police use of force - doj 1999

8/4/2019 Police Use of Force - DOJ 1999

1/37

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

DEPA

RTME

NT OF

OFFICE

OF

JUSTICE

BJA

NIJ

OJJDPB


2/37

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

A ttorney General

Raymond C. FisherA ssociate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant A ttorney General

Nol Brennan

Deputy A ssistant A ttorney General

Jeremy Travis Jan M. Chaiken

Director, National Institute of Justice Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs


3/37

Use of Force by Police

Overview of Nationaland Local Data

Contributors:

October 1999

NCJ 176330

Kenneth Adams

Geoffrey P. Alper t

Roger G. Dun ha m

J oel H. Gar ner

Lawrence A. Greenfeld

Mark A. Henriquez

Pat rick A. Langan

Chr istopher D. Maxwell

Steven K. Smith


4/37

J e remy Travis Jan M. Ch aiken

Director, Nat ional Inst itu te of Jus t ice Director, Bureau of Jus t ice S ta t is ti cs

Robert J. Kaminsk i

Program Man ager, National Institu te of J ustice

Points of view expressed by cont ributors t o this r eport do not necessarily represent the

official p ositions or policies of the U.S. Depart men t of Ju stice.

Th e National In stitute of Ju stice and th e Bureau of Ju stice Statistics are com ponents of the Office

of Ju stice Program s, wh ich also includes the Bu reau of J ustice Assistance, the Office of J uvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Acknowledgments: This report is indebted to many individuals and organizations for their

valuable assistance and insights. Special thanks are extended to the law enforcement agen-

cies that cooperated with the researchers whose findings appear in this report. In so doing,th e following agencies demonst ra ted t he t ype of leadersh ip so critical to the a dvancement of

policing practice and policy: Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department,

Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department, Dallas (Texas) Police Department, Eugene

(Oregon) Police Depart men t, Miami-Dade (Florida) Police Depart men t, St . Petersbu rg (Florida)

Police Depar tm ent , San Diego (California ) Police Depa rt men t, San Diego Count y (Californ ia)

Sher iffs Depar tm ent, Springfield (Oregon) Police Depart ment , and th e man y depart men ts

th at have pa rt icipated in th e use-of-force dat aba se project of the In tern at iona l Association of

Chiefs of Police.


5/37


6/37

iv


is further supported by resear ch indicating

tha t in incidents involving resistance by sus-

pects, th eir injuries r esult ing from police use

of force were typically minor (chapt er 5).

Ongoing research by NIJ an d BJS seeks to

provide the perspective, insight, and factual

data needed by police and others to addr ess

use-of-force issues constructively. Through

this and other policing r esearch, we seek

to advan ce our goal of ass isting law

enforcement agencies in protecting the

public, enha ncing the s afety of the commu -

nity a nd officers, an d building widesprea d

support a mong those they serve.

Jerem y Travis

Director

Nat iona l Institute of J ustice

Jan M. Chaike n, Ph.D.

Director

Bureau of Ju stice Statistics


7/37

v

Contents

Foreword .............................................................................................................................. iii

Execut ive Summary ......................................................................................................... vii

1. What We Know About Police Us e of Force ................................................................ 1

by Kenneth Adam s

2. Revis ing and Fie lding the Pol ice-Publ ic Contact Survey ................................... 15

by Law rence A. Greenfeld, Patrick A . Langan , and S teven K. S m ith

3. IACP National Database Project on Police Use of Force .................................... 19

by Mark A. Henriquez

4. Measuring the Amount of Force Used By and Against the Pol ice in

Six J urisdictions ........................................................................................................... 25

by Joel H. Garner and Ch ristopher D. Ma xwell

5. The Force Factor: Measuring an d Assess ing Police Use of Force and

Suspect Res is tance ....................................................................................................... 45

by Geoffrey P. Alpert and Roger G. Dun ha m

6. A Research Agenda on Pol ice Use of Force ............................................................ 61

by Kenneth Adam s

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 75


8/37

vii

Executive Summary

For example, about 1 per cent of people who

ha d face-to-face conta cts with police said

th at officers used or th rea ten ed force, ac-

cording to preliminary est imates based on

the Bureau of J ustice Stat istics 1996 pretest

of its Police-Public Cont act S ur vey (chapt er

2). In 7,512 adu lt custody arrest s, an other

stu dy (cha pter 4) notes th at fewer than one

out of five ar rest s involved police use of

physical force (defined as u se of an y weapon,

us e of an y weaponless t actic, or use of severe

restr aints ). That can be considered a low

ra te in view of the st udys broad definition

of force.

Also known with su bsta nt ial confidence is

th at police use of force typically occur s a t t he

lower en d of th e force spectru m, involving

grabbing, pushing, or shoving. In the study

focusing on 7,512 adu lt custody arr ests,

for inst ance, about 80 percent of arr ests in

which police used force involved use of weap-

onless tactics. Grabbing was the tactic used

about ha lf th e time. About 2.1 percent of all

ar rest s involved use of weapons by police.

Chemical agents, such a s pepper spray, were

the weapons most frequently used (1.2 per-

cent of all arr ests ), with firear ms leas t often

us ed (0.2 percent ).

Fr om a police adm inistr at ors point of view,th ese findin gs ar e predictable. Officers ar e

tr ained to use force progressively along a

cont inu um , and policy requires t ha t officers

use t he least amount of force necessary to

Recent developments h ave heightened

concer n a bout police use of force. They

ra nge from well-publicized incidents involv-

ing a llegations of excessive force to t he onset

of aggr ess ive policing, whose frequent

emphasis on zero-tolerance enforcement is

sometimes regard ed a s en coura ging u se-of-

force abu ses. No ma tt er wh at specific event

tr iggers concern a bout police use of force,

how is th e public to assess whet her such

force is, in t he a ggregat e, a m ajor problem?

One way is to examine wha t resear ch has

unearthed.

Overview: What Do We Know AboutPolice Use of Force?

As discussed in cha pter 1, research-based

kn owledge a bout p olice u se of force can be

placed into th ree cat egories. The first per-

tains to knowledge that can be accepted with

subs ta nt ial confidence a s fact. The second

relat es to use-of-force kn owledge th at can be

accepted only with m odest confidence be-

cause, for example, add itional resea rch is

warra nted. The th ird category consists of

kn owledge yet to be developed th rough

researchthat is, what is not yet known.

Known with substantial confidenceKnown with substa ntial confidence is that

police use force infrequ ent ly. The d at a indi-

cate th at a sm all percent age of police-public

encount ers involve force.

Th e organization of

executive summary p

allels that of the rep

as a w hole; th at is, t

order of topics h ighliin this summ ary trac

th e cha pter sequence.

casional cross-referen

to specific cha pters a

intend ed to assist rea

in locating m ore deta

information.


9/37

viii


accomplish th eir goals. The kin ds of police

actions th at m ost ar ouse th e publics con-

cernssuch as fatal shootings, severe

beatings with fists or bat ons tha t lead to hos-

pitalization, an d choke holds that cause un -

consciousn ess or even deat hare n ot typical

of situ at ions in wh ich police use force.

When injuries occur as a r esult of the use

of force, they ar e likely to be m inor. In one

study (chap ter 5), resear chers found tha t

the m ost common injury to a suspect was a

bruise or a brasion (48 percent).

Another r esearch finding th at can be ac-

cepted with substa ntial confidence is tha t

use of force typically occurs when police ar e

trying to make an arrest a nd the su spect is

resist ing. This conclusion is based on four

types of da ta : ar rest sta tist ics, sur veys of po-

lice officers , obser vat ions of police beh avior,and reports by the pu blic about their encoun-

ter s with police.

The foregoing findings leave open t he issu e

of excessive force because issues of propor-

tiona lity a re n ot clearly addr essed. Research

findings suggest, however, tha t m any de-

bat es over excessive force will fall int o gray

ar eas wh ere it is difficult to decide wheth er

an officer acted properly, given credible evi-

dence th at use of force was n ecessar y.

Known with modest confidence

Regarding what is known with modest confi-

dence a bout p olice u se of force, cha pter 1

identifies three conclusions suggested by

research dat a:

q Use of force appea rs t o be unr elated to an

officers p ersona l char acter istics, such a s

age, gender, an d et hn icity. This conclusion

should be a ccepted with cau tion, however.

Additiona l verification is needed .

q Use of force is m ore likely t o occur when

police ar e dealing with persons un der th e

influence of alcohol or dr ugs or with men -

ta lly ill individuals. Research findings in

this a rea are inconsistent , however. Fu r-

ther investigation, with a n emph asis on

implications for t ra ining, could lead t o a

redu ction in t he risk of force and in jury

for both police officers and civilians.

q A sma ll proportion of officers ar e dispr o-

portionately involved in use-of-force

incidents. More resear ch is n eeded.

About this report

This report is one of a series of use-of-forcepublications (see Bibliography, page 75)

generated by research supported by the

National Institute of Justice or Bureau of

Justice Statistics. The data and findings

herein contribute to a better understanding

of the extent and nature of police use of

force and of the circumstances under which

such force is applied.

A major objective of chapter 1 is to provide

an overview of what is known (and not

known) about police use of force and

thereby help readers put the issue in per-

spective. The next two chapters are updates

of two national projects. One is designed to

collect data on police-public contacts, includ-

ing those involving police use of force, from

a nationally representative sample of per-

sons age 12 or older. The other seeks toencourage as many local law enforcement

agencies as possible to submit voluntarily

and anonymously use-of-force data to a

central database for analysis.

Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the local level.

They present use-of-force findings based

on data acquired from nine police agencies.

The final chapter looks ahead by proposing

a research agenda on police use of force,

with special attention given to issues of

excessive force.

Thus, this report begins with an overview

of what is known about police use of force,

proceeds to outline what is being learned,

and concludes with a proposed plan for

future research.


10/37

ix

Executive Summ

Among what is not known

As sta ted in cha pter 1: The in cidence of

wrongful use of force by police is u nk nown.

Research is critically needed to determine

relia bly, validly, and pr ecisely how often

transgressions of use-of-force powers occur.

Researchers and pra ctitioners both tend t o

presuppose that the incidence of excessive

force by police is very low. If use of force is

uncommon, and civilian complaints a re in-

frequent , and civilian injur ies ar e few, then

excessive force by police mus t be ra re. That

conclusion ma y indeed be corr ect, but to th e

extent th at it h inges on official police stat is-

tics, it is open t o serious challenge.

Cur ren t ind icators of excessive force, such a s

civilian compla ints an d civil lawsu its, are a ll

critically flawed. The difficulties in m easu r-ing excessive force with compla int a nd

lawsuit records h ave led academics a nd

practitioners t o redirect their at tent ion to

all use-of-force incidents. Theoretically, un-

derst an ding all us e-of-force incidents h elps

put wrongful use of force in per spective.

As one example of how un dersta nding all

use-of-force incident s can help p ut excessive

force in per spective, th e stu dy of 7,512 adu lt

custody arr ests (cha pter 4) makes t his

observation:

. . . most a rr est s involve no force, excessiveor other wise. When force is us ed, it typically

involves less severe forms of tactics an d

weapon u se. These findings pr ovide a context

for u nder sta ndin g excessive force, which we

kn ow can in volve low-level acts of force . . .

as well as th e acts of force th at result in

physical injur y or deat h of civilians. Arr ests

th at involve n o force, however, can not in-

volve excessive force and a rr ests th at involve

low levels of force a re les s likely t o involve

excessive force.

Additiona l gap s in use-of-force kn owledgeinclude the following:

q The impa ct of differences in police organi-

zat ions, including a dmin istr at ive policies,

hirin g, tr ain ing, discipline, and u se of

technology, on excessive force is unknown.

Although ma ny conditions that argua bly

lead to excessive force by police seem ob-

vious, or appea r to be a m at ter of comm on

sense, a great n eed for systemat ic re-

search in this ar ea exists.

q Influences of situational characteristics

on police use of force an d th e tr an sa c-

tiona l natu re of these events are lar gely

un kn own. For example, litt le is known

beyond resea rch indicating th at situ ations

most likely t o involve police u se of force

are inter personal disturba nce and violent

personal crime, and s ituat ions when su s-

pects at tem pt t o flee or ph ysically resist

ar rest . Those findin gs, however, do not

address the t ran sactiona l, or step-by-step

un folding, of police-public en coun te rs. Was

suspect resista nce th e resu lt of police use

of force, or did police use force after expe-

riencing su spect resistan ce?

Updates on Two National Projects

In 1996, the Burea u of Justice Statistics

(BJ S) and the Intern ational Association of

Chiefs of Police (IACP) initiated projects in-

volving collection of dat a encompass ing po-

lice u se of force. Both ar e cur ren tly ongoing.

The BJS survey

To learn more a bout p olice us e of force re-

quires an u nderst and ing of the r easons for

an d th e resu lts of police-public encoun ter s.As a step toward developing th at u nder-

standing, BJS supplemented the National

Crime Victimization Sur vey with a pilot test

of its P olice-Public Cont act Sur vey (PPCS) in

1996 (cha pter 2).

Among th e findings was a preliminary

estimat e tha t about 1 percent of people re-

porting contacts with police indicated that

officers used or th rea ten ed force. In t he

majority of those insta nces, respondents said

tha t th eir own actions, such as th reat ening

police, may h ave p rovoked officers.

In J uly 1999, a second test of PPCS was

fielded to a much larger sample tha n th at

used in t he 1996 pilot test . In addition, BJS

an ticipat es addin g items to its periodic sur-

veys conducted among na tionally represen ta-

tive sa mples of those confined in local jails

NCV S is based on in

views condu cted w ith

nationally representa

sam ple of U.S . house

holds an d h as becom

highly u seful platfor

testing new qu estion

naires and periodica

implementing supple

m ents. Greenfeld,

al., page 15 of this re


11/37

x


and pr isoners held by State an d Federal

au th orities. The new su rvey items would

provide, for th e firs t tim e, inform at ion about

respondent s intera ctions, including use of

force, with p olice du ring t he a rrest preceding

incarceration.

The IACP database project

Initiated in 1996, the IACP da taba se project

is designed to collect use-of-force information

from law enforcement agencies across the

Na tion (cha pter 3). To promote a ccur at e re-

porting an d overcome potential r eluctan ce

of agen cies to par ticipate, IACP decided th at

provision of dat a would be both volun ta ry

and anonymous.

Collected data perta in to reported use of

force stem ming from police res ponses t o calls

for ser vice, whet her or not th ose responsesresulted in arr ests. About 150 agencies are

expected t o contribute data for the 199899

data year. Among preliminary findings:

q Based on 1995 data r eported by 110 agen-

cies, the police use-of-force rate was 4.19

per 10,000 respond ed-to calls for service,

or 0.0419 percent .

q Based on da ta reported for 199697, 87

percent of 62,411 use-of-force incidents

involved officers u sin g physical force. Of-

ficers us ed chemical force in 7 p ercent of

the incidents, firearms in about 5 p ercent.

q Based on a vailable data for 199697, about

10 per cent of 2,479 officers us ing force sus-

ta ined injuries, less tha n 1 percent ser ious.

About 38 p ercent of subjects were injured

due to police u se of force, with 1.5 percen t

sustaining major injuries.

Becau se the dat a ar e not yet nat ionally

represent ative, conclusions about nat ional

use-of-force trends should not be attempted.

Two Local-Level StudiesOne of the local-level studies measured the

am ount of force used by a nd a gains t police

in six jurisdictions. The other measu red a nd

ass essed police use of force an d su spect re-

sistan ce in thr ee jurisdictions an d developed

th e force factor, a mea sur e of th e level of

force us ed by officers relat ive to th e level of

resistan ce by suspects.

Study on the amount of force used insix jurisdictions

The six-jurisdiction study (chapter 4) gath-

ered da ta about officers an d su spects beha v-

iors in connection with 7,512 adu lt custody

arrests (arrests in which su spects a re tra ns-

ported t o a det ent ion facility, in cont ra st t o

being issued a summ ons to appear before a

judicial officer). The researchers focused on

the amoun t of force used by and against po-

lice, with th e expectat ion tha t t his informa -

tion would inform issues sur rounding th e

use of excessive force. For instance, excessive

force is typically but n ot necessa rily associ-

at ed with more sever e forms of force tha tcould or do result in injury or death .

Emer ging from t he r esearch is a more complete

understanding of the frequency with which cer-

tain t ypes of tactics ar e used an d what types of

weapons ar e displayed, threat ened, or a ctually

used . The consist ent findings across all six

jurisdictions ar e tha t most arr ests (more tha n

80 percent) did not involve force by police (ex-

cluding han dcuffing) or by suspects. In 98 per-

cent of ar rest s wher e force was used, no weapon

was u sed, threat ened, or even displayed. When

police used some form of weaponless t actic (hit-

ting, kicking, wrestling, etc.), the most frequen t

tactic involved only grabbing (about h alf the

time).

In a ddition t o providing dat a on t he u se of

weapons an d weaponless tactics, the study

identified thr ee other elements, sometimes

included in th e concept of use of force:

q Restraints. In a bout 82 percent of all

7,512 arr ests, officers r eported u se of

ha ndcuffs. Leg cuffs were u sed in 0.9 per-

cent of ar rest s. Officers u sed more sever e

restr aints in 0.4 percent of arrests. Re-stra ints were not used in appr oximately

16 percent of arrests.

q Motion. Pu rsu it on foot a nd by car oc-

curred in 3 percent a nd 2.4 percent, re-

spectively, of all arr ests. Pu rsu it did n ot

...IACP design ed th e

project from t he outset to

reflect operational reali-

ties of m odern, st reet-level

law enforcem ent, includ-

ng th e very m eaning of

poli ce us e of force, de-

fined as th e amoun t of

force required by police to

compel compliance by an

un willing subject.

Henriquez, page 20 of

this report.


12/37

xi

Executive Summ

occur in 94.4 percent of ar rest s. Sus pect

flight most frequen tly occurr ed by foot (in

4.7 percent of ar rest s). In 93.5 percent of

arrests, suspects did not flee.

q Voice. In 61.2 per cent of arres ts, police

reported they us ed a conversat ional tone

with suspects.

Among t he m easu res of force used by police

officers th at were developed by th e resea rch-

ers a re ph ysical force an d ph ysical force plus

thr eats. The stu dy found th at 17.1 percent

of ar rest s in volved ph ysical force (us e of a

weapon, weaponless t actic, or severe re-

stra int) an d that 18.9 percent ent ailed

physical force or th e display or th reat ened

use of any weapon.

To better distinguish between different types

of forcesuch a s between gra bbing an d kick-

ingthe r esearchers developed a m aximum

force measure, which involved officers rank-

ing 60 hypoth etical types of force in t erm s of

th eir severity on a s cale from 1 (leas t force-

ful) to 100 (most forceful). When th e m ea-

sur e was app lied to th e types of force officers

reported using, the st udy found tha t th e

ran king score for comma nding a suspect to

do somet hin g (1.3 percent of all ar rest s)

was 22; for us ing ha ndcuffs (57.3 percent of

arr ests), 28.2; an d for d isplaying a ha ndgun

(2.2 percent of ar rest s), 55.4. The a vera ge

ra nk ing score for th e types of force used inall arrests was 30.

The researchers stat e that t heir findings

are beginning t o provide a st able pictur e of

police beha vior a nd t he a moun t of force tha t

police use in a rrest situa tions, but th ey note

the findings rema in tenta tive given th e

sma ll num ber of jurisdictions involved in

the resea rch, am ong other reasons.

Study on police use of force andsuspect resistance

The stu dy collected use-of-force dat a fromth ree law en forcemen t a gencies police

depart ment s in two Oregon cities an d one

count y depart ment in Florida (cha pter 5).

The areas ser ved by the Oregon depart ment s

were consider ed one site.

The two-ci ty Oregon si te of Eugen e/

Springfield. Researchers a na lyzed 562 po-

lice actions, 57 percent of which wer e ta ken

by officers r espondin g to calls for s ervice an d

33 percent by officers r eacting t o situ at ions

th ey had observed. The most comm on type of

incident (25 percent ) confrontin g officers wasstreet violence. Most police action (76 per-

cent) was ta ken t o apprehend or control a

person.

Officers often u sed more t ha n one verba l or

physical cont rol tactic per incident . For in-

sta nce, 93 percent of 546 incidents involved

at least two tactics; 87 percent, at least t hree;

an d 41 percent, at least four. The pat tern of

tactic use tha t emerged corresponds to th e

tr adit iona l use-of-force continu um . The first

tactic used in an incident is n early always

th e least severe u se of force on the con-

tinuu m; the second is a lmost always the sec-

ond-most lenient ; and so on, with very few

exceptions.

Of 504 reported in cident s in wh ich force was

use d, 1.8 percent resu lted in in jury to officers.

They were most at risk for injury when wres-

tling, striking, or t aking a suspect to th e

ground.

The level of force used by th e depa rt men ts

officers relat ive to th e am ount of the su s-

pects resist an ceth e force factoravera ged

slightly higher tha n th e amount of resistan ceencoun tered. On average, more force tha n

resistan ce was used. This does not n ecessar-

ily imply th at th e level of police force was

excessive. For examp le, an officer ma y justifi-

ably use more force tha n does a su spect to

gain control of a situ at ion.

The Florida si te . The stu dy focused on da ta

in 882 official Control-of-Persons Reports

prep ar ed by officers su pervisors in t he

Miami-Dade Police Department. Ninety-

seven percent of suspects r esisted.

The t ype of resistan ce most often reportedwas a ctively resistin g arr est (36 percent ), fol-

lowed by a ssa ultin g th e officer (25 percent).

Twenty one percent of suspects a ttem pted to

escape or flee th e scene. The most common

type of force used by su spects was str iking or


13/37

xii


hitt ing th e officer (44 percent). Initially calm

sus pects were lea st likely to resist officers

but were t he m ost likely to flee and t he most

likely to resist with a gun or assa ult officers

with a vehicle.

The most common type of sus pect injury was

a br uise or abra sion (48 percent of those in-

jur ed), followed by lacerat ions (24 percent ),

and gunsh ot injuries (4 percent). The chan ce

of suspect injury was significan t no ma tter

what type of force was used by police. For

exam ple, officer us e of fists ent ailed a n 81

percent chan ce of suspect injur y; us e of a

PR-24 bat on, a 67 p ercent chance; an d us e of

a ha ndgun , a 48 percent chance.

Suspects who were reportedly impaired by

alcohol or dr ugs wer e no more likely to resist

officers th an sober susp ects. When t hey did

resist , however, th ey were more likely tha nnonimpaired suspects to directly assa ult th e

officer an d more th an twice as likely to use

a gun.

The m ost common t ype of force used by officers

was use of han ds an d ar ms (77 percent of use-

of-force incident s). In 64 percent of inciden ts,

officers grabbed or h eld suspects. There were

no sta tistically significant differences in th e

level of force used by ma le an d female officers.

The ethnicity of an officer did not affect the

general level of force used or whether force was

used.

Data suggest t hat officers are significant ly

at risk for injury wh en t hey use force, par-

ticularly when t hey strike a suspect with

their fists (48 percent chance) or use t heir

han ds an d ar ms to contr ol a su spect (43 per-

cent chance). Because most use-of-force inci-

dent s involved us e of ha nds, ar ms, or fists

by officers, th ey are m ost at risk for injury

when u sing precisely the types of force tha t

they r eport using m ost frequently.

Police officers us e of force in r elat ion to su s-

pect resist an ceth e force factoraver agedslightly less force tha n t he resista nce en-

count ered. Data indicate tha t officers a re

more likely to be injured when using less

force tha n th at used by resisting suspects.

A Proposed Research Agenda

The development of a r esearch a genda on

police use of force, with special a tt ent ion

given to issues of excessive force, should be

guided by th ese general considerat ions.

q Research should provide new knowledgetha t significan tly increases our und er-

sta nding of the problem.

q Resear ch should be policy relevant .

q Research activities, tak en a s a whole,

should be compreh ensive and systemat ic.

Within tha t genera l fram ework, more work

is required on wha t va rious p eoplegeneral

public, minorit ies, police admin istr at ors, pa-

tr ol officers, judges, offende rs, et c. ha ve in

mind wh en th ey refer to excessive force an d

how th ey ad judge sp ecific insta nces of policebeha vior wh en qu estions of excessive force

arise. This resear ch is importa nt becau se so-

cial problems often require shared solutions,

and sha red solutions require a common basis

of un dersta nding and m utu al respect for

differences in views.

Also needed is more an d better dat a on

police u se of force. Most discus sions occur in

an empirical vacuum where arguments are

ma de without th e benefit of solid, useful

information.

Resear ch is r equired on how use of force bypolice varies a cross time, cities, and indi-

vidual police departments. Research also is

needed on individua l, situa tiona l, and orga-

nizationa l factors relat ed to var iations in

us e-of-force levels, a long wit h excessive force

levels an d should focus on the r elation be-

tween excessive use of force, mea nin g th e

frequency with which police us e force, an d

excessive force, mea nin g insta nces in wh ich

police use more force tha n is n ecessar y.

Fina lly, inter ventions, cha nges, and r eform s

th at ma y mitigat e police use-of-force prob-lems should be identified, docum ent ed, and

evaluated.


14/37

1

What We Know AboutPolice Use of Forceby Kenneth Adams

1

Ambr ose Bierce, a social critic k nown for

his sar casm an d wit, once described the

police as an ar med force for protection an d

participation.1 In this pithy statement,

Bierce ident ifies thr ee critical elemen ts of

th e police r ole. First, by des cribing th e police

as ar med, th eir a bility t o coerce r ecalci-

tra nt per sons to comply with th e law is em-

pha sized. Because police carry weap ons,

it follows th at the force th ey use m ay ha ve

letha l consequen ces. The capa city to use

coercive, deadly force is s o centra l to u nder-

sta ndin g police functions, one could sa y tha t

it chara cterizes a key elemen t of th e police

role.

Second, t he p rima ry pu rpose of police is

protection, an d so force can be used only to

promote t he sa fety of th e comm un ity. Police

have a responsibility for sa feguarding t he

domestic well-being of the pu blic, and th is

obligation even exten ds in qua lified ways to

protecting th ose who violat e th e law, who ar e

an ta gonistic or violent toward th e police, or

who are intent on hur ting them selves. In

dealing with such in dividuals, police may

use force in r easonable and pr udent ways to

protect themselves and others. However, the

am ount of force used s hould be proportional

to the threat and l imited to the least a mount

requ ired t o accomplish legitimat e police

action.

Third, th e concept of participation emp ha-

sizes tha t police an d comm un ity are closely

interrelat ed. Police are dr awn from th e

comm un ity, an d as police they continu e to

Kenneth Ad am s, Ph

is A ssociate Profess

and Chair of the Cr

nal J ust ice Faculty,

S chool of Public andEnvironmental Affa

Ind iana Universi ty

Indianapolis.

operate as m embers of the community th ey

serve. The comm un ity, in tu rn , ent ers int o a

solemn a nd consequential relationship with

th e police, ceding to th em t he power t o de-

prive per sons of life, liberty, an d t he pur suit

of ha ppiness at a momen ts notice and de-

pend ing on t hem for pu blic safety. Without

police, the safety of the commu nity is jeopar-

dized. Without comm un ity su pport, police

are dispossessed of their legitimacy and

robbed of th eir effectiveness.

This t hr ee-elemen t d efinit ion of police

mak es it easy to understa nd why abuse of

force by police is of such gr eat concern . First,

there is the h uman itarian concern t hat po-

lice a re cap able of inflicting serious, even le-

tha l, ha rm on the pu blic. Second, ther e is the

philosophical dilemma that in protecting

the whole of society, some of its constituent

par ts, meaning its citizens, may be injur ed.

Third , th ere is th e political irony th at police,

who stand apa rt from society in terms of au -

th ority, law, an d r esponsibility, also ar e pa rt

of society an d a ct on its beha lf. Thu s, rogue

actions by a few police, if condoned by the

public, ma y become p erceived as a ctions of

th e citizenry.

Recent development s in policing ha ve el-

evat ed concerns a bout p olice us e of forcebeyond ordinar ily high levels. In pa rt icula r,

comm un ity policing, which is becoming wide-

spread as a result of financial incentives by

the Federal Governm ent, an d aggressive

policing, which is becoming widely adopted

as a solution to serious crime problems, ha ve


15/37

2


come to th e fore as persp ectives of choice

by policing exper ts. Commu nity policing

empha sizes th e role of the commu nity as

coproducers of law and order in conjunction

with th e police. Commu nities na tur ally vary

in attr ibutes, an d they vary in how they are

defined for t he p ur poses of comm un ity polic-ing. Cons equen tly, some comm un ities look t o

add rest rictions on p olice u se of force, while

others ar e satisfied with t he sta tus qu o, an d

still other s seek t o ease current restr ictions.

Regard less of th e comm un itys orienta tion

on this issu e, comm un ity policing mea ns in-

creased levels of accoun ta bility an d respon-

siveness in k ey area s, such a s us e of force.

Increased a ccounta bility hinges on n ew in-

formation, and n ew information stimulat es

debate.

The other emer ging perspective is aggres -sive policing, which often falls un der th e

ru bric of broken windows th eory, and, as a

strategic matter, is concerned with intensify-

ing enforcemen t a gainst qua lity-of-life an d

order m ain ten an ce offenses. The influen ce of

aggress ive policing can be seen in th e prolif-

era tion of zero toleran ce enforcemen t st ra t-

egies across th e Nat ion. The concern is tha t

the t hrea t posed by petty offenders m ay be

exaggerat ed to th e point tha t u se of force

becomes m ore commonplace an d abu ses of

force more frequen t.

The Violent Crime Contr ol and Law E nforce-

ment Act of 1994 mirrored congressional

concern about excessive force by au th orizing

the Civil Rights Division of th e U.S. Depar t-

ment of Justice (DOJ) to initiate civil actions

against police agencies when, a mong other

conduct, th eir u se of force rea ches a level con-

stitu ting a pat tern or practice depriving indi-

viduals of th eir rights. DOJ exercised tha t

au th ority when, for example, it determ ined

tha t an urban police department engaged in

such condu ct and n egotiat ed a consen t decree

tha t pu t in place a br oad set of reforms, in-cluding an a greement by the department t o

docum ent its u se of force and to implement

an early warn ing system to detect possible

abuses.2

Use-of-force concerns also are reflected in

the a tten tion t he media give to possible

inst an ces of police abu se. An accumu lation

of alleged a buse-of-force incidents, widely

reported in the media, encoura ges over-

generalization by giving th e impression tha t

police bruta lity is ram pan t an d th at policedepart ment s across the Na tion ar e out of

cont rol. For example, Hum an Rights Wat ch

sta tes, Allegations of police a buse ar e r ife in

cities throughout the coun try and ta ke many

forms.3

Before consider ing th e deta ils of recent

res ea rch efforts on police use of force, it is

useful to summa rize the sta te of our kn owl-

edge.4 We kn ow some det ails a bout police

use of force with a h igh degree of certa inty.

These items r epresent facts tha t sh ould

fram e our und ersta nding of the issues. Otherdeta ils about police use of force we know in

sketchy ways, or th e resea rch is contradic-

tory. These it ems sh ould be subject to addi-

tiona l research u sing more refined meth ods

of inqu iry. Finally, there ar e some a spects of

police use of force a bout wh ich we kn ow very

little or next to nothing. These items r epre-

sent critical directions for n ew inqu iry.

As is often th e cas e with import an t policy

questions, the informa tion th at we are most

confident of is of limited va lue. In ma ny

cases, it does not tell us wh at we really need

to kn ow, becau se it does n ot focus squ ar ely

on the importan t issues or is subject to

competing interpretations. Conversely, the

inform at ion t ha t is m ost critical for policy

decisions often is not a vailable or is very d if-

ficult to obtain . Such is th e case with police

use of force. The iss ues t ha t m ost concern

the pu blic and policymak ers lack the k inds

of reliable a nd solid informa tion tha t ad-

van ce debate from t he r ealm of ideological

postur ing to objective an alysis. Noneth eless,

it is importan t t o take s tock of our knowl-

edge so tha t it is clear which issues can beset aside an d which sh ould be the t arget of

efforts a t obtain ing new kn owledge.


16/37

3

Chapter 1: What We Know About Police Use of F

What, th en, is the sta te of knowledge regard-

ing police use of force? We begin with issu es

about which we have considerable informa-

tion an d a high d egree of confidence in our

knowledge. Discussed next a re issues where

knowledge is modest and considerably more

resea rch is mer ited. Fina lly, we concludewith issues th at are critical to debates over

police use of force and about which little

kn owledge exists.

What We Know With SubstantialConfidence About PoliceUse of Force

Police use force infreq uent ly.

Wheth er mea sur ed by use-of-force reports,

citizen compla ints, victim su rveys, or obser-

vationa l methods, the da ta consistent lyindicate t hat only a sm all percenta ge of

police-public inter actions in volve th e us e

of force. As Bayley an d Ga rofalo obser ved,

police-citizen en coun ter s th at involve use of

force and in jury ar e quite r ar e.5

Becau se ther e is no standa rd met hodology

for m easu ring u se of force, estim at es can

vary considerably on strictly computa tiona l

ground s. Different definitions of force an d

different definitions of police-public inter ac-

tions will yield different ra tes 6 (see sidebar

Working definitions). In particular, broad

definitions of use of force, such a s th ose tha t

include gra bbing or han dcuffing a suspect,

will produce higher ra tes t han more conser-

vative definitions. The Bur eau of J ust ice

Sta tist ics (BJS) 1996 pr etest of its Police-

Public Contact Su rvey resulted in prelimi-

nar y estimates t hat near ly 45 million people

had face-to-face contact with police over a

12-month period and th at a pproximat ely

1 percent , or about 500,000 of th ese pers ons,

were su bjected t o use of force or th rea t of

force7 (see cha pter 2). When ha ndcuffing is

included in t he BJ S definition of force, th enu mber of persons increas es to 1.2 million.

Expan ding an d contr acting definitions of

police-public interactions also work to af-

fect u se-of-force ra tes bu t in an opposite way

from definitions of force. Broad definitions of

police-pu blic int era ctions, su ch a s calls for

service, which capture variegated r equests

for a ssist an ce, lead t o low rat es of use of

force. Conversely, narrow definitions of

police-public int era ctions, such as a rr ests,

which concentra te squ arely on su spects, lead

to higher ra tes of use of force.

The In ter na tional Associat ion of Chiefs of

Police (IACP) is in t he p rocess of compiling

sta tist ics on use-of-force dat a being su bmit-

ted by cooperat ing agen cies (see cha pter 3).

These dat a indicate tha t force is used in

less th an one-half of 1 percent of dispa tched

calls for ser vice. From t his point of view, one

might well consider p olice us e of force a ra re

event . This figur e is roughly consisten t with

the pr eliminar y estimate reported by BJ S,

although t he IACP figure is subject t o the

reporting biases th at may exist in policeagency data . Fur ther more, IACP data are

not yet represent ative of the nat iona l pictur e

because of selection bias ; th e estima te is

based on a small percentage of police depart-

ment s tha t volunt arily report informa tion on

us e of force.

Garn er an d Maxwell found th at ph ysical

force (excluding ha ndcuffing) is u sed in

fewer th an one of five adult custody arr ests

(see cha pter 4). While this figure ha rdly

qualifies as a rar e event, it can be considered

low, especially in light of the broad definition

of force tha t was u sed.

In cha ra cterizing police use of force as in fre-

quent or rar e, the inten tion is neither to

minimize the problem nor to suggest tha t

the issue can be dismissed as unworth y of

serious a tt ent ion. Societys ends a re best

achieved peaceably, an d we should str ive to

minim ize the use of force by police as m uch

as p ossible. However, it is importa nt to put

police use of force in cont ext in order t o un-

dersta nd t he potential ma gnitude of use-of-

force problems. Alth ough est imat es ma y not

completely reassu re everyone tha t police ar edoing everything th ey can to minimize the

use of force, the data do not support the

notion t ha t we ha ve a na tiona l epidemic of

police violence.

Th us, the Com m issi

concludes that factor

substantially contrib

to m isperceptions a b

use of physical an d

dead ly force by law

enforcem ent officers

inclu de...[f]ailu re to

preciate th e relative i

quent u se of physical

dead ly force by law e

forcem ent personnel..

New York S tate Co

m ission on Criminal

tice and th e Use of Fo

Report to th e Govern

Vol. 1,New York: New

York S tate Com m iss

on Criminal J ustice

and the Use of Force,

May 1987: 6.


17/37


18/37

5


Maxwell (see chapt er 4) observed th at police

use wea ponless t actics in roughly 80 percent

of use-of-force incidents a nd t ha t h alf the

time th e ta ctic involved grabbing th e sus-

pect. Alpert an d Dunh am (see cha pter 5)

foun d th at in Miami 64 per cent of use-of-

force incidents involved gra bbing or h oldingthe su spect. In th e BJ S pilot n ational sur vey,

it was est imated, preliminarily, that about

500,000 people were hit, h eld, pushed ,

choked, threat ened with a flashlight, re-

stra ined by a police dog, thr eaten ed with or

actually spra yed with chemical or pepper

spray, threa tened with a gun, or experienced

some ot he r form of force.8 Thr ee-fifth s of

th ese situ at ions, however, involved only

holding. Finally, Pat e a nd Fr idells su rvey of

law enforcement agencies regarding use of

force an d civilian complaint s a lso confirm s

th at minor t ypes of force occur m ore fre-quently tha n serious types.9

As a corollary finding, when in juries occur as

a r esult of use of force, they a re likely to be

relatively minor. Alpert a nd Dunh am (see

chap ter 5) observed tha t t he most common

injury to a suspect was a bru ise or abr asion

(48 percent), followed by laceration (24 per-

cent). The k inds of police actions t ha t m ost

captivat e th e publics concern s, such a s fata l

shootings, severe beat ings with fists or ba-

tons th at lead to hospitalization, an d choke

holds t hat cause un consciousn ess or evendeath, are not typical of situations in which

police use force. These findin gs rea ssu re u s

tha t most police exercise restra int in th e use

of force, even if one ha s concerns over th e

num ber of times t ha t police resort to serious

violence.

Fr om a police adm inistr at ors p oint of view,

th ese findin gs are pr edictable. Officers are

tr ain ed to use force progressively along a

cont inuu m, an d policy requ ires th at officers

use th e least a mount of force necessary to

accomplish t heir goals.Another a ffiliat ed findin g is tha t police

rar ely use weapons. According to Garn er a nd

Maxwell (see chap ter 4), 2.1 percent of adu lt

custody arr ests in volved use of weapons by

police. Chem ical agen ts wer e the wea pons

most frequently used (1.2 percent of arrests),

while firearm s were t he weapons least often

use d (0.2 per cent of arr ests ). Most police

depart ment s collect sta tistics on a ll firearm

dischar ges by officers. These dat a consis-

tent ly show tha t t he ma jority of discha rges

are a ccidental or are directed at a nimals.Only on infrequ ent occasions do police us e

their firearms against the pu blic. One impli-

cation of these findings is th at increased

tra ining in h ow to use sta nda rd police weap-

ons will be of little value in d ealing with day-

to-day situa tions t ha t involve use of force.

Tra ining, if it is t o be effective in redu cing

th e u se of force, needs t o focus on how to

gain compliance without resorting to physi-

cal coercion.

Use of force typical ly occurs wh en pol ice

are t r y ing to ma ke an a rres t and the

suspect i s res is t ing.

Research indicates tha t police are most

likely to use force when pu rsuing a suspect

an d att empting to exercise their ar rest pow-

ers. Furth ermore, resistan ce by the public

increas es th e likelihood tha t police will

use force. These findings a ppea r int uit ively

sound given th e man date t ha t police have

regarding use of force. Police may use force

when it is necessary to enforce the law or t o

protect t hemselves or others from h arm . The

findings a lso seem logical in view of police

training curriculums an d departmenta l

regulations. Alpert a nd Dun ha m (see cha p-

ter 5) find t ha t police almost always follow

th e pres cribed sequen ce of contr ol proce-

dures th ey are ta ught, except when suspect

resistan ce is high, in wh ich case th ey tend t o

skip the inter mediate procedure.

The conclusion th at police are most likely to

use force when dea ling with crimina l sus-

pects, especially th ose who ar e resistin g

arr est, is based on four types of data : arrest

statistics, surveys of police officers, observa-

tions of police beh avior, and report s by t hepublic about their encounters with police.

Arrest stat istics show tha t resisting-arr est

cha rges often are involved in situat ions in

which officers us e force. The in ter pret at ion

Th e first tactic u sed

an in cident is n early

wa ys th e least severe

of force on th e contin

and the second is n

always the second-m

lenient.Alpert an

Dunh am , page 48 of

report.


19/37

6


of th is finding is a mbiguous, however, be-

cause officers m ay bring such char ges in a n

att empt t o justify their a ctions against a

suspect. Some commen tat ors even would ar-

gue tha t resisting-arr est charges are a good

indication th at police officers acted ina ppr o-

pria tely or illegally. Becau se we a re r elyingon official reports by officers who are in-

volved in use-of-force incidents, an d becau se

they ha ve self-inter est in presen ting the

situation in the most favorable light possible,

we cannot rely on ar rest records a lone in

determining what happened.

Fortu na tely, other research is available to

help clarify the situation. The pilot national

household survey by BJS included a series of

questions a bout the respondents beh avior

dur ing cont act with police.10 The preliminary

ana lysis revealed that of the 14 respondents

in the sa mple who reported t ha t police used

or threa tened force against th em, 10 sug-

gested that t hey might h ave provoked the

officer to use force. The provocative behav-

iors r eported by su spects include thr eaten -

ing t he officer, assa ultin g th e officer, arguin g

with t he officer, inter fering with th e ar rest of

someone else, blocking or inter fering with a n

officers movement , tr ying to escape, resist -

ing being han dcuffed, and resisting being

placed in a police vehicle.

Research by Alpert a nd Dun ha m (see chap-

ter 5) confirms th at criminal sus pects a re

not always coopera tive when it comes to

arr est. In a lmost all (97 percent) cases in

which police officers used force in a Florida

jur isdiction, th e sus pect offered some degree

of resistance. In 36 percent of use-of-force

incidents, th e sus pect actively resisted ar-

rest, an d in one-quar ter of the incidents th e

suspect assaulted the officer. The research-

ers observed that the m ost common t ype of

sus pect force was hit ting or st rikin g a police

officer (44 percen t).

Garn er an d colleagues, after u sing stat isticalcontrols for more than 50 characteristics of

the ar rest situa tion, the suspect, and the po-

lice officer, found that forceful action by sus-

pects was th e strongest an d most consistent

pr edictor of use of force by p olice.11 Further-

more, they foun d th at while 22 percent of

arrests involved use of force by police, 14

percent of ar rest s involved use of force by

suspects. Police officers in Phoenix com-

pleted a u se-of-force sur vey after each a rr est

to generate these dat a.

Fina lly, Bayley and Gar ofalo ta llied 36 in-

sta nces of force used by p olice or su spects

out of 467 police-public encoun ter s observed

firstha nd by researchers.12 They found th at

in 31 incident s police used force aga inst s us-

pects a nd in 11 incidents suspects u sed force

aga inst police.

One implication of the r esearch is tha t th e

decision to use some level of force probably

ha s legal just ificat ion in most cas es. Force is

likely to be used when su spects r esist arr est

an d a tt empt to flee. Also, in a significant

number of instances, suspects use force

aga inst th e police. These findings leave openthe issu e ofexcessive force, since issu es of

proportionality are not clearly addressed.

However, the findings do suggest t hat man y

debat es over excessive force will fall int o

gray a rea s wher e it is difficult to decide

whet her an officer acted p roperly, becau se

ther e is credible evidence tha t t he u se of

force was necessa ry.

What We Know With ModestConfidence About Police Use

of ForceUse of force app ears to be unrela ted to

an off icers p ersonal char act er is t ics ,

such a s age, gender , an d eth nici ty.

A small num ber of studies suggest th at u se

of force by police is n ot as sociated with per-

sonal char acter istics, such as a ge, gender,

an d et hn icity. Bayley an d Ga rofalo concluded

th at use of force is not rela ted t o age, al-

though it m ay be related t o experience.13

Worden, in an analysis of observational data

on 24 police depart ment s in 3 metr opolitan

area s, concluded that the per sonal cha racter-

istics of police officers do not h ave a subs ta n-

tively sign ifican t effect on us e of force.14

Likewise, Garner and colleagues reported

th at t he r ace of sus pect an d officer is not

pr edictive of use of force.15 However, th ey

Regarding suspect force

as a consistent predictor

of pol ice us e of force: Th is

remain ed true when con-

trolling for the possibility

that some suspect use of

force could be a

reaction to police use of

force.Garner, et al. (see

note 11).


20/37

7


foun d th at incidents in volving male police

officers an d ma le suspects a re more likely to

involve force. Alpert an d Dun ha m (see cha p-

ter 5) found t ha t officer cha ra cteristics ar e of

little utility in distinguishing between force

and nonforce incidents.

Hence, gender and et hn icity appear u nre-

lated to use of force. Given th e limited r e-

search in this a rea, these conclusions should

be accepted with caution an d a dditiona l veri-

fication of th ese findings is n eeded.

It is widely accepted in crimin ology th at

violence, along with a wide va riety of oth er

risk-taking and norm-violating behaviors, is

a youn g ma ns gam e. Thu s, we should expect

th at young, male police officers sh ould use

force more th an th eir female colleagues or

older officers. The fact t ha t t his is n ot clear ly

the case seems sur prising.

A lack of relationsh ip between a ge an d gen-

der, on th e one ha nd, an d us e of force, on th e

other, ma y be a fun ction of police hirin g an d

deployment pra ctices. Retirement plans keep

th e age of police officers lower tha n t ha t of

most oth er occupa tions, and seniority, which

is derivat ive of work experience, often br ings

more choice in work a ssignm ent s, including

duties t ha t limit ones conta ct with criminal

suspects on the str eet. Both t hese ten dencies

serve to constrain variation in th e age of

police officers wh o ar e exposed t o potent iallyviolent situ ations. This may att enua te th e

relat ionsh ip between age a nd u se of force.

However, it is equa lly plau sible tha t young

ma le officers a re a ssigned t o high-crime

area s where frequent u se of force is neces-

sar y to gain complian ce. Fina lly, it is possible

tha t exposure to the police culture works to

encoura ge the u se of force, th us count erba l-

ancing th e decline in a ggressivity tha t comes

with a ge as demonstra ted in criminological

studies. More resea rch is needed t o disen-

tan gle these relat ionsh ips.

The finding th at an officers r ace is un related

to the propensity to use force runs counter to

the ar gument t hat racial animosity lies at

the hea rt of police abu se. Indeed, Alpert an d

Dunh ams resea rch (see cha pter 5) indicates

th at officers ar e more likely to use force

agains t su spects of th eir own race. The lack of

relationship between race an d us e of force, as

well as between gender an d use of force, is

probably dishear tening to those who argu e

th at integra tion of police agencies along ra-

cial a nd gend er lines will do much t o reduce

the incidence of police violence. Again, moreresearch is needed to understand t he situa-

tion of minorit y an d fema le police officers

with r egard t o their u se of force.

Use of force is more l ik ely to occur w hen

pol i ce are deal ing w i th per sons under

the inf luence of alcohol or drug s or wi th

ment al ly i l l ind ivid ua ls . More research

i s needed.

Police come across a wide variet y of situ a-

tions in t heir work. They encounter problems

tha t r an ge from relatively minor to serious

to potent ially deadly. They a lso int era ct withpeople exhibiting var ious ment al st at es, in-

cluding persons who are hysterical, highly

agita ted, an gry, disorient ed, ups et, worr ied,

irritat ed, or calm.

Two situa tions t ha t often give police officers

cause for concern a re when suspects appea r

to be un der t he influen ce of alcohol or dru gs

an d when civilians appear to suffer from

serious men tal or emotional impairment s.

The concern stem s from th e fact th at in such

situa tions a persons r ational faculties a p-

pear impaired. In dealing with problem situ-at ions, officers most often ta lk th eir way,

ra th er th an force their way, into solut ions.

For t his rea son, when a civilian is in a highly

irrat ional st ate of mind, the chan ces of the

police officer ha ving to u se force presu ma bly

increas e an d th e possibility of injury t o both

officer an d civilian in creases as well.

Resear ch car ried out for th e Presiden ts

Commission on Law Enforcement and Ad-

ministra tion of Ju stice observed tha t alcohol

use by eith er a su spect or an officer in-

creased th e chances th at force will be used.16

Garn er an d colleagues foun d th at alcohol

impairmen t by suspects was a consistent

pr edictor of police use of force, while d ru g

impairment predicted increased use of force

for some but not all mea sures of use of

force.17 In contr ast , Alpert a nd Dun ha m (see

S usp ects reported a

impaired were m ore twice as likely than s

suspects to use a gun

resist th e police.A

and Dunh am , page 5

this report.


21/37

8


cha pter 5) observed tha t a lcohol or drug im-

pairmen t of suspects was un related t o police

use of force or su bsequen t inju ry. Tha t find-

ing is interesting because, although im-

paired civilians did n ot demonstrat e an

increas ed pr opensity t o resist an officers

actions, when th ey did resist they were moreinclined to do so by actively resistin g or as-

sau lting t he officer.

Part of the dispa rity in findings between the

Pr esident s Commissions resea rch a nd m ore

recent studies may be att ributed to the fact

tha t p olice officers t oday are better tra ined

in h ow to deal with imp air ed civilian s. Most

police officers now receive tra ining in a va ri-

ety of violence reduction techn iques, and t his

development is pa rtly at tributa ble to con-

cerns over t he P residen ts Commiss ions

findings and over the frequency with which

police now are called to res pond to lar ge-

scale violence, such as riots.

Quest ions a bout h ow police deal with civil-

ians who appear to ha ve impaired mental

states a re importan t from administrative

an d pr act ical point s of view. Police officers

are expected to exercise restr aint in dealing

with impaired civilians, while at the same

time th ey need to be caut ious a bout protect-

ing their s afety as well as t he sa fety of other

civilians. This put s th em in a pr ecarious

situat ion, one in wh ich mistak es of judgment

or tactics can have grave consequences.

From a practical stan dpoint, police regularly

encount er civilians with impa ired menta l

stat es, which ma kes the pr oblem more than

academic. Alpert an d Dun ha m (see chap ter

5) found th at in 42 percent of use-of-force

situat ions, suspects a ppeared t o be un der

th e influence of alcohol or dru gs. Overall, the

resea rch on wheth er police use force more

frequen tly in relat ion to civilian s with im-

paired menta l sta tes is inconsistent . Fur ther

investigation, with an empha sis on implica-

tions for t ra ining, could redu ce the risk offorce a nd injury for both police officers an d

civilians.

A sma l l pr oport ion of off icers ar e dis -

prop ort ionat ely involved in use-of-force

incid ents . More resear ch is needed .

We often a re told that a sm all number of

people are r esponsible for m ost of th e pro-

ductive or count erpr oductive work in a n or-

ganization. For example, we hear about t he

80/20 rule in organizationa l man agement.

Tha t is, 20 percent of th e work ers a ccount

for 80 percent of th e work. Policing h as itscount erpar t explana tion for d evian t or ille-

gal beha vior. It is called the r otten app le or

rogue officer th eory, and it is often u sed t o

explain police corru ption. Recently, a var ia-

tion of this th eory ha s become th e principal

explana tion for u se-of-force pr oblems in p o-

lice departm ents. In this context, we speak of

violence pr one police officers an d we point

to these individuals as th e reason why a

depart ment h as problems with th e use of

force.18

People with extraordinary work perfor-ma nce, either good or bad, are n oticeable

when compar ed with their colleagues, and

their salience leads us to think tha t th eir

work is highly cons equen tial t o the good for-

tun es or misfortu nes of an organization. The

ut ility of th is persp ective for police man ag-

ers at tempt ing to deal with illegitimat e use

of force lies in t he pr esum ed concent ra tion of

problem beh aviors in t he work force. If only

a handful of police officers accounts for most

of th e abu ses, then effective solutions t ar-

geted at those individua ls should deal with

th e problem. The n at ur e of th e solut ion, be itemployee selection, tr ain ing, oversight , or

discipline, is less importan t t ha n its degree

of effectiveness a nd its a bility t o be directed

at th e problem group of employees.

The Christopher Commission, which investi-

gated the Los Angeles Police Department

subsequent to the Rodney King incident,

highlighted the violence pr one officer theory.19

The Commission, using th e depar tment s

dat abase, identified 44 officers with 6 or more

civilian allega tions of excessive force or im-

proper ta ctics in the period 1986 thr ough1990. For th e 44, the per-officer a verage for

force-related complaints was 7.6 compa red

with 0.6 for a ll officers iden tified as having

been in volved in a use-of-force incident for the

period J anu ary 1987 th rough March 1991. The

44 officers were involved in an average of 13


22/37

9


use-of-force incidents compared with 4.2 for

all officers reported to be using force.

Pu t a nother way, less th an one-ha lf of

1 percent of th e depa rt men ts sworn officers

accoun ted for more t ha n 15 percent of alle-

gat ions of excessive force or impr oper t ac-

tics. The degree of disproportion (30:1) is

striking a nd su ggests tha t focusing efforts

on a h an dful of officers can eliminat e

rough ly 1 out of 7 excessive force incident s.

This finding h as led man y police depar t-

ment s to implement early warning systems

designed to iden tify high-risk officers before

th ey become m ajor problems. Most of thes e

systems u se administr ative records, such a s

disciplinary records and citizen complaints,

to m onitor officer performa nce for possible

problems.

The concept of an early war ning system forrisk ma na gemen t of problem police officers is

not n ew. In t he ea rly 1980s, a report on police

pra ctices by the Un ited Sta tes Commission

on Civil Rights foun d th at (e)ar ly war ning

informat ion systems m ay assist th e depart-

men t in iden tifying violence-prone officers.20

Consequently, it wa s r ecommended th at (a)

system sh ould be devised in each depar tmen t

to as sist officials in ea rly ident ificat ion of

violence-prone officers.21

Unt il recently, these systems received limited

accepta nce, owing in par t to concern s overpossible abus es. The a buses include u se of

inaccurat e informa tion, improper labeling

of officers, misuse of confidentia l records

regar ding discipline an d other personnel

ma tter s, an d social ostra cism by peers and

comm un ity for officers ident ified as problem-

at ic. There also were concerns about limited

resources an d about in creased legal liability

for th e organ ization an d ind ividua l officers.

As Toch observes, the violence-prone officer

par adigm often is based on a variety of

loosely articulated theories of violent behav-ior.22 The th eories include concepts su ch a s

ra cial prejud ice, poor s elf-contr ol, and ego

involvement. Furt herm ore, these t heories

often overlook t he p ossibility th at great er-

th an -avera ge use of force may be a pr oduct of

situa tional or organizational char acteristics.

For exam ple, an officers work ass ignmen t

may involve a high-crime ar ea th at conta ins

a high proportion of rebellious offender s.

Also, divisive, dehum an izing views of the

world, such a s us-th em and good guy-bad

guy, th at facilitat e violent beha vior m ay be

supported by the organ izational culture.Further, administrative views of work roles

an d products, commu nicated forma lly or

inform ally, that emph as ize crime control

through aggressive police behavior may

encoura ge confrontat iona l tactics th at in-

crease t he cha nces of violent beh avior by

either civilian or police officer. Unless the

rea sons for violence propensity ar e accu-

ra tely ident ified, the effectiveness of inter-

vent ions ta rgeted at violent police officers is

a hit-or-miss proposition.

Of the 44 officers ident ified by th e Chr isto-

pher Commission in 1991, 14 subsequent ly

left t he depa rtm ent as of October 1997. Of

th e 30 rem ain ing officers, two ha d a use-of-

force complaint tha t was su stained after

review between 1991 an d 1997.23 This low

nu mber ma y be due to a variety of reasons,

such a s difficulties in sus ta ining citizen

complaints, reassignment of work duties,

nega tive publicity leading to a chan ge in

beha vior, or great er circumsp ection wh en

enga ging in miscondu ct. However, th e find-

ing also may reflect r egression t o the m ean.

This is a stat istical phenomenon postulat-ing that extreme scores gravitate toward

the mean or average score, thereby becom-

ing less extreme over t ime.

For exa mple, group s of police officers wh o

receive man y citizen complaint s, or who are

disproportiona tely involved in th e use of

force, or who frequ ent ly ar e given poor

performa nce rat ings, will ten d to become

bett er over time, in t he sen se of sta tist i-

cally looking more like th e avera ge

officers, even if nothin g is done about th ese

problems. Statistical regression represent s

a ser ious t hrea t t o the validity of early

warning systems based on the assu mption

tha t extreme pat tern s of behavior persist

over extended periods of time.

...a significant n um

officers...repetitively

use force and persist

ignore the wri tten p o

and guidelines of the

partment regarding f

By their miscond uct,

group of officers tarn

the reputations of the

m ajority of LAPD off

wh o do their increas

difficu lt job of policin

the City w ith courage

skill, and judgment.

Independent Commis

on th e Los An geles P

Department, Report

Independen t Commi

on th e Los Angeles P

Department, Los A ng

CA: Ind epend ent Com

m ission on the Los A

les Police Depart m en

1991: 31.


23/37

10


What We Do Not Know AboutPolice Use of Force

The incid ence of wrongful use of force

by pol ice is unkn own. Research is cr i t i -

cal ly needed to determi ne rel iably,

val id ly , and preci sely how of t en t ra ns -gression s of u se-of-force p owers occur.

We do not kn ow how often police use force in

ways tha t can be adjudged as wr ongful. For

exam ple, we do not know th e incidence of

excessive force, even th ough th is is a very

serious violat ion of public tru st. We could

pull together dat a on excessive force using

police disciplinar y records a nd court docu-

ment s, for example, but th e pictu re would be

sket chy, piecemeal, an d poten tia lly deceiving.

When it comes t o less gra ve or less precise

tr an sgres sions, such a s impr oper, abu sive,

illegitima te, an d un necessa ry use of

force, th e sta te of knowledge is even more

precarious.

In discussing th is issue, we will concen-

tra te on excessive force, becau se th ese

tra nsgressions are of utm ost concern t o the

public and becau se well-esta blished profes-

sional and legal criteria are available to

help u s evalua te police beha vior. Notwith-

stan ding a generally agreed-upon t erminol-

ogy, we should recognize that developing a

count of excessive force that is beyond all

dispute is an unworkable task. This is so

because d ifficult judgmen ts ar e involved in

deciding whet her use of force fits th e crite-

ria for th ese categories in a given situ at ion,

an d rea sonable people will disagree in such

judgm ent s. We clear ly need m ore accurat e,

reliable, an d valid mea sur es of excessive

force if we are to advan ce our un derst an d-

ing of th ese problems.

Academics an d pra ctitioners both tend to

presuppose that the incidence of excessive

force by police is very low. They ar gue th at ,

despite th eir sh ortcomings, agency statisticsprovide a useful p ictu re of th e u se-of-force

problem. These st atistics show tha t m ost

officers do not enga ge in force on a regula r

basis, tha t few people are in jured by police

use of force, th at only a sma ll num ber of

people compla in a bout police miscondu ct

involving use of force, an d th at only a ha nd-

ful of these complaints are sust ained.

The ar gument has appeal. We believe that

th e vas t ma jority of police officers a re profes-

siona ls who respect t he law a nd the public. If

use of force is u ncommon, civilian complaint s

ar e infrequent , an d civilian in juries ar e few,

th en excessive force by police must be ra re.

Tha t conclusion ma y indeed be corr ect, but

to the ext ent th at it hin ges on official police

sta tist ics, it is open to serious challenge.

Cur ren t ind icat ors of excessive force are a ll

critically flawed. The most widely available

indicators a re civilian complaint s of exces-

sive force a nd civil lawsuits alleging illegal

us e of force. Civilian comp lain ts of excessive

force are infrequent , and t he n umber of sub-

sta nt iated compla int s is very low. These fig-

ures are consistent with th e argument t hatexcessive force is sporadic. However, com-

plaint m echanisms are subject to selection

and reporting biases, an d th e operat ion of

complaint systems, which typically is man-

aged by police, wields cons idera ble influence

on whet her people will come forwar d to

complain.

Civil lawsuits a gains t police ar e exceedingly

rar e relative to the nu mber of times tha t

police use force. Becau se t he legal process is

highly selective in term s of which claims get

litigated, lawsuits a re a very unreliable mea-su re of illega l use of force. With both civilian

complaints an d lawsuits, small cha nges in

administr ative practices can h ave a large

impact on the m agnitude of the pr oblem

measu red in these ways.

The difficult ies in meas ur ing excessive and

illegal force with complaint an d lawsu it

records h ave led academics a nd pr actitioners

to redirect t heir a tt ent ion t o all use-of-force

incidents. The focus t hen becomes one of

minim izing all inst an ces of police use of

force, without undue concern as to whether

force was excessive. Fr om th is pers pective,

other records, such a s u se-of-force report s,

arr est r ecords, injury reports, and m edical

records, become relevant to measu ring th e

incidence of the p roblem.


24/37

11


From a theoretical perspective, un dersta nd-

ing all us e-of-force incidents helps u s to pu t

wrongful use of force in perspective. How-

ever, because political, legal, an d et hical

issues are very serious when we are dea ling

with excessive force, pres sur es to kn ow the

incidence and prevalence of these eventswith pr ecision will always be presen t.

As a corollary of our curr ent ina bility to

mea sur e excessive force, we cann ot discern

with pr ecision cha nges in t he incidence of

these event s over t ime an d across places.

This means tha t we can neither determine

whet her excessive force problems ar e

gett ing better or worse nor determine the

circumsta nces un der which those problems

are more or less severe.

The imp act of di f ferences in pol ice orga-

n i za t ions , inc luding a dm ini s t ra t i vepol icies , hir ing, t ra ining, discip l ine,

an d use of technology, on excess ive a nd

i l legal force is unknown . Research is

cr i t i ca l l y needed in th i s a rea .

A major gap in our k nowledge about exces-

sive force by p olice concerns char acter istics

of police agencies th at facilitat e or impede

th is condu ct. Alth ough ma ny of th e condi-

tions th at ar gua bly lead t o excessive or ille-

gal force by police seem obvious, or a ppea r to

be a ma tt er of comm on sense, we still great ly

need systema tic research in this a rea. Weneed to kn ow, for exam ple, which organ iza-

tiona l cha racteristics are m ost consequen -

tial, which char acteristics ta ke on a dded

significance in various environments, and

which chara cteristics are redu nda nt or

derivative of other characteristics.

Many forma l aspects of the organization

such as h iring criteria, recruit t ra ining, in-

service pr ogram s, supervision of field officers,

disciplina ry m echa nisms, operations of int er-

na l affairs, specialized un its dealing with eth-

ics an d int egrity, labor un ions, an d civilian

oversight mechan ismsplau sibly are r elated

to levels of officer misconduct. It ma kes s ense

tha t poorly educated, ba dly tra ined, loosely

super vised, and ina dequat ely disciplined of-

ficers a re likely to be problema tic, an d t ha t

when such officers ar e in t he m ajority, the

organization is on t he road t oward disaster.

Yet, we lack resea rch th at systema tically

addresses th ese questions.

Less form al a spects of police organiza tions

officer morale, administrative leadership,

peer cultu re a nd influen ce, police-comm un ity

relations, relations with other governm ent

agencies, and neighborhood environments

also plau sibly have a par t in levels of officer

misconduct. Aliena ted officers wh o do n ot

ha ve a clear vision of th eir role and r esponsi-

bilities and who are working in disorganized

agencies an d intera cting with th e public

und er str essful circumsta nces probably are

more likely to abu se th eir au th ority, includ-

ing th eir au th ority to use force. Resea rch

tha t systemat ically addresses th ese ques-

tions is lacking.

Meth odological in vestigat ion of relationsbetween organizational elements an d u se-of-

force tr an sgress ions will help explain police

misconduct a t a t heoret ical level. More im-

portant ly, research on these questions will

allow us t o deal effectively with police misbe-

ha vior. Faced with ser ious m iscondu ct prob-

lems in a police agency, we need t o focus

scarce resour ces on t hose as pects of police

organ izations th at a re most clearly related to

ensu ring pr oper condu ct of officers with re-

gard to us e of force. Generalized efforts to

reform police organizations that are expected

to reduce miscondu ct problems t end t o be

inefficiently focused a nd t hu s ap pear clum sy,

inadequa te, and misinformed.

Research mu st focus on establishing the

relat ive cost-effectiveness of various s tr at e-

gies to reduce or elimina te police misconduct.

Fur ther more, only stra tegies th at are solidly

ground ed in th eory, pra ctice, an d empirical

resea rch will provide reliable solutions with

predictable costs and benefits.

Inf luences of s i tua t iona l chara cter is t ics

on pol ice use of force an d t he tra nsa c-

t iona l na ture of these events are la rgely

unk nown . More research is n ecessary.

Resear ch on police-citizen encount ers r eveals

th at us e of force by police is situa tional a nd

transactional. That is, police respond to


25/37

12


circumsta nces as they first en count er them

and as they u nfold over t ime. For exam ple,

Bayley and Ga rofalo observed that the situ a-

tions most likely to involve police use of force

are inter personal disturba nce and violent

personal crime.24 Beyond this, however, we

do not kn ow much about th e types of eventstha t en ha nce the likelihood th at police will

use force.

Similarly, we ha ve noted th at when suspects

att empt to flee or ph ysically resist arr est

police are more likely to use force. We also

noted tha t in m any cases both police and

suspects u se force against each other.

However, these findings do not address the

transactional nature of police-public encoun-

ters in t hat they do not describe the step-by-

step unfolding of events an d int eractions.

Knowing th at police use force if sus pects

physically resist arrest, it matters if police

use force without provocation a nd t he su s-

pect responds by res isting or vice versa.

A variety of situational elements plausibly

are related to police use of force. If police are

called to a scene wh ere th ere is fight ing, th ey

ma y have t o or believe they ha ve to use force

to subdue the suspects. If they ar e called to a

domestic dispute where em otions are ru n-

ning high, they m ay ha ve to or believe th ey

ha ve to use force to gain cont rol of the situ a-

tion. If th ey are called to inter cede with a

civilian who is recklessly bran dishin g a

weapon, they ma y have to or believe they

have t o use force to protect t hemselves an d

other s. Use of force in su ch circums ta nces

may be justifiable, but t o the extent tha t it is

predicta ble, we can pr epa re officers for t hese

encount ers an d devise alterna tive strategies

tha t m inimize or eliminate t he u se of force.

Some situational factors may increase t he

chan ces tha t force of quest iona ble legitima cy

will be used . For examp le, officers somet imes

use force on t he slightest provocat ion follow-

ing a h igh-speed car chase, when a drena linelevels a re h igh. They m ay us e force more fre-

quently when t hey are a lone, becau se they

feel more vulnerable or believe that they can

get awa y with it. They may us e force more

frequent ly as a way of empha sizing th eir

aut hority when su spects ar e disrespectful

or when th ere is a hostile audience to the

encount er. At th is point, h owever, kn owledge

about th e types of police-citizen en coun ter s

in wh ich police are likely to use force is

rudimentary.

Police-public encounters are transactional in

the sense th at a ll the a ctors in a situa tion

cont ribut e in some way to its development

and outcome. Under stan ding the tran sac-

tional n at ur e of police u se of force is impor-

ta nt becau se it emph asizes th e role of police

actions in increasing th e chances th at force

will be used .

Fr om this per spective, it is possible to

minim ize the use of force by modifying th e

behavior a nd ta ctics of police officer s. By

under sta nding the sequences of events tha t

lead police to use force, we can gain a grea ter

degree of cont rol over th ose situa tions an dpossibly redirect t he outcome. But we h ave

only a basic under stan ding of the tr ans ac-

tional n at ur e of use-of-force situa tions, de-

spite the fact th at sequences of actions and

intera ctions are highly germa ne to determin-

ing whet her use of force was excessive or

illegal.

Organization of the Report

The next four cha pter s of th is report focus

on major research st udies dealing with po-

lice u se of force. They repr esent significantprojects curren tly under way to understa nd

police use of force.

Two of the pr ojects are at tempt s at measu r-

ing the incidence of police use of force na-

tionwide. BJS has developed a national-level

dat a collection effort u sing a h ousehold sur-

vey met hodology to in vestigat e p olice-public

inter actions, with a component on use-of-

force issues (see chapter 2). IACP is collect-

ing da ta on police use of force th rough a

volunta ry reporting system (see chapter 3).

Two other projects on police use of force in-

volve citywide investigat ions a cross several

locations. Chapt er 4 reports on research in

six jurisdictions; the resear ch is importan t

because it iden tifies factors associated with

use of force and becau se it a ddres ses difficult


26/37

13


measu rement issues. Focusing on th ree po-

lice agencies, chap ter 5 discuss es resea rch

th at center s on th e use of force by both police

and su spects; the resea rch is importan t

because it contributes significantly to under-

stan ding the tr ans actiona l natu re of police-

citizen encounters.

The final chapter outlines suggested direc-

tions for futur e res ear ch. A selected bibliog-

raph y concludes th is report.

Notes

1. Bierce, Ambr ose, Th e Devils Dictiona ry ,

New York : Dover, 1958: 101.

2. Ju stice Depart ment Consent Decree

Push es Police to Overhau l Operat ions,

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar ch 1, 1998, C1.

3. Based on an in vestigat ion in 14 cities,

Huma n Rights Watch described th e bruta lity

situ at ion a s follows: (p)olice officers enga ge

in un

police use of force - doj 1999

Documents