Stirling Bill Altered to Crack Whip on Drivers Who Flee

Legislation that originally would have allowed people pulled over by police to drive to a safe spot before stopping has been rewritten to increase the penalties for anyone who fails to halt when ordered to do so by law enforcement.

The bill was transformed at the request of California law-enforcement agencies, which protested that officers would be endangered by legislation giving motorists more flexibility to decide when and where to stop.

Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego) introduced the original legislation last year in the wake of the killing of San Diego State University student Cara Knott and the arrest for murder of California Highway Patrol Officer Craig Peyer, who has since been fired and is now on trial.

Introduced to Allay Fears

Stirling said when he introduced his bill that it was an attempt to allay the fears of San Diegans, particularly women, about stopping for police late at night on darkened streets. He said the measure was a reaction to the Peyer arrest and the unrelated case of an East County woman who was arrested by sheriff’s deputies after she drove to a lighted parking lot rather than immediately heed their order to stop.

Police, Stirling said at the time, “want the authority to pull you over any place, any time, for any reason.” But he said motorists should not be forced to stop where they feel their lives might be in danger.

As approved by the Assembly Jan. 27, Stirling’s bill would have allowed motorists to “proceed a reasonable distance to the first available place of safety” if they first signaled to an officer their intent to do so.

The bill defined a “place of safety” as a location with adequate lighting if at night, far enough from traffic lanes to provide personal safety, and not “unnecessarily remote or inaccessible.”

But, before the bill reached its first Senate committee hearing, Stirling removed its original provisions and replaced them with language increasing the penalties for evading a police officer.

Under existing law, evading a police officer carries a sentence of five days in jail and a $50 fine, with higher penalties if death or injuries result from the offense.

Stirling’s bill would increase the basic penalty to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for evading a uniformed police officer in a marked car who has flashed a red light and sounded a siren. A term of three years in prison and a $2,000 fine could be imposed if the fleeing vehicle were driven with “wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”

The bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and faces a hearing in the Appropriations Committee before it can move to the Senate floor. The Senate has already approved similar legislation by Sen. Jim Ellis (R-San Diego).

Stirling said he made the changes after several senators told him they would not support the bill.

“I carried it and got it out of the Assembly,” Stirling said. “The senators almost unanimously told me it would not go anyplace in the Senate. I can’t create votes. If they’re not there, they’re not there.”

Two lobbyists for law-enforcement groups said Stirling’s original bill encountered fierce opposition from rank-and-file police officers and management.

“We were adamantly opposed to the bill,” said John Larson, a lobbyist for the California Highway Patrol. He said the bill was an overreaction to the Peyer arrest.

“That was an isolated incident,” Larson said. “The Highway Patrol has made millions and millions of traffic stops and enforcement stops in its 50-plus-year history. You can’t hold a whole organization and profession responsible for the acts of one individual.”

Alva Cooper, a lobbyist for the three law-enforcement groups, including the California Police Officers’ Assn., said his clients “could not live with” the Assembly-passed provisions of Stirling’s bill.

“We think we know better than the average citizen out there where to stop people safely,” Cooper said. “We train people so they can make these stops as safe as possible, for the citizen and the officer himself.”

Cooper and Larson told Stirling after his bill cleared the Assembly that they would try to defeat it in the Senate. When Stirling agreed to rewrite it, the CHP and Police Officer’s Assn. signed on as co-sponsors for the new version.

Stirling said he amended the bill rather than forcing it to an unsuccessful Senate vote because he did not want to confront the Senate committee.

“There is no point in doing that,” he said. “My job is to build consensus, not put people on the spot.”

But Stirling said the problem his bill originally addressed still needs to be resolved.

“There is a whole range of areas there in which we can improve the process by which officers stop the public and by which the public responds to the stop,” he said. “We need a more uniform and more consistent way so we know what to expect from them and they know what to expect from us.”

The CHP’s Larson said the department is working through “public education” to dispel the fears engendered by Peyer’s arrest.

“We are trying to educate the public on how to behave during a traffic stop,” Larson said. “They should make sure it is a marked black-and-white vehicle, make sure the officer is in full uniform. If they’re extremely apprehensive, they can roll down their window only a short distance and hand the officer their driver’s license.

“If they’re worried, a lot of the officers will direct them to a place of safety off the freeway, to a gas station parking lot, a restaurant parking lot.”

But, Larson said, the officer must hold the upper hand.

“When the red light goes on, that means stop,” he said.