Which statement about terminating a reckless high-speed pursuit is a myth?

• A. It is objectively unreasonable to attempt to terminate a reckless high-speed pursuit if that termination would place the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.
• B. An officer may terminate a pursuit if continuing would pose a greater risk to the public than allowing the suspect to escape.
• C. Pursuits should be continued until the suspect is stopped, regardless of risk.
• D. Supervisory approval is always required to terminate a pursuit.

Answer: (A)

The main concept is risk-based decision making in pursuits: terminate when continuing would endanger the public more than it would help apprehend the suspect, and use containment or other safer options to resolve the situation.

The statement identified as a myth is the idea that it’s objectively unreasonable to terminate a reckless high-speed pursuit if termination would place the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death. In real-world practice, protecting the public from harm takes priority. If continuing the pursuit creates a high risk to bystanders, other motorists, or officers, terminating the chase is a prudent and often required action, even if the suspect might be endangered by escaping. This reflects the safety-first philosophy that guides pursuit decisions: the goal is to minimize overall harm, not to pursue at all costs.

Context: agencies commonly allow termination when the risk to the public outweighs the potential benefit of an arrest, and they encourage pursuit management, containment strategies, or other de-escalation options rather than forcing a dangerous chase. The other statements describe scenarios that can occur in practice—pursuits may be stopped when risk to the public is greater, and supervisory requirements for termination vary by policy—so they aren’t the myth in this question.