It absolutely is because LEOs are be trained to assess the danger such a pursuit presents to the law abiding citizens.
So let’s say the guy was speeding. Who is the injured party in such an incident that requires a LEO to pursue? But we have Terry vs Ohio so the cop can dream up all sorts of what ifs, like you did above.
You have body cams, you have vehicle cams. The guy could be tracked down.
But most states grant cops immunity, so we have reckless pursuits that endanger everyone just to satisfy some “what if” scenario in cops mind.
If we see a vehicle commit a traffic violation, we don't always know the license number until we can get reasonably close and read the plate; this is because we may not be able to see it due to directional or speed differences. And even if we did know the plate number, there's no assurance the registered owner of the vehicle is the person operating the vehicle during the violation. If we didn't pursue, there's no way to know who was driving at the time of the infraction. In fact, if it were a stolen vehicle, we may be able to make a reasonable determination for a stop based on vehicle description, but have zero idea who's driving. By definition a stolen vehicle is typically in possession of someone OTHER THAN THE OWNER. So if we didn't pursue the vehicle AT THAT TIME, then the felon who stole it would get away without ever being identified. Hence your theory of "tracking the guy down" is moot; you can't find someone you can't identify in the first place. BWCs and ICCs cannot ID a person; they can only record visual evidence.
Just what does Terry have to do with this, anyway? Terry is about the physical search of a person (and immediate area) relative to officer safety, when an officer can articulate a "reasonable suspicion" of crime element(s) to further an investigation. You are conflating topics for the sake of your strained argument.
* reasonable suspicion leads to detentions
* probable cause leads to arrests
Scenario 1:
- Driver commits a traffic violation (speeding 68mph in a 60mph zone); no other violations or suspicions are known to the officer at the time.
- Officer follows and initiates lights; car pulls over to side of road.
- Driver presents valid ID; officer runs ID and registration and all checks out OK; officer issues warning or citation (his/her discretion).
- Driver is released from scene with no search
In this scenario, there's no "Terry stop" pretense because a CRIME was not committed. Terry conceptually only applies if there is reasonable suspicion that a CRIME has been committed (not a civil infraction; typical traffic offense). Hence your objection is based on false reasoning. TERRY DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
Scenario 2:
- Driver commits the same speeding violation; officer is not aware of any other violation just as above.
- Officer turns and follows and initiates lights; car does NOT pull over, and instead accelerates and flees.
Now things are completely different. In most states, fleeing in a vehicle is a felony, so right there the officer sees a felony committed in his presence. If the vehicle is eventually contained and driver caught, the person is charged with a crime. At this point, the arrest is based on probable cause and therefore search incident to arrest is valid. TERRY DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
Terry is not, in and of itself, reasonable suspicion to pull someone over. Terry is the process to ensure safety IF AND ONLY IF there is suspicion of a crime (past, current, imminent future). Reasonable suspicion is the traffic infraction itself; witnessed by the officer. In scenario 1 above, the only time Terry would apply is if the initial reason for the stop was then supplemented by further information. Say for example the driver opened the door and he/she reeked of burning marijuana or alcoholic beverages. Then the additional intel would lead to a Terry stop; the driver could then be searched because the potential for a criminal charge is now credible.
I don't disagree that some cops dangerously pursue criminals; it happens. We have civil and criminal options to address these issues. But to say LEOs should (almost) never pursue a vehicle is a farce IMO. As I said above, you cannot "track someone down" later if you have no idea who they are in the first place, and the ONLY way to do that is to catch them at the time.
