Police Quarterly

http://pqx.sagepub.com/

Police Use-of-Force Data: Where We Are and Where We Should Be Going

Geoffrey P. Alpert and Michael R. Smith
Police Quarterly 1999 2: 57
DOI: 10.1177/109861119900200103

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/2/1/57

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Police Executive Research Forum
Police Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Additional services and information for Police Quarterly can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/2/1/57.refs.html

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

POLICE USE-OF-FORCE DATA:
WHERE WE ARE AND
WHERE WE SHOULD BE GOING

GEOFFREY P. ALPERT
University of South Carolina
MICHAEL R. SMITH
Virginia Commonwealth University

Research on police use of force has become a topic of considerable interest to

practitioners and researchers. This article focuses on the various methods
used by agencies and researchers to collect use-of-force information. Police
managers and researchers often have different interests and needs concern-
ing these data and collect only the types of information important to their
needs. The authors’ suggestion is to have a supervisor document all aspects
ofpolice- citizen contacts where force is used. The supervisor should receive
input from all involved parties, including the officer(s), suspect(s), and wit-
ness(es). Finally, a panel of experts could be used to determine if the
approach to the situation and any force used were reasonable.

Research on police use of force has become a topic of considerable interest

to practitioners and researchers. Historically, investigations on the use of
force by police had been conducted only by commissions and interested
groups as a response to a specific incident or series of publicized events.
Well-known incidents that created an uproar that led to civil disturbances
and police reform include the beating to death of Arthur McDuffie in Miami
(1979) and the beating of Rodney King (1991) in Los Angeles (see Alpert,
Smith, & Watters, 1992). As a consequence of these and other events, police
administrators and researchers have looked critically and comprehensively

Support for this research has been provided, in part, by the National Institute of Justice grant number
98-IJ-CX-0018. Opinions stated in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the
official position of the National Institute of Justice.
POLICE QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 1, March 1999 57
57-78
@ 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

58

at the use of force and its justification, levels, and methods. Unfortunately, it
is difficult to explain, describe, or measure what level of force is necessary
and reasonable in all situations (Alpert & Smith, 1994). However, research
has been conducted on these various aspects of force, and a series of find-
ings and recommendations have been presented in the literature. What we
know about police use of force has been based upon research conducted in a
limited number of jurisdictions and by a limited number of methodologies.
What is missing from our thinking about police use of force is an under-
standing of the type of agencies from which the data have been collected
and an analysis of the relevance of the data upon which research findings
have been based.
The results of past research efforts have been presented in other places
and will not be reviewed here (see Geller & Toch,1995). This article will fo-
cus on the various methods used to collect use-of force information. Police

managers and researchers often have different interests and needs concern-
ing information on the organization and collect only the types of informa-
tion important to them. On one hand, managers are looking to improve orga-
nizational efficiency and effectiveness and do not always need a high level
of specificity. On the other hand, researchers may require data elements that
are different from managers, and they may require more detailed informa-
tion that can be used to explain variance in the level of force used or that can
help them describe or infer from the events under study. Police use of force
is an area of interest to both managers and researchers but one that suffers
from a lack of understanding, empirical information, and valid measures. In
1981, The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights noted,

Police officers possess awesome powers. They perform their duties under hazardous
conditions and with the vigilant public eye upon them. Police of6cers are permitted
only a small margin of error in judgment under conditions that impose high degrees of
physical and mental stress. Their general responsibility to preserve the peace and en-
force the law carries with it the power to arrest and to use force-even deadly force. It
is essential, therefore, that these sweeping powers be subject to constant scrutiny to
ensure that they are not abused.

The term used by the U.S. Commission, constant scrutiny, can be oper-
ationalized in many ways. In any case, scrutiny translates into a broad move-
ment of accountability and requires, at a minimum, that the actions taken by
officers are recorded and analyzed. The recording and analysis of officers’ use
of force is a necessary tool to control any excessive actions. Incredibly, al-
though police agencies authorize their officers to use force against citizens,

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

 59

there are no legal requirements that an agency measure, record, or evaluate

the nature and extent of force used by its officers.’I
Over the years, many departments have voluntarily chosen to collect
some of this information, but its accumulation is neither consistent among

agencies nor always suitable to use as managerial or research data. This arti-
cle will begin with a brief description of the legal and policy standards that
govern police use of force. It will then turn to a discussion of use-of-force
information, the various ways this information is collected, and the biases
inherent in the various collection methods. Finally, we will present sugges-
tions for an improved data-collection strategy, which include a system that
has a supervisor document all aspects of police-citizen contacts where force
is used. Under this suggested system, the supervisor should receive input
from all involved parties, including the officer(s), suspect(s), and witness(es).

LEGAL AND POLICY STANDARDS

GOVERNING USE OF FORCE

In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Graham v. Connor and set forth
the constitutional limitations on the use of force by police. The plaintiff in
Graham was a diabetic who was injured during a violent encounter with
Charlotte, North Carolina police officers. He sued the police department
and the officers involved alleging that his due process rights under the 14th
Amendment had been violated. The Supreme Court held that all claims of
excessive force by the police must be judged under the reasonableness stan-
dard from the 4th Amendment. Specifically, the Court held that police offi-
cers may use no more force than an objectively &dquo;reasonable officer&dquo; would
have used under the circumstances. The Court declared that the reasonable-
ness of an officer’s use of force depends upon the severity of the crime at

issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the offi-
cers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempt-

ing to flee.
Because the reasonableness of an officer’s actions depends upon the
unique facts and circumstances of each case, it is difficult to draw &dquo;bright
line&dquo; rules that separate legally reasonable force from illegally excessive
force. However, in an effort to provide their officers with guidance on the
use of force, many law enforcement agencies have incorporated force con-
tinua into their use of force policies. These continua present officers with a
series of escalating steps in the use of force that they are required to follow
whenever possible (Connor, 1991). Table 1 is an example of a common

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

60

TABLE 1. Police Use-of Force Continuum

use-of-force continuum taken from police policies. Policies that incorpo-

rate continua such as these typically state that officers should escalate their
use of force along the continuum as the suspect’s resistance increases and
de- escalate their use-of-force as the threat posed by the suspect diminishes.
These policies also permit officers to skip steps within the continuum if nec-
essary, such as when a cooperative suspect suddenly produces a gun and
threatens the officer with deadly force.
Another variation on the use-of-force continuum shown above incorpo-
rates both suspect resistance and officer response levels (see Table 2).
A policy that includes a use-of-force continuum similar to this one is
designed to provide officers with guidance on using force against resistive
suspects. Officers are presented with clear examples of suspect resistance
matched with the appropriate use-of-force responses. Consistent with the
constitutional requirements from Graham u Connor ( 1989), this type of
policy helps ensure that officers use the levels of force that are appropriate
under the circumstances.

USE-OF-FORCE INFORMATION

Police
departments that collect and maintain use-of-force information
generally compile it for administrative and bureaucratic purposes (Adams,
1995). Historically, agencies collected only limited information on the use
of deadly force. These data included information on shots fired purposely.
Many agencies collected information only on shots fired that hit their
intended targets. Some agencies included only that shots were fired, not the
number of shots, situational, environmental, personal data, or information
on precipitating events (Alpert & Fridell, 1992). As a result of questions and

complaints from citizens, the media, and the courts, agencies began to col-
lect more complete and comprehensive information on all shots fired. For

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

 61

TABLE 2. Use-of-Force Continuum Resistance and Response Levels

similar reasons, agencies began to collect information concerning officers’

use of force other than firearms (Alpert & Fridell, 1992).
Many progressive police managers were concerned with their officers’
behavior and recognized the benefits that could be gained from empirical
information on the use of force. These administrators realized that policies,
training, and resulting behavior could all be improved by assessing the
nature and type of force that was being used by officers (Alpert & Smith,
1994). Similarly, they recognized the important ways the public would be
served by requiring officers to report and explain their actions. In other
words, the collection, analysis, and use of data would help control officers’
use of excessive force. Other police chiefs and administrators did not under-
stand the need for information on the use of force. In fact, some rejected the
idea of collecting the information based on the idea that &dquo;the more you doc-
ument, the more that can be used against you.&dquo;’ Some of these out-of-date
managers rejected the notion that information on agency custom and prac-
tice would be helpful. These departments did not require officers to report or
collect the information on the use of force. Other managers interpreted the
data collection as a necessary burden on their officers and required them to
provide only minimal information, usually as part of an existing incident or
arrest report. These managers may have trusted their officers, did not want
to know what was going on in the street, or believed that &dquo;street justice&dquo; was
a necessary aspect of policing.
In the agencies that were collecting information, the quality and quantity
were problematic. Furthermore, departments collected the information in
different ways and used it for a variety of purposes. Often, the content,
scope, and level of specificity were insufficient for the needs of researchers
but satisfied the managers’ requirements. Pate and Fridell (1993) reported
some problems with agency data:

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

62

Data collected from agency records have drawbacks.... First of all, official data from
any governmental agency reflects the agency perspective and may or may not fully
represent reality. Relatedly, researchers who have studied force within individual de-
partments, most likely achieved access to the most progressive departments, which
were more amenable to scrutiny. Another problem is that information from depart-
mental records on force are frequently incomplete and variations across departments
may be so great that it could be inappropriate to assume that the data from an individ-
ual department, or several departments, is representative of law enforcement in the
United States. (p. 24)

A range of procedures is available to law enforcement agencies that want

to collect this type of information. The levels of data collection range from
comments on a general incident report to a detailed special report that re-
quires a comprehensive investigation of the use of force. The next section of
the article will explain the various mechanisms for collecting use-of-force
data.

MECHANISMS FOR COLLECTING

USE-OF-FORCE INFORMATION

Agencies have the capability to collect information on the use of force in

a variety of ways and can address the officer versus suspect dilemma. This
section of the article will review the various mechanisms by which police
officers can explain their version of an encounter in which force was used.
In a comprehensive study conducted in the 1950s, Westley looked at sev-
eral aspects of policing, one of which was the use of force:

The use of force against the suspect is justified by the men on the basis that they are
acting in the interests of the community. They feel that they are only using the meth-
ods of the suspect, and that in doing so they frequently apprehend men who are a dan-
ger to the people in the community.... It is likely that the individual men, faced with
specific situations, make their decisions in terms of a complex of factors that are not
easily disentangled but among which their desire for prestige, their feeling that they
are performing a community service, and their definition of the criminal as having ab-

rogated his rights as a citizen form a substantial basis for the use of force (Westley,
1970, pp. 129-130).

Historically, police officers have justified the use of force in a variety of

ways (Hunt & Manning, 1991; Kappeler, Sluder, & Alpert, 1998). As noted
by Pate and Fridell (1993), information collected from agency records is
likely to reflect the official position and may not fully describe what actually

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

 63

happened. Therefore, officers’ versions of the facts of an encounter may dif-

fer from the facts as experienced by the suspect.
Before describing the various mechanisms that agencies can use to col-
lect information on the use of force, it is important to define the levels of
force that could be captured by such reports. That is, there must be some
level that triggers a reporting mechanism. In some jurisdictions, this may be
an arrest or an injury. In other words, any interaction that does not result in
an arrest or injury may not require any type of report, but any interaction that
does result in an arrest or injury requires a written report. Other jurisdictions
may require a report for any use of force, including the use of handcuffs or
even a come-along hold. A middle ground that is found in many jurisdic-
tions requires a form to be completed when an officer uses more force than a
simple come-along, or when a suspect complains of some injury. For exam-
ple, the Miami-Dade Police Department requires a report when (a) force is
applied that is likely to cause an injury or a complaint; (b) an injury that
results or may result from a struggle; (c) there is a complaint of an injury; (d)
a chemical agent is discharged; (e) a baton is used; (f ) the Lateral Vascular
Neck Restraint (LVNR) is utilized; or (g) there is an injury or complaint of
an injury that results from guiding, holding, directing, or handcuffing a per-
son who offers resistance. The discharge of a firearm also requires a form to
be completed (i.e., Miami-Dade Police Department Administrative
Order 2-34).

INCIDENT REPORTS

Most police agencies require officers to complete some type of report on

all incidents in which they become involved. These can range from a brief
summary to a detailed description. Incident reports can have a separate sec-
tion for the use of force or can simply reflect what the individual officer
believes to be important to the resolution of the incident or the control of the
suspect. Officers may be required to explain any force used or it may be at
their discretion to explain the tactics or injury. Because these reports are
general and cover a variety of issues, it would be difficult to isolate the spe-
cific elements surrounding the use of force. If administrators rely on the
information captured in the general incident or arrest report, they may be
receiving an incomplete and biased version of the facts. It is highly likely
that if the use of force or explanation of an injury is mentioned, the version
reported by the officer as part of a larger report will be written to justify any
action that has been taken or any injury suffered by a suspect (Hunt &

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

64

Manning, 1991 ). Incident reports may serve as a good summary of an inci-

dent, but they are not sufficient to capture the details of a disorderly or vio-
lent police-citizen encounter. The use of a separate form would provide an
officer with the opportunity to explain more completely the specifics sur-
rounding his or her use of force.

CONTROL OF PERSONS OR USE-OF-FORCE REPORTS

A specific form that records the specifics of a police-citizen encounter
and includes some level of force, injury, or complaint is the best way to cap-
ture the details of the confrontation. A variety of use-of-force reports exist
and can vary from agency to agency. These reports can range from a brief
description of the force used to a detailed narrative of the events that tran-
spired leading up to the decision to use force, the suspects’ actions, and the
officers’ response.

A brief description. A use-of-force report that requires only summary

information can assist the agency by creating a record of how often force is
used, whether a weapon was used, and how the force was used. Of course,
the utility of the form is limited only to the level and specificity of informa-
tion required. The brevity of the information collected requires less time
and effort for the officer than a more comprehensive form. These types of
forms range from requiring only a few details to a detailed description.

A detailed description. An agency could require all officers involved in

some level of force to provide a description of the incident by a combination
of preselected choices and a detailed narrative. The information collected
by preselected response boxes could include environmental factors, type
and level of force, weapon use, injury, and so forth. This time-saving tactic,
along with a narrative, could provide managers with a detailed understand-
ing of the police officers’ actions. The actions of the suspect also need to be
reported to understand the nature of the interaction. This type of report pro-
vides a more in-depth explanation of the control of a suspect than simply
identifying the police use of force.
A control of suspect form. Building upon a detailed use-of-force report, a
control of suspect form requires documentation on the actions of both the
suspect and the officer. This type of report includes actions taken by the offi-

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

 65

cer to control the suspect and any actions taken by the suspect to resist the
officer. Utilizing a combination of preselected categories and narrative, an
officer will provide a detailed description of what happened during the
encounter. It is important to include a sequential account of all actions taken
to control the suspect.

Who provides the information? In each of the reports noted above, it is

the officer who relates the information on the encounter. Having the officer
complete the form provides, as Pate and Fridell (1993) explained, the offi-
cial version of the event. The officer may have a vested interest in some facts
being understood in a way in which they did not occur. For example, if an
officer were reporting the use of force and head injury of a suspect, he or she
would have to justify that level of force by demonstrating that the suspect
was resisting and could not be controlled without that type of defensive tac-
tic. The report could read,

Suspect resisted by pushing me away and taking a swing and hitting me in the head. I
tackled the suspect who hit his head on the side of a chair as he fell to the ground. The
suspect was handcuffed and taken into custody without further incident. His injury
was treated at the scene by paramedics.

Other officers at the scene could write that they observed a scuffle and
saw the suspect and officer fall to the floor but were not in a position to see
how the injury occurred. This type of report could be read by a supervisor
and approved as reasonable or necessary force with an unfortunate but un-
avoidable injury. If, however, the suspect were able to provide his or her ver-
sion, it might be reported that the officer shoved the suspect, tackled him,
and hit him on the side of the head with his flashlight while they were on the
ground. Certainly, each party has a vested interest in the official or accepted
version of an incident. Therefore, it is important to have both parties tell
their story.
Although a citizen can file a complaint against an officer, the process may
be time consuming and difficult for the citizen. Collecting information from
both the officer and the suspect involved in use-of-force situations may pro-
vide the agency commanders with the most comprehensive understanding
of the incident. The options for this type of report include having the officer
provide a narrative and having the suspect also provide a narrative to the
officer. Obviously, the suspect would not feel completely comfortable with

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

66

and trusting of an officer with whom he has just been fighting. A good alter-
native is for the officer’s supervisor to complete a Supervisor’s Control of
Persons Report.

A SUPERVISOR’S CONTROL
OF PERSONS REPORT

Perhaps the best method for agencies to collect information on situations

where officers must use force to control suspects is to have the supervisor
travel to the scene and interview the officer(s), suspect(s), and witness(es).
Additionally, the supervisor should take pictures of any injury or if there is a
complaint of an injury. These forms can combine preselected categories for
demographic, level and type of force, resistance, weapons, and other infor-
mation. For example, the Miami-Dade Supervisor’s Report of Use of Force
to Control includes blocks of information on the suspect’s race, ethnicity,
disease, injury, treatment, impairment, observed behavior, and level of
resistance. Similarly, information on the officer includes level and type of
force used. That information is supplemented by a detailed narrative from
each of the parties’ perspectives. That is, the supervisor writes a sequential
account of all relevant actions: the original call or observation, the officer’s
and suspect’s behavior, what caused the suspect to resist, and the level and
type of resistance. Similarly, the officer’s actions and the level of force and
how it was used must be included. Information on any injury, complaint of
injury, and treatment must also be included. The supervisor must detail the
sequential ordering of who did what to whom, why, and what the result was.
This comprehensive type of report requires that supervisors ask officers
and suspects a series of questions and record their responses. It is critical for
the supervisor to understand that her or his job is to capture the stories pro-
vided by the parties, not to justify the officer’s actions or to argue with the
suspect. In fact, in some cases an officer’s version of the facts will differ
from that of the suspect. This type of information would provide the agency
with sufficient data to paint a panoramic picture of the use of force, levels,
environmental factors, and suspects’ resistance. It would also allow
researchers to investigate numerous aspects of the agency’s custom and
practice of using force (Alpert & Dunham, 1998).
Although there may be criticism of having a supervisor interview a sus-
pect at the scene, the process provides an efficient method to obtain both
versions of what took place. If the process is effective, it can provide the

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

 67

agency with a variety of measures of force relative to the level of suspect

resistance.

THE BENEFITS OF A SUPERVISOR’S

CONTROL OF PERSONS REPORT

If the data accumulated from Supervisors’ Control of Persons Reports

were reliable, then they would be of benefit to all parties. The agency could
track the use of force by officer, assignment, length of service, ethnicity,
gender, or any other available variable. Similarly, these trends could be
computed relative to the suspects’ level of resistance, personal characteris-
tics, or any other known variable. These management tools could provide
important information about the behavior of officers, the need for training,
or modifications to policy. Of course, the information taken by a supervisor
would be preferable to that reported directly by the officer.
Determining the reliability of the reports taken by supervisors would
require an evaluation of the form’s content compared to the suspect’s ver-
sion of the interaction. This type of analysis would require an independent
interview of the suspect to see if the supervisor reported correctly what the
suspect stated and if the statement made to the supervisor by the suspect was
tainted. Certainly, the supervisor could be viewed by the suspect as the offi-
cer’s friend and accomplice, who would twist the facts to justify the police
officer’s actions.
The actions and demeanor of the supervisor could deflect his or her
potentially negative influence on the suspect. One measure of the Supervi-
sors’ Control of Persons Reports is the number of disagreements between
officers and suspects. It is expected that some percentage of reports would
include disagreements between officers and suspects.

A FIRST TEST OF THE SUPERVISORS’

CONTROL OF PERSONS REPORT

To determine the number of reports that included disagreements between

officers and supervisors, all Miami-Dade Supervisors’ Control of Persons
Reports for 1997 were examined. Out of the 334 reports, 43 (13%) included
disagreements between suspects and officers on the level of force used by
the officer and the suspect’s level of resistance. Only 9 of these cases
included disagreements between a witness and suspect and the officer. The

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

68

preliminary conclusion is that the method of having a supervisor interview

the parties involved in a use-of-force situation, ask a series of questions,
take pictures, and interview witnesses (when available) is the most efficient
and effective method for collecting police use-of force data.
It is important to stress the need for supervisor training, prompt reporting
of force incidents by officers, and prompt response by the supervisor. Fur-
thermore, these reports need to be verified and reviewed to determine trends
and practices.

MEASURING THE NATURE AND

EXTENT OF USE OF FORCE

Over the years, researchers have used a variety of methods to assess how
frequently and under what conditions police officers use force. The sections
that follow describe each of these methods and discuss their various
strengths and weaknesses.33

POLICE AGENCY RECORDS

A number of researchers have used arrest records, existing use-of-force

reports, or both in an effort to measure the nature and extent of police use of
force. For example, Croft and Austin (1987) examined use-of-force reports
from both the Rochester and Syracuse police departments during the years
1984 to 1985. They were able to use the reports to classify the force used
into specific types, such as arm lock, mace, wrestling, grabbing, and striking.
In a more recent study, Alpert and Dunham (1998) analyzed use-of-force
reports completed in Dade County, Florida from 1993 to 1995. The Metro-
Dade police form contains categories for type of force used by the officer4
and for how a particular type of force was used. The form also contains
information on other potentially relevant variables such as the level of resis-
tance offered by the suspect, officer and suspect injuries, whether the sus-
pect was drug or alcohol impaired, and so forth. In the same study, Alpert
and Dunham also examined critical incident forms from two police depart-
ments in Oregon (Springfield and Eugene) that contained use-of-force data.
These forms captured data on a range of officer use-of-force activities (from
handcuffing to the use of a firearm), the perceived mental state of suspects,
the type of suspect resistance (if any), and a variety of other variables.
Agency records such as these can be a useful source of data on police use
of force where they exist. However, there are several problems associated

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

 69

with using these types of records for research purposes. To begin with,
many police agencies do not routinely capture detailed information on the
use of force, if they collect the data at all. With more than 17,000 police

agencies in the United States and with the majority of those having 10 offi-
cers or fewer, there is wide variation in the availability of official records

involving use of force. If use-of-force incidents are recorded at all, there will
likely be significant variability among agencies in the thoroughness and
accuracy of the data collected.
Where use-of-force data are available from official records, they are also
likely to vary widely in their scope. For example, in Alpert and Dunham’s
study, data from Dade County was taken from use-of-force reports routinely
prepared following use of force incidents. Data from Oregon, on the other
hand, were drawn from a job task analysis instrument designed primarily to
identify the physical abilities required for police work (Farenholtz, Peak, &
Rhodes, 1995). Although the two sets of data shared some common charac-
teristics, they were, in many ways, noncomparable (Alpert & Dunham,
1998). Agency use-of-force data will vary according to the definitional cri-
teria established by each agency, for when a use-of-force report must be
completed, the forms themselves will use different definitions and classifi-
cations, and they will differ according to the variables for which informa-
tion is recorded. Given the current state of affairs, with no uniform system in
place for capturing use-of-force information, researchers are left with
site-specific data that has limited external validity.

CITIZEN SURVEYS

In 1996, for the first time, the Census Bureau, in conjunction with the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), conducted a nationally representative
survey of 6,421 persons older than the age of 11to determine the nature and
extent of their contacts with the police during the previous year (Greenfield,
Lanagan, & Smith, 1998). Among the questions asked of the respondents
was whether the police had used force against them. Of the persons sur-

veyed, only 14 reported that they had been the recipients of police use of
force. Although BJS extrapolated these cases to the population and esti-
mated that approximately 500,000 people had force used against them the
previous year, this figure contains a large margin of error because it was
based on so few responses. Acknowledging its limitations, the 500,000 per-
son figure represents less than 1 % of police-citizen contacts for the year.

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

70

As pointed out, the accuracy of the survey results regarding use of force
are questionable because of the small number of responses. In addition, the
survey asked respondents whether police used or threatened to use force
against them without specifying or defining what constitutes force. In sub-
sequent surveys, respondents were presented with a set of police actions
(officer pushed, hit, threatened you with a flashlight, etc.), and respondents
were asked to identify all that apply (Greenfield, Lanagan, & Smith, 1998).
This change helped researchers report more precisely the nature of the force
used by police against citizens.
Without a substantial increase in the sample size, however, the results
of the survey with respect to use of force will still contain a significant pos-
sibility of error. All indications are that police use of force, when measured
as a percentage of police-citizen contacts, is an exceedingly rare event

(Bayley & Garofalo, 1989; Greenfield, Lanagan, & Smith, 1998; Reiss,
1971). Measuring social phenomena with low baseline rates of occurrence
poses unique challenges for survey researchers using random sampling.
Moreover, as Adams (1995) points out, it is not clear whether police-citizen
contacts are the appropriate denominator to use when evaluating the preva-
lence of police use of force, or whether some other denominator, such as
arrests, would be more useful.

OFFICER SURVEYS

In the summer of 1994, researchers from Rutgers University and Arizona

State University distributed a use-of-force survey instrument to officers of
the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department. For a 2-week period, Phoenix
officers were instructed to complete one of the instruments every time that
they made an arrest-whether they used force or not. The surveys were
completed anonymously and captured a wide range of data on the nature of
the force used (if any), the characteristics of the officers and suspects, the
nature of the events giving rise to the force, and the social and physical con-
ditions under which the force was used. The researchers found that officers
used force (defined, at a minimum, as the use of some weaponless tactic
such as a wristlock) in approximately 22% of all arrests made during the
data collection period (Garner, Buchanan, Schade, & Hepburn, 1996).
The advantage of this methodology for studying police use of force is
that it eliminates the vast majority of police-citizen contacts that do not
involve an arrest and therefore contain a low probability of force being used.
On the other hand, not all use-of-force encounters result in an arrest, and

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

 71

thus this methodology would underreport police use of force to some

degree. Also, like any survey, its accuracy depends upon the honesty and
conscientiousness of the respondents. However, by administering the use-
of-force instrument anonymously, the researchers helped ensure that the
responses that they received would be truthful. This study is currently being
replicated under a multisite grant from the National Institute of Justice, with
results expected by late 1998 (Gamer, 1995).

FIELD OBSERVATION

Some of the earliest empirical studies of police use of force placed

researchers in the field to observe firsthand the nature of police-citizen
encounters in street-level situations. In the summer of 1966, Reiss used field
researchers to observe police-citizen encounters in Boston, Chicago, and
Washington, D.C. His researchers found that police used force in only 44 of
the 1,565 encounters observed (Reiss,1971 ). Worden’s (1995) reanalysis of
the police services study data from the late 1970s indicates that officers used
force in only 1 % of 5,688 encounters between police and citizens observed
in 24 police departments in three metropolitan areas. Likewise, Bayley and
Garofalo’s (1989) more contemporary study of police in New York City
uncovered only 36 incidents of physical force by the police out of the 1,059
police-citizen encounters observed.
As with the BJS survey of police-citizen contacts conducted in 1996,
these studies indicate a low baseline rate of police use of force. Conse-
quently, one of the principal drawbacks to field observation as a method for
studying police use of force is its marked inefficiency. Researchers will
spend many hours of fruitless observation before witnessing a use-of-force
encounter. Although some researchers have attempted to minimize the
problem (Reiss, 1971; Worden, 1995), it is possible that police officers will
act differently in the presence of a civilian observer whose stated purpose is
to make a detailed record of the officers’ actions for others to study. This
problem of reactivity (Hagan, 1997) will most likely occur in hostile
encounters between police and citizens where no other witnesses are pres-
ent. These are precisely the kinds of encounters where police would also be
the most likely to use excessive force if the observer were not present.
Currently, the National Institute of Justice is funding a replication of the
police observational studies from the 1960s and 1970s. This ongoing study
is using field observations to explore police-citizen interactions in modem,
community policing-oriented cities. Although police use of force is not the

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

72

primary focus of the study, the researchers will gather data on use of force as
part of their overall research effort. When available, the data from this pro-
ject should yield valuable information on contemporary police use-of-force
practices.

MEASURING EXCESSIVE FORCE

Currently, two methods have been used to measure excessive force by

police: field observation and analysis of citizen complaints. Each of these
methodologies will be discussed in the sections that follow.

FIELD OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES

Reiss’ landmark observational study of police in 1966 included data on

excessive force. Of the 44 observed incidents where police used force, the
field observers classified 37 of them as involving excessive force (Reiss,
1968). The observers used the following criteria to determine whether the
force used was excessive:

~ if a policeman physically assaulted a citizen and then failed to make an arrest: proper
use involves an arrest;
~ if the citizen being arrested did not, by word or deed, resist the policeman: force
should be used only if necessary to make the arrest;
~ if the policeman, even though there was resistance to the arrest, could easily have re-
strained the citizen in other ways;
~ if a large number of policemen were present and could have assisted in subduing the
citizen in the station, in lockup, and in the interrogation rooms;
~ if an offender was handcuffed and made no attempt to flee or offer violent resistance;
and
~ if the citizen resisted arrest, but the use of force continued even after the citizen was
subdued.

In his reanalysis of the Reiss data, Friedrich (1980) used the judgment of
the original coders rather than the observers to gauge the extent of excessive
force. The coders labeled force as excessive if (a) it was not required to
make an arrest or (b) it was not required for an officer to defend himself. Of
the 1,565 observed encounters where police regarded citizens as offenders,
28 incidents (1.8%) involved the use of excessive force.
Determining how frequently police use excessive force largely depends
on how excessiveness is defined. For example, the figures reported by Reiss

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

 73

(37 instances of excessive force) are probably higher than the figures
reported by Friedrich (1980) (28 instances of excessive force) because
Reiss’ observers used a broader definition of excessiveness than his coders.
As many researchers and police officials have noted, excessive force is diffi-
cult to define and depends upon the idiosyncrasies of a given police-citizen
encounter (Adams, 1995; Alpert & Smith, 1994; Klockars, 1995; Worden,
1995).
Because of the difficulties in precisely defining excessive force, the defi-
nitions used by both the observers and the coders in the Reiss study are
unsound and simply do not reflect the realities of police work or the current
legal and policy standards for excessive force. As Klockars (1995) points
out, police sometimes use force quite appropriately against citizens without
arresting them.6 Consequently, labeling force as excessive if it did not occur
in conjunction with an arrest (as the observers’ first criterion does) may
have overstated the prevalence of excessive force. However, the use of force
may have been required by an officer to defend him or herself (one of the cri-
teria used by the coders), yet may also have been more extreme than was
reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Under the prevailing legal
standard of reasonableness,’ such force would be excessive, yet it may not
have been labeled as such by Reiss’s coders.
Similar to the Reiss study, the police services study contains data on the
use of excessive force. Of the 59 recorded instances of force being used by
the police in that study, observers categorized 23 of the incidents as exces-
sive. In deciding whether the force used was reasonable or excessive, the
observers were apparently told to label force as excessive if the officer was
&dquo;kicking ass&dquo; (Worden, 1995). This definition is dubious on its face, thus
rendering highly suspect any conclusions that might be drawn from the
study about the prevalence of excessive force. In addition to their weak-
nesses in defining excessive force, both the Reiss study and the police ser-
vices study are quite dated, and neither contain a sufficient number of force
incidents upon which to draw reliable conclusions.
The field observation studies point to some obvious difficulties in mea-
suring how frequently police use excessive force. At some point, either
when the event is recorded by the observer or later when it is coded for the
purpose of analysis, a judgment must be made concerning whether the force
used in a particular encounter was excessive. This judgment is crucial, and
yet in the early observational studies, it was made by research assistants
who utilized highly suspect definitions of excessive force. This technique

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

74

holds promise in identifying police excessive force practices, provided that

enough detail about each use of force encounter is recorded to enable the
group of experts to make an informed judgment about the appropriateness
of the force used by the police.

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS

A few studies have used citizen complaints about police brutality as a

proxy measure for examining the prevalence of excessive force by police.
For example, the New York City Police Department conducted a national
survey of citizen complaints in some of the nation’s largest police agencies
and found that between 1983 and 1984, the rate of complaints for excessive
force per 100 officers ranged from 0.3 in Nassau County, New York, to 21.3
in Chicago, Illinois (Adams, 1995).
Using citizen complaints as a true measure of excessive force by police is
of limited value. The rates at which citizens complain against the police
vary widely from city to city (Walker & Graham, 1998). Moreover, many
(perhaps most) citizens who believe that they are the victims of police bru-
tality probably do not complain. Even if citizens complain about excessive
force, the complaints themselves do not show whether the force used by the
police was actually excessive or whether the complaints were meritorious.
In the recent national survey of police-citizen contacts conducted by BJS,
10 of the 14 citizens who reported that they were threatened with or had
forced used against them also reported that they may have engaged in some
behavior that provoked the use-of-force response by the police (Greenfield,
Lanagan, & Smith, 1998).

USING EXPERT PANELS TO

EVALUATE EXCESSIVE FORCE

When police are sued for allegedly using excessive force, both the plain-
tiff and the defendant officer typically rely on expert witnesses to assist the
fact finder in determining whether the officer acted appropriately. The role
of the expert is to analyze the facts of the case and to provide an opinion as to
whether the force used by the officer was appropriate under the circum-
stances. Police excessive force cases, like those alleging medical malprac-
tice, involve potentially harmful activities conducted by persons with spe-
cialized training and expertise. Because the use of force is a unique police
activity that requires specialized knowledge and skill beyond the

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

 75

experience of the typical juror, use-of-force experts play a vital role in help-
ing jurors (and even judges) reach a considered judgment regarding the rea-
sonableness and legality an officer’s conduct.
Prior studies that attempted to categorize police use of force as excessive
relied upon faulty definitions of excessive force applied by laypersons who
lacked the experience and training to make judgments about the appropri-
ateness of the force used. We propose that future researchers use a panel of
police use-of-force experts to review force incidents captured as part of a
research effort. These panels would perform a similar function to that of an
expert witness in a police use-of-force case. They would review the facts
surrounding use-of-force incidents, apply contemporary standards of
police conduct to those facts, and decide whether the officers acted appro-
priately in using the force.
Using the Miami-Dade model, for example, a panel could examine the
use of force reports and accompanying narratives prepared by field supervi-
sors to determine whether the force used during the encounters comported
with contemporary legal and policy standards regarding the use of force.
This approach should provide a much more accurate picture of how fre-
quently police officers use excessive force. The findings of these panels
could be used as part of a basic research effort on police use of force, as well
as by police agencies in identifying problems to be addressed through train-

ing, policy, or operational changes.

CONCLUSION

Police have been granted the awesome power to use force to control sus-
pects and to maintain order. Unfortunately, many of those agencies whose
officers use force do not keep information on its application. This has led
researchers to base their work on a limited number of agencies that keep
proper data and that have allowed them to review and analyze them. Much
more could be learned about police use of force if agencies would collect

appropriate information. This information should include the series of

events leading up to the encounter, a sequential ordering of actions that
occurred during the encounter and their effects, and a description of the
investigation after the encounter. Once gathered, police agencies could use
these data to understand and manage the use of force by their officers.
Among the methods currently used by agencies, the least demanding is a
simple explanation by the officer of why force was used, what force was
used, and against whom it was used. This method provides important

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

76

information, but it is subject to reporting bias and both careless and inten-
tional error. Certainly, the most appropriate method currently used by agen-
cies is similar to the model used by the Miami-Dade Police Department dis-
cussed above. This method of having a supervisor write a report based upon
interviews with participants and witnesses adds a level of oversight into the
reporting process. Although this method has its potential problems, it
allows for several versions of the incident as experienced and observed by
those involved. Reporting the suspect’s version of the encounter is a critical
component to a use-of-force management system.
Once an official version or official versions of the incident is (are) col-
lected, then an expert panel can review and analyze the decisions made by
the officer(s) based on training, prevailing legal standards, and policy. These
assessments should form the basis of the agencies’ control and management
of the use of force and should guide policies and training decisions.
Once agencies systematically begin to collect and analyze their use-of-
force data, researchers will be able to develop theoretical models of police
behavior, statistical models to test those theories, and practical information
to assist agencies in developing or altering their existing training regimens
and policies. Unless and until police agencies take the initiative to collect
this important information, police managers and researchers must continue
to rely on a limited number of agencies that are willing to have their records
opened and scrutinized.

NOTES
1. Many accreditation organizations require that law enforcement agencies collect
use-of-force information (see Commission for the Accreditation of Law Enforcement
Agencies [CALEA] standard 1.3.5a-d).
2. For example, the Miami-Dade Police Department has been criticized for crimes com-
mitted against tourists. Had the agency not maintained a separate category of tourist-related
crimes, it could not have responded properly to the criticism. Similarly, some agencies are
criticized for hate crimes and must respond. Interestingly, the most stinging criticisms are
directed at those agencies that record and maintain data on specific crime categories. The
best responses are also from those agencies that collect the data.
3. A detailed discussion of prior research efforts to measure police use and abuse of force,
as well as the methodological challenges faced by police use-of-force researchers, can be
found in Adams (1995).
4. This category contains entries for the following types of force: hands/arms, fist,
foot/leg, handgun, shotgun, radio, flashlight, PR-24 baton, K-9, chemical agent, special
weapon, and lateral neck restraint.

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

 77

5. Categories include threaten, grab/hold, push/pull, strike/hit, bite, throw, discharge, and
restrain.
6. Simply stepping between two drunken bar patrons about to engage in a fistfight and
pushing each away from the other may technically qualify as an assault but would not neces-
sarily (or appropriately) involve an arrest.
7. The Supreme Court defines excessive force as more force than a reasonable officer
would use under the circumstances ( Graham v. Connor
, 1989).

REFERENCES
Adams, K. (1995). Measuring the prevalence of abuse of force. In W. Geller & H. Toch
(Eds.), And justice for all: Understanding and controlling police abuse of force (pp.
61-97). Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Alpert, G., & Dunham, R. (1998). An analysis of police use offorce data. Final report. Wash-
ington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Alpert, G., & Fridell, L. A. (1992). Police vehicles and firearms: Instruments of deadly force.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Alpert, G., & Smith, W. (1994). Developing police policy: An evaluation of the control prin-
ciple. American Journal of Police, 13, 1-20.
Alpert, G., Smith, W. & Watters, D. (1992). Implications of the Rodney King beating. Crimi-
nal Law Bulletin, 28
, 469-479.
Bayley, D., & Garofalo, J. (1989). The management of violence by police patrol officers.
Criminology, 27
, 1-27.
Connor, G. (1991, March). Use of force continuum: Phase II. Law and Order, 30-32.
Croft, E., & Austin, B. (1987). Police use of force in Rochester and Syracuse, New York
1984 and 1985. Report to the New York State Commission on Criminal Justice and the
Use of Force (Vol. 3). Albany: New York State Commission on Criminal Justice and the
Use of Force.
Farenholtz, D., Peak, K., & Rhodes, E. (1995). Police officer’s physical abilities study.
Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada: D.W.F. Consultants.
Friedrich, R. J. (1980). Police use of force: Individuals, situations, and organizations. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 452, 82-97.
Garner, J. (1995) Use of force by and against the police (95-IJ-CX-0066).
Garner, J., Buchanan, J., Schade, T., & Hepburn, J. (1996). Understanding the use of force by
and against the police. Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Geller, W. A., & Toch, H. (Eds.). (1995). And justice for all: Understanding and controlling
police abuse . of force Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
Greenfield, L., Lanagan, P., & Smith, S. (1998). Police use of force: Collection of national
. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
data
Hagan, F. (1997). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (4th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Hunt, J., & Manning, P. (1991). The social context of police lying. Symbolic Interaction, 14,
51-70.

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010

78

Kappeler, V., Sluder, R., & Alpert, G. (1998). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark
side of policing. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Klockars, C. (1995). A theory of excessive force and its control. In W. Geller & H. Toch
(Eds.), And justice for all: Understanding and controlling police abuse of force (pp. 11-
30). Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Pate, A., & Fridell, L. (1993). Police use of force: Official reports, citizen complaints, and
legal consequences (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Reiss, A. (1968). Police brutality—Answers to key questions. Trans-action, 5
(8), 10-19.
Reiss, A. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven: Yale University Press.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1981). Who is guarding the guardians: A report on police
practices. Washington, DC: Author.
Walker, S., & Graham, N. (1998). Citizen complaints in response to police misconduct: The
results of a victimization survey. Police Quarterly, 1 , 65-89.
Westley, W. A. (1970). Violence and the police. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Worden, R. (1995). The "causes" of police brutality: Theory and evidence on police use
of force. In W. Geller & H. Toch (Eds.), And justice for all: Understanding and control-
ling police abuse of force (pp. 31-60). Washington, DC: Police Executive Research
Forum.

Geoffrey P. Alpert is a professor of criminology at the University of South

Carolina. He has been studying police use of force for 20 years.

Michael R. Smith is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal

Justice at Virginia Commonwealth University. He holds a J.D. from the
University of South Carolina and a Ph.D. in justice studies from Arizona
State University. He is a former police ojj‘’ccer and has conducted a variety of
police-related research and evaluation projects. His areas of interest include
police use offorce and civil rights. He is the author of numerous scholarly ar-
ticles, book chapters, and monographs on police and law-related topics.

Downloaded from pqx.sagepub.com by Marta Pita on October 10, 2010