Use of Force by Police and Correctional Officers in the U.S.

Introduction

Beginning with the high-profile case of Rodney King in March 1991, the proliferation of cellular telephones equipped with cameras has resulted in an increasing number of video accounts by American citizens concerning the use of force against criminal suspects — in many cases members of minority groups (Winright, 2007). Not surprisingly, this trend has also prompted calls for a review of current use-of-force methods employed by law enforcement agencies across the country. This paper reviews the relevant literature to identify the various methods used by police and correctional officers in overcoming resistance in arrest or control situations, taking into consideration the use-of-force continuum. It also identifies potential responses to "expected" or "unexpected" consequences from the public or judicial system as a result of employing such tactics. A summary of the research and important findings is presented in the conclusion.

Use of Force Methods Employed by Police and Correctional Officers

The use-of-force methods historically employed by police and correctional officers span the entire use-of-force continuum, but critics charge that in far too many cases these authorities tend to resort to the most forcible methods from the outset when confronted with criminal suspects, particularly those from minority groups. For instance, Elicker (2008) advises that "the inappropriate use of force by police officers has received serious discussion in the media and across the nation for some time" (p. 33). Indeed, Winright emphasizes that the widely publicized beating of Rodney King is the rule across the country rather than the exception, noting that "that beating was not unique in the history of policing. It probably has kin in every state in the Union, in every country, and indeed in every significant police force as far back as we can trace the police function" (2007, p. 38).

Use-of-force supporters counter that law enforcement authorities are on the front line of the fight against crime and must have the power to exercise whatever amount of force they deem necessary in their professional judgment to protect themselves and American society (Elicker, 2008). Moreover, notwithstanding the increasing video accounts of excessive force, the reality of the situation is far different, and these accounts represent isolated incidents rather than an actual statistical trend. As Elicker states, "despite the way mass media presents the subject of police brutality, the occurrences of police use of force cases are not all that common" (2008, p. 34).

These assertions are backed up by solid statistical evidence. A study performed by the United States Department of Justice analyzed 7,512 arrest cases from six urban law enforcement agencies concerning the use of force by and against police officers. The results showed that there were just 52 cases (representing 0.07%) in which police officers employed weapons as part of the arrest procedure (Elicker, 2008). The types of weapons used in these 52 cases included sticks, knives, handguns, chemical agents, rifles/shotguns, motor vehicles, canine units, and others (Elicker, 2008).

The Department of Justice study also determined that in 1,184 arrests (representing 15.8%), police officers employed one or more tactics that involved no weapons at all. These tactics included: (a) grabbing, (b) arm twisting, (c) wrestling, (d) pushing/shoving, (e) hitting, (f) kicking, (g) biting/scratching, (h) use of a pressure hold, (i) carotid hold, (j) control hold, and (k) other tactics (Elicker, 2008). Of these weaponless tactics, grabbing was used most often (954 cases, or 12.7%), with arm twisting (281 cases, or 3.7%) and wrestling (233 cases, or 3.1%) representing the distant second and third most frequently used methods (Elicker, 2008).

Police officers who encounter criminal suspects — who must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction — face a very different situation from correctional officers charged with maintaining order in the nation's prison system. Correctional officers are routinely confronted by individuals who have already been convicted and sentenced for their offenses, in many cases violent crimes (Kedir, 2006). In response to the need to provide correctional officers with effective non-lethal use-of-force options, more than 8,000 correctional agencies in the United States have been evaluating the efficacy of Tasers (Kedir, 2006). As Kedir reports, "marketed as one of the safest and most effective use-of-force options available, Tasers reduce injury rates to officers and suspects, lower liability risk, and improve community security by providing a non-lethal alternative to the use of impact weapons or firearms" (p. 358).

Overview of the Use-of-Force Continuum

As the term implies, the use-of-force continuum begins with the least forcible tactics and extends to more forcible methods involving physical force. Isted (2006) reports that law enforcement authorities typically apply the following escalating methods of force when in contact with a criminal suspect:

Similarly, the confrontational force continuum is comprised of seven escalating levels of force used to train police officers on the most appropriate level of force for any given situation. It begins with nondeadly force tactics — physical efforts designed to control, restrain, or overcome the resistance of an individual — and ends with deadly force, which refers to any method that can reasonably be expected to result in the death of the suspect (McCauley, 2005). The seven levels of the confrontational force continuum are set forth in the table below.

Table 1: Confrontational Force Continuum

Officer presence: Police assume control of the suspect through their announced or uniformed presence.

Verbal command: Presence has failed; officers begin verbal persuasion and, if needed, issue commands or warnings.

Open hand: Where practical, police place their hands on suspects and advise them that they are under arrest. Officers counter any resistance beyond this point. Often, wrestling, grabbing, or pushing occurs.

Pain compliance: Police employ pressure-point control or pepper spray (which they may sometimes deem appropriate at level three). This greater level of force could be justified when the officer encounters weapons, a larger suspect, multiple individuals, combative behavior, or persons under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

Mechanical compliance: These methods usually involve physical tactics that employ counterjoint pressures and leverage, such as wrist locks, arm bars, or other "come along" techniques. Officers may apply them using handcuffs or the police baton.

Impact: Police use impact weapons only when mechanical control methods prove ineffective or inappropriate. When practical, officers should direct blows to soft-tissue areas, such as the backs of the legs or buttocks, prior to striking a joint or bone.

Deadly force: Police resort to this ultimate step only to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury, or to apprehend a forcible felon — after exhausting all other reasonable means — who presents an imminent risk to the community if not immediately detained.

Source: McCauley, 2005, p. 12

In addition, law enforcement authorities frequently use patrol car lights or high-powered handheld and gun-mounted flashlights to temporarily blind criminal suspects at night (McCauley, 2005). Even these presumably harmless use-of-force tactics have been criticized for preventing suspects from identifying the officers wielding them and for potentially causing long-term damage to suspects' retinas (McCauley, 2005). Taken together, it is clear that police and correctional officers have a wide array of use-of-force methods available to them, but determining the most appropriate approach in a split second — where lives may be at stake — remains a highly challenging enterprise (McCauley, 2005).

Conclusion

In a perfect world, there would be no correctional officers, and police would be relegated to helping lost citizens find their way. But the world is a dangerous place that demands constant vigilance. When police or correctional officers are confronted with a situation that requires the use of force, they must determine which approach on the use-of-force continuum is most appropriate. Mistakes in making this determination can result in fatalities — including those of the suspect and the law enforcement officers involved.

The research indicates that, despite a number of high-profile instances of police using excessive force, the vast majority of cases are resolved without excessive force or any force at all. Given the importance of their responsibilities in ensuring a safe society, this finding speaks highly of the training provided to law enforcement authorities and suggests that the overwhelming majority of people who run afoul of the law can expect to receive the least forcible method possible to detain them.

References

Elicker, M. K. (2008, Fall). Unlawful justice: An opinion study on police use of force and how views change based on race and occupation. Sociological Viewpoints, 24, 33–39.

Isted, C. M. (2006, June). Assessing the use of force among male and female police officers. Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 3(2), 115.

Kedir, S. H. (2006, Summer). Stunning trends in shocking crimes: A comprehensive analysis of Taser weapons. Journal of Law and Health, 20(2), 357–363.

McCauley, R. P. (2005, November). Use of force and high-intensity tactical police flashlights: Policy concerns. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 74(11), 10–14.

Winright, T. L. (2007, Summer–Fall). The perpetrator as person: Theological reflections on the just war tradition and the use of force by police. Criminal Justice Ethics, 14(2), 37–42.