Cleveland police district actively pursuing in the district of another sergeant who had command authority over what transpires in his assigned domain. Why else would Sgt. Arvin feel the need to specify “I need you to return back here to the district please. Fifth district.” Why would both of them ask each other to whom were they talking, via radio?
Of the 1,600 cops in metropolis Cleveland, it is entirely possible neither sergeant personally knew the other. That point becomes relevant especially for the sergeant who discontinued the pursuit occurring on the streets for which he is generally responsible. The specific contention, though, is not who is superior to the other but that a policeman was targeted and almost killed by suspect gunfire and we are…walking away!
Universal police chase protocol is the obviously announce (broadcast) the chase, where and why it is commencing, and all conditions throughout. Weather/road conditions (wet/construction zone), populace of motorists on the roadway (congestion or not), and speed of travel (obviously, that ups the ante in myriad ways). In my opinion, the pursuing sergeant in this case performed stellar and offered nothing that I would define as an impediment to continuance of the chase.
Some comments on police forums dissecting this chase unanimously support the pursuing officer (“89-10,” a sergeant in a one-officer car) and doggedly believe the other sergeant who called-off the chase and the pursuer may have been acting on personal grievances with each other. Maybe. But I don’t think so; it sounds more like a How dare you! Someone just attempted to take my life and we are the police…it’s our job!
One YouTube respondent (“24escalade”) with purported knowledge of Cleveland PD’s culture posted the following: “I live about ten miles from Cleveland. They refuse to chase anyone for any crime committed. Now the criminals come out my way and commit a robbery then immediately drive to Cleveland. If a city other than Cleveland is chasing them, Cleveland refuses to join the chase and nine times out of 10 the crooks get away with it. It’s pathetic. And they wonder why cops are leaving in droves from the department and why Cleveland is understaffed.”
Sounds like the Cleveland cop climate is not so peachy. Nevertheless, to be a cop anywhere USA and be blatantly shot at with zero backing from administration is absurd in any law enforcement agency. But that is what we have been seeing across the nation lately.
“Ferguson Effect” and “De-Policing”
OpsLens Contributor Steve Pomper wrote about the concept known as “de-policing” dissecting the anti-police pulse which cops are confronting; in essence, the safest duty is one of reactive versus proactive policing. Heck, even reactive comes with excess of caution and ambivalence from some cops, like a Chicago cop who feared the consequences of shooting her assailant “because she didn’t want her family or the department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on national news,” Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said. She didn’t discharge her weapon and took a pummeling until back-up arrived. It almost cost her life.
Why do your job when the course of doing so is virtually vehemently discouraged by many citizens, politicians and police executives, defaulting to a losing battle…even if a cop has an iconic S on his/her chest?
In a more comprehensive undertaking, Pomper analyzes de-policing in his book De-Policing America: A Street Cop’s View of the Anti-Police State. Mark Tapson of Front Page Mag wrote, “reflexive caution means that officers facing a situation that could easily escalate into a career-ending debacle and a public tarring-and-feathering in an unsympathetic news media now pause and ask themselves, ‘Should I?'”
Many believe those constructs are part and parcel ingredients in this Cleveland chase slowing to a non-chase…and whatever fallout we’ve yet to learn about.
Fox 8 News in Cleveland jumped on this story and was provided the following reply from the spokesperson for police Chief Calvin D. Williams: “The decision to allow or terminate a chase is influenced by a number of factors such as time of day, auto and pedestrian traffic, weather conditions, and suspect behavior, and the crime committed with the highest emphasis placed on public safety. The sector supervisor will make the final determination if officers can continue or terminate.” Pucky rolls down hill?
Well, although that didn’t answer the question Why terminate?…we at least have a synopsis of their pursuit policy.
At the outset, sergeant #1 deferred to the slight hierarchical advantage of sergeant #2 (now identified as the “sector supervisor”). Will this internal incident weigh upon sergeant #1 to where he submits to the de-policing concept and goes blue-blind? I hope not. I’m sure the law-abiding Cleveland citizenry have the same hope. After all, it is a vow to the people we swore to serve in the name of a particular oath we attested to well before the cynicism is granted a crack through which to seep.
As a cop, how would you slice this pursuit pie? Given the let-them-go circumstances, how do you feel as a citizen? Sector supervisor monitoring the anti-police climate report or merely missed a beat?
