Suggestion Accepted MET - RTPC: Tactical Contact Authorisation

[Deleted member 5106]

Suggestion Title: Tactical Contact Authorisation

Division: MET - RTPC

Hello!!

I believe that when asking for tactical contact authorisation, the authoriser, either being FIM/OPS1 or RTPC SGT+ should authorise it either being low speeds or high speeds tactical contact dependant on location, risk of pursuit and pursuit management.

Slow speed tactical contact = 1-49mph
High speed tactical contact = 50+mph

For example, a high speed pursuit on the M25 with lower risk/lower vehicle density can look at authority for high speed tactical contact,
Eg “if it’s going away from the city at a suitable location, happy to authorise tactical contact at high speed”

And given another example, a medium speed pursuit going towards the city on the country road towards Vinewood police station about to approach main roads with high risk due to traffic density, possible pedestrian density can look at tactical contact at slower speeds due to the extended risk it may pose to other members of the public if the vehicle was travelling at 50+ and we knock it out.

Could even look at Slow speed tactical contact being something normal CIU can investigate if there’s no catastrophic results/injuries and leave high speed tactical contact to SCIU.

I believe this could made tactical contact/pursuits safer within policemp especially when it comes to a civ FTS. It can also increase engagement when it comes to CIU, which we all know is an issue!

Any thoughts/opinions?

 

[Tiago Lobo]

I support.

 

[Top_Guy]

Honeslty believe that tactical contact should be a thing that you don't have to get authorisation for it should only be a thing that you should need to justify.

For example a high risk pursuit heading towards the city. You'll be lucky to reach a sgt + in a suitable time frame and it's rare that control will authorise it.


Believe it should work similar to how AFO manages its vehicle vs pedestrian contact

 

[Deleted member 5106]

Honeslty believe that tactical contact should be a thing that you don't have to get authorisation for it should only be a thing that you should need to justify.

For example a high risk pursuit heading towards the city. You'll be lucky to reach a sgt + in a suitable time frame and it's rare that control will authorise it.


Believe it should work similar to how AFO manages its vehicle vs pedestrian contact

I see what you’re saying, in that event there clearly is an immediate risk and I would be able to justify that as emergency tactical contact. I even think if you can justify it, being a high performance stolen vehicle(civ) which has rammed cars and what not, I would self auth it myself then make sure CIU comes and clip it and write down why i done it etc

 

[(O1) TechGeek]

I’m coming from purely a control side here,

It will be soon that when FIMs look to authorise will either do TPAC tactics or tactical contact. They don’t need to know the specific tactic you are performing, as it’s down to you to justify the actions.

Emergency tactical contact is used when the pursuit is suddenly an extremely high risk pursuit and it is better to contact the vehicle than let it continue, in the efforts of public safety.
Hence, it doesn’t require authority.

AFO have a similar system in terms of types of contact, but the manner of pursuits that AFO deal with are much more dangerous and of a higher risk and they therefore can justify the extra aggression. Most of the time RTPC pursuits aren’t like that, and if they were so high risk but you couldn’t get contact requesting ARVs is always an option ( in rare cases ).

The move to a) having different types of contact and then b) requesting authority for those contact is almost unnecessary. AFO don’t request authority for a junction ram they just say contact - because that’s all a FIM needs to know alongside a brief risk assessment if applicable. It is worth noting that a lower speed doesn’t always correlate to a lower risk when contact is performed. Maybe something could be implemented from the RTPC training side for officers to subconsciously apply a different approach to contacting low vs high speed, but I don’t think the whole “can I get high speed tactical contact” system would work.

After any contact I believe you need to fill out a form anyway. This is definitely the case in AFO and if it isn’t existent in RTPC, it would be beneficial.

Those are just my views,
Tech
Control Team Leader

 

[Deleted member 5106]

I’m coming from purely a control side here,

It will be soon that when FIMs look to authorise will either do TPAC tactics or tactical contact. They don’t need to know the specific tactic you are performing, as it’s down to you to justify the actions.

Emergency tactical contact is used when the pursuit is suddenly an extremely high risk pursuit and it is better to contact the vehicle than let it continue, in the efforts of public safety.
Hence, it doesn’t require authority.

AFO have a similar system in terms of types of contact, but the manner of pursuits that AFO deal with are much more dangerous and of a higher risk and they therefore can justify the extra aggression. Most of the time RTPC pursuits aren’t like that, and if they were so high risk but you couldn’t get contact requesting ARVs is always an option ( in rare cases ).

The move to a) having different types of contact and then b) requesting authority for those contact is almost unnecessary. AFO don’t request authority for a junction ram they just say contact - because that’s all a FIM needs to know alongside a brief risk assessment if applicable. It is worth noting that a lower speed doesn’t always correlate to a lower risk when contact is performed. Maybe something could be implemented from the RTPC training side for officers to subconsciously apply a different approach to contacting low vs high speed, but I don’t think the whole “can I get high speed tactical contact” system would work.

After any contact I believe you need to fill out a form anyway. This is definitely the case in AFO and if it isn’t existent in RTPC, it would be beneficial.

Those are just my views,
Tech
Control Team Leader

I would disagree to the point of "almost unnecessary". Spoken to multiple rtpc SGTs plus briefly heard inspectors opinion, believe it is definitely necessary and a safer option for RTPC, hence the specific division listed. It would make it a whole lot more safer, and require a better judgement skill from the pursuing officer/pursuit commander to decide when it is appropriate, leading to less casualties on the road as well as mistakes. We will await a full response from an RTPC SGT+, however I understand where you're coming from. The only addition it would be for control/FIM is, "Tactical contact authorised for slow speed at XX:XX" or "Tactical contact authorised for high speed at XX:XX". Doesn't require anything fancy