Insuring Police

Damita Morton of Detroit was killed last month in a collision with a stolen car fleeing police. The 43-year-old mother of seven and grandmother of five was on her way to a niece's birthday party.

Her tragic death brings the toll of innocent bystanders killed in these kinds of circumstances to more than 100, so far this decade -- in Michigan alone. Nationwide the number is over 2400.

This growing carnage demands a solution.

Some have called for ending the practice of what police call "hot pursuit" altogether.

Others, like State Representative Kirk Profit, have called for the development of a "standardized police pursuit policy" throughout the state.

Both approaches attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all type of response that clearly cannot address every possible situation.

We cannot allow murderers, bank robbers and others who pose a continuing threat to our peace and security to go merrily on their way merely because pursuing them might lead to collisions with uninvolved motorists.

Neither can we have police engaging in high speed chases through residential neighborhoods in order to enforce traffic laws.

Unfortunately, there is such a wide range of situations between these two extremes that it is simply impossible to provide definitive rules that can be applied to every circumstance that may confront law enforcement. The brave men and women who put their lives on the line to protect us must be permitted to use their own, individual best judgement in dealing with the wide variety of criminal activities that plague our streets.

A police officer should not have his or her response to a fleeing criminal either prescribed or proscribed by standardized rules. As in so many other volatile situations, each officer must be allowed to use his or her own best judgement with regard to which circumstances warrant "hot pursuit" and which can be dealt with by less drastic means.

Taxpayers, by the same token, ought not be saddled with the responsibility of compensating those who are harmed by a police officer's poor decision.

Like so many other problems that confront our society, we have painted ourselves into a corner by ignoring the libertarian approach of individual choice coupled with individual responsibility.

The solution is with us every day, applied in virtually every other profession.

When doctors, for example, set up a practice, in addition to providing offices, staff and all of the other necessities of their profession, they also take account of the possibility that an error in judgement may result in harm to a patient by purchasing insurance against just such an eventuality.

No one has ever suggested that we attempt to precisely define how every doctor should proceed in treating every kind of medical situation. It is obvious to all that such a written code could not possibly be exhaustive. Substituting a standardized policy for the good judgement of each, individual doctor in each, individual case would be disastrous.

Instead, we rely on the malpractice insurance system to weed out the reckless from the medical profession. Given the particular specialty, cost for this coverage is pretty much the same for all new practitioners. But it doesn't take insurers long -- generally, a lawsuit or two will do -- to assess the relative risk in insuring each and adjust their premiums accordingly. Or cancel coverage altogether if the potential liability looms too large.

When police officers are hired to protect us they likewise provide for their own uniforms, sidearms and all of the other accoutrements of their profession. However, they are not required to purchase any kind of malpractice insurance to indemnify their employers -- us -- against any harm they may cause by a mistake in judgement.

This situation results in a disconnect between actions and consequences. As in every other aspect of life in which individuals are insulated from the consequences of their actions -- some few, at least, end up using questionable judgement.

We must not attempt to substitute some kind of precisely predetermined collective opinion on which kinds of circumstances merit "hot pursuit." Neither should we accept collective liability for individual, poor decisions.

Requiring police officers to carry their own insurance would put both the freedom to choose and the responsibility for those choices where it belongs -- on the person who has to make them.

Only a jury hearing the details of what led to the "hot pursuit" decision that ended in Damita Morton's tragic death can determine whether or not the officers used poor judgement in that case. However, if there is any liability, the burden of compensating for it should not fall on taxpayers who were not, indeed, could not be consulted on the decision to pursue that particular stolen car.

Tim O'Brien is the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Michigan.