1. Was Officer A in pursuit of the suspect’s vehicle?

Clearly, Officer A was in direct pursuit of the suspect’s vehicle. In fact, he was in such a hurry that he did not activate the sirens to warn others, and the suspect. He was ordered by the sergeant to halt his pursuit, but he ignored and persisted.

2. As an arbitrator, would you uphold or deny the grievance?

Of course, as arbitrator, I would have to uphold the grievance in this instance. The Officer deliberately disregarded direct orders given by the sergeant; this constitutes clear and utter violation of regulations. Punishment is inevitable for such offenses. Once the oath was been sworn, it is the responsibility of the officer to abide by all policies and procedures therein.

3. Would you change the punishment of Officer A from a one- day suspension to that of a written warning?

Because it was a first offense, yes, I think that I would possibly give the lesser reprimand, written counsel. Officer A did exert honorable actions, and may have simply acted on impulse. The irony comes into play by way of policies set in place to ensure safety of both, officer and civilian.

4. What is the value to the police command in disciplining Officer A?

The value to the police command in awarding Officer A his punishment was sort of generic. I say this because, although the punishment was eminent due to the officer’s actions, it seems as if the main purpose behind the paradigm was to instill a false bravado to the public. It would appear as if the department views such violations as a “major violation to the trust of the public,” when it is probably just an attempt to display integrity to the public eye.