Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman announced on April 16 a new policy restricting foot pursuits, leading to criticism from the association representing officers and concerns among some in the department.
The updated guidelines aim to clarify when officers can engage in foot chases, but some say the rules are unclear and could affect police morale. The Milwaukee Police Association President Alex Ayala said, “There were some legalities with it that we could not really argue with. But we did not agree with it and told the chief that. We also wanted clear language for our officers to follow. It was not clear and concise.”
Some rank-and-file officers expressed frustration over the changes. One unnamed officer said, “This is just another way to defund the police. No one is going to want to do this job in Milwaukee. Such a shame. The department is a shell of what it once was.”
According to department officials, there was no previous written policy for comparison as this is a new directive developed through discussions with unions: “As mentioned, this is new; therefore, there is no old one,” MPD responded.
The new standard operating procedure bans chasing individuals solely because they run from police and requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before starting or continuing a pursuit. The policy states: “It is the policy of the Milwaukee Police Department that members may engage in foot pursuits with suspects only when there is an articulable reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime… officer and public safety shall be the overriding consideration in determining whether a foot pursuit will be initiated or continued.”
In an updated statement about its purpose, MPD said: “This SOP is meant to codify our existing training while incorporating national best practices… This new policy creates guidelines regarding the use of foot pursuits as foot pursuits are inherently dangerous.”
Reactions online included criticism about clarity and length of guidance documents as well as comparisons between proactive policing and more reactive approaches within law enforcement.
Legal context provided by Harvard Law Review explains that U.S. Supreme Court decisions have found flight on foot can be significant if it occurs headlong or evasively in high-crime areas—giving rise at times to reasonable suspicion for stops.
