U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director February 1997

continued p. 2

This Research in Brief compares OC

spray to other chemicals used in law enforcement and discusses the BCoPD

study in terms of methodology, implementation issues, and assessment results.

Chemical weapon use in law

enforcement

For centuries, various forms of chemical

agents have been used in war as offensive

weapons. As early as 2300 B.C., Chinese

armies dispersed enemy forces by using

“stink pots”—red pepper burned in hot

oil that produced irritating and suffocating smoke—in massive frontal assaults.

After World War I, however, an interest

in extending the use of chemicals into the

realm of law enforcement emerged. It was

hypothesized that these agents could control criminals and riotous crowds as effectively as they controlled enemies

during warfare. The three chemicals—

chloroacetophenone, o-chlorobenzylidene

malononitrile, and oleoresin capsicum—

that have been used in law enforcement

have shown major practical differences.

• Chloroacetophenone (CN). CN is a

powerful lacrimator and respiratory irritant. Exposure to CN causes copious, uncontrollable tearing; difficult, shallow

breathing; chest tightness; stinging sensations on the skin; and nausea. Psychological effects of fear and panic may also

Violent encounters between police officers and individuals resisting arrest have

historically resulted in injury and frequently in complaints about the level of

force used by police. In addition to concern over these issues, increased civil liability and court-imposed limitations on

the use of deadly force have stimulated

the search for safe and effective lessthan-lethal (LTL) force alternatives. One

widely used option is oleoresin capsicum

(OC) aerosol, commonly called pepper

spray.

Despite extensive applications in hundreds of police departments, few systematic studies of OC usage and effectiveness

have been documented. A National Institute of Justice-sponsored assessment of

pepper spray’s usefulness focused on the

Baltimore County Police Department’s

(BCoDP’s) operations from July 1993

through March 1994.

A research team from the International

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

analyzed the BCoDP data and found that

the use of OC in arrest and other confrontational encounters effectively neutralized aggressive suspects and animals.

Study findings also suggest that the use of

OC reduced the incidence of assaults on

police officers, injuries to both officers

and suspects, and use-of-force or brutality complaints registered against BCoPD.

Issues and Findings

Discussed in the Brief: The

implementation process and field

test results of a project to evaluate

the effectiveness of pepper spray

in police confrontations with humans and animals. A research

team from the International Association of Chiefs of Police analyzed

Baltimore County Police Department policies, implementation

training, and use of pepper spray

from July 1993 to March 1994.

Key Issues:

● Whether OC spray can effectively incapacitate humans—including those who are intoxicated,

drugged, or mentally disturbed—in

confrontations with police.

● Whether OC spray can reduce

the number of assaults against police attempting to subdue or arrest

hostile/aggressive subjects.

● Whether OC use helps to reduce injuries to both officers and

suspects in encounters between

the two.

● Whether police use-of-force or

brutality complaints are lodged

less frequently due to use of OC.

● Whether OC is effective in

neutralizing attacking or threatening dogs.

Key Findings:

● OC spray successfully incapacitated humans in 156 out of 174

(90 percent) confrontations.

Evaluation of Pepper Spray

by Steven M. Edwards, John Granfield, and Jamie Onnen
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

sneezing. Additional symptoms of exposure include respiratory distress accompanied by tightness in the chest, a

burning sensation on the skin, and nausea or vomiting. In addition to physical

effects, CS can also cause intense fear,

panic, and cognitive disorientation.

Like CN, CS is more effective on those

areas of the skin that are moist and is virtually ineffective on animals. Unlike CN,

CS is considered to be effective over a

wide temperature range. The microparticulate nature of CS results in agent persistency and thus can make decontamination

problematic, especially in enclosed or

confined spaces.

Serious injury to an individual is improbable if CS is used properly. Extensive

toxicological testing indicates that, in

spite of the potency of CS, it is safer, less

toxic, and more effective than CN.

• Oleoresin capsicum (OC). OC, a

naturally occurring substance derived

from the cayenne pepper plant, is classified as an inflammatory agent. On contact

with OC, the mucous membranes of the

eyes, nose, and throat immediately become inflamed and swollen. The symptomatic swelling produces involuntary

eye closure due to dilating capillaries;

nasal and sinus drainage; constricted airway; and temporary paralysis of the larynx, causing gagging, coughing, and

shortness of breath. The extract of peppers causes the blood vessels to dilate

and the blood to rush to the upper body;

the skin appears inflamed, resembling a

burn.

OC’s inflammatory properties purportedly

render the agent more effective than CN

and CS on violent, intoxicated, drugged,

and mentally ill individuals. Moreover,

the symptomatic eye closure and constriction of the respiratory tract explain

why OC is so effective on animals. No

occur. As an irritant that relies on pain

compliance, CN is most effective on those

individuals who are lucid and have a normal pain threshold. Individuals who are

intoxicated, extremely agitated, or mentally ill generally are less affected by the

agent because of their greater tolerance

for pain.

Although humans are susceptible to the

agent’s effects, animals suffer little, if at

all, from the symptoms induced by CN. In

addition, CN effectiveness is temperature-dependent. While the agent is useful

in any temperature over 50° F, it is most

effective when used in temperatures of

72° F and higher.

CN use also creates decontamination

problems since the microscopic particles

can remain airborne for some time after

being dispersed. Dissipation time depends on the amount of the agent released, air current activity, temperature,

and humidity. Finally, CN cross-contamination between subjects and police officers is common. Officers note that they are

often contaminated by the agent when arresting and transporting sprayed subjects.

This cross-contamination is thought to be

responsible for officers’ reluctance to use

CN.

• o-Chlorobenzylidene malononitrile

(CS). CN was replaced as a riot control

agent by the U.S. Army and the National

Guard around 1960. Officials believed

that the replacement, CS, sometimes

called super tear gas, was considerably

less toxic and delivered more immediate

effects than CN. Following military protocols, American law enforcement agencies

subsequently adopted CS in 1965. Like

CN, it is classified as a solid, not a gas,

since it requires a carrying agent to disperse it into the desired target area. CS, a

lacrimating irritant, immediately affects

the mucous membranes, producing tears,

runny nose, and persistent coughing or

● In 18 encounters, subjects were

not fully “subdued “ by OC; in 7

of these incidents, subjects exhibited bizarre behavior and appeared

to be on drugs or mentally

troubled, thus suggesting that

such individuals may not yield to

OC’s effects.

● While assaults on officers were

declining prior to implementation

of the OC spray program, the rate

of decline increased after OC was

introduced.

● Twenty-one officers received minor injuries when they used the

spray, but none reported lost work

days.

● Similarly, only 14 suspects

received injuries, none of which

required hospital treatment.

● Use-of-force complaints decreased by 53 percent in the study

period despite decreased manpower and increased demand for

services. No complaints addressed

the use of OC.

● Although training instructions

stated that sprays were maximally

effective from a distance of 4 to 6

feet, many officers applied the

aerosol to humans from distances

of less than 3 feet, which may have

diminished the spray’s effectiveness.

● Overall, study findings showed

that a well-developed OC-spray

program can provide operational

benefits to police.

Target audience: Law enforcement officials and trainers; State,

local, and Federal policymakers; researchers.

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Findings: adoption and

implementation

Selection of product. The Baltimore

County Police Department had previously undertaken a thorough study of

the OC product that it wanted to provide its officers. BCoPD selected a

product containing a 5-percent concentration of OC delivered through a

fogger system, which does not require

precision aiming.

BCoPD training. The Baltimore

County Police Department has sole responsibility for delivery of police services to approximately 695,000 people

who reside in urban, suburban, and rural settings within its 612 square-mile

jurisdiction. Eighty percent of the

department’s officers are assigned to the

Field Operations Bureau, and they responded to 442,436 calls for service in

1993, which included 44,074 Part I offenses. The department needed to train

approximately 1,400 officers in a 3-hour

block of instruction—without disrupting

assignments, affecting manpower, or incurring payment of overtime. To minimize disruption, OC training was

incorporated into officer inservice firearms training, which began on July 12,

1993, and continued through December

31, 1993. During this time, 1,345 officers were trained in the use of OC spray

and issued canisters.

Standard operating procedures.

The BCoPD committee charged with

examining the feasibility of OC adoption drafted a Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP), following consultation with BCoPD’s legal counsel, training officers, Internal Affairs, and

command and staff officers. Additional

directives were added following the

completion of instructor training and

writing of the lesson plan. The SOP requires all members of BCoPD whose

special decontamination protocols are

required for OC because it is biodegradable. Unlike CN and CS irritants,

OC will not persist on clothing or affected areas.

Examination of a national sample of

in-custody deaths that occurred subsequent to OC use has excluded the

agent as a contributory factor. This

analysis concluded that, to date, OC

has not caused any deaths.1 Finally,

OC use does not result in dermatitis,

skin depigmentation, or burns.

CN and CS are still used by many law

enforcement agencies, especially for

tactical use in crowd-control situations. Primarily because of the potential risk of injury and cross-contamination, as well as decontamination

problems associated with their use,

law enforcement officials began to use

OC as a less harmful, more dependable alternative. Although available

since the mid-1970s, OC was not

widely used until recently.

Study method

Research staff adopted a two-pronged

approach to the OC spray evaluation

task, which they initiated in mid-July

1993. The first phase involved examination of OC adoption and implementation issues. The second stage was

concerned with assessing the impact of

OC spray in confrontations between

police officers and citizens, as well as

police officers and dogs.

Phase 1. Officers and command staff

members who initiated and were critically involved with the project met

throughout the study period to address

specific OC-related issues. Research

staff attended these meetings and collected information on the process of OC

adoption and implementation. Issues included selection of the pepper spray

product, development of a written policy

on its use, development of a training

program and materials, implementation

of documentation for reporting pepper

spray usage, and identification of

followup training needs.

Phase 2. Project data were provided

by BCoPD’s Crime Analysis Unit and

Internal Affairs Section, as well as by

the monthly Maryland Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted data

sheets. This information was supported

by data collected from an instrument

developed by the research staff to

track each spraying incident.

Every officer discharging OC spray in

a confrontational encounter was required to complete the OC spray data

collection form, which contained both

open-ended and specified-choice

questions relating to prevailing

weather conditions, suspect’s behavior, OC application area, injury (if any)

received, and decontamination. The

OC data form was completed along

with a departmental incident report as

soon as practical after conclusion of

the encounter. A second data collection instrument, an unstructured

followup interview, was developed to

validate information collected by the

OC data form. These unstructured officer interviews were conducted by the

onsite observer to allow for the addition of any comments, suggestions, or

officer observations regarding the specific encounter and the effectiveness

of the spray.

Prior to their use in BCoPD, the OC data

collection sheet and unstructured followup interview format were pretested in the

Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Police

Department. Results indicated that

measurement instruments were both

suitable and easily completed.
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

normal duties include making arrests

or supervising arrest situations to carry

OC spray. Uniformed members of the

department are to carry the device on

their gun belts in an issued holster,

while nonuniformed officers are to

carry pen-sized containers after completing a training program and demonstrating their competence in handling

and using the OC spray.

Guidelines for usage. BCoPD, like

most other police departments, adheres to the use-of-force continuum

and its range of response, beginning

with the mere presence of an officer

and escalating to the use of deadly

force. According to BCoPD procedures, OC spray may be used by an officer in any arrest situation when:

• The aggressor has failed to comply

with the officer’s verbal instructions.

• The aggressor has been advised of

OC’s impending use.

• The officer is about to use hands-on

tactics to defend himself against active

hostile resistance.

• The officer is confronted by an aggressive animal.

BCoPD thus places the use of OC

spray above verbal commands on the

force continuum as a means of control

and restraint. BCoPD emphasizes that

OC is not a substitute for a firearm. If,

when faced by an armed individual,

the officer deems deadly force necessary, then BCoPD considers the firearm to be the weapon of choice.

During the study, patrol officers voiced

concern about whether they would be

allowed to use deadly force if attacked

with OC spray. The Legal Officers

Section of the IACP holds that an officer may use deadly force to protect

himself from the use or threatened use

of OC spray when reasonably sure that

deadly force will be used against him

hen a criminal attacks an officer

with OC spray, he does so with the intent

to harm the officer, escape, or both. It is

common knowledge that a high percentage of officers who are incapacitated or

have had their guns taken away are later

shot with their own weapons. To ask an

officer to take a chance that the OC

spray attacker is going to walk away after

incapacitating the officer would be, in

the opinion of IACP’s Legal Officers Section, unconscionable.

In determining whether an officer’s use

of deadly force was reasonable, the following factors may be considered:

• The nature of the crime committed by

the person or persons confronting the officer.

• The nature of the verbal or physical

threats posed by the person confronting

the officer.

• The relative strength and fighting skills

of the officer and his opponent.

• The number of officers versus the number of potential assailants.

• The nature of weapons in the possession of or available to the assailant.

• The ability to circumvent the potential

effects of OC spray.

• The alternative means of defending

against the use/effects of OC spray.

• The availability of assistance from other

nearby officers.

W

Reasonable Use of Deadly Force When

Officers Are Attacked With OC

if he becomes incapacitated. Incapacitation includes situations in which officers may be unable to adequately

defend themselves due to the effect of

chemical sprays. Criteria for determining when to use deadly force incorporated situations in which OC was used

against police (see “Reasonable Use of

Deadly Force”).

The Baltimore County Police Department operating procedures also outlined how to use the product and

decontaminate the prisoner after use.

The SOP directs officers to assure the

suspect of the temporary nature of

OC’s effects and to provide air and water as first aid. BCoPD officers were

instructed to remove the sprayed subject from the spray area into fresh air

and to allow access to “copious

amounts” of water, as soon as possible.

Since BCoPD patrol vehicles did not

carry water or any special equipment

to aid in the decontamination process,

they relied on physically removing

suspects, instructing sprayed persons

not to rub their eyes, and transporting

them quickly to a source of water.

Use of pepper spray

During the study period, Baltimore

County officers used OC in response to

194 (174 human and 20 animal) incidents, which fell into various categories of complaints that beat police

officers often handle. These types of

complaints usually involved aggressive, excitable behavior on the part of

both the complainant and victim.

Moreover, they tended to escalate

quickly, resulting in confrontational

outcomes.

Thirty-nine percent of the incidents

occurred inside some structure (e.g.,

house, car), while the remaining incidents occurred “out-of-doors.”
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 1: Force / Threat Used by Suspect individuals sprayed were incapacitated enough to be effectively arrested.

Data indicate that almost all officers

applied OC to the suspect’s face, as

they had been directed in training.

However, officers generally did not

spray from a distance of 4 to 6 feet as

instructed. In 144 incidents, the spray

was activated at a distance of 3 feet or

less; in 102 of these, OC was sprayed

at a distance of 2 feet or less. As a result, OC may not have been maximally

effective.

Yet the data show that OC worked

even if it was not sprayed from the distance suggested by the manufacturer.

In 144 incidents, only one spray was

required to incapacitate a subject; officers used the full contents of an issued container of OC to control

suspects in four separate incidents. No

data indicated that spraying more than

one short burst produced better effects, if the subject were given a

“good” spray the first time. The data

showed that 117 individuals (67 percent) were classified by officers as

submissive after the OC had been applied; 27 individuals (16 percent) were

listed as complying with officer instructions after being sprayed (see exhibit 3). The difference between the

terms “submissive” and “compliant” is

subtle,2

 and it might be more appropriate to collapse the two categories into

one. When the categories are collapsed,

144 (83 percent) of the 174 subjects

were sufficiently neutralized to yield to

officer orders. Thirty individuals (17

percent) struggled or otherwise failed

to follow officer instructions.

Eighteen of these 30 struggling subjects were classified by officers as not

fully incapacitated by the OC spray.

According to officer reports, the OC

had no effect on seven suspects. These

Weather conditions did not seem to influence either an officer’s decision to

use OC or the spray’s effect on suspects. Eighty-four percent of the human subjects sprayed were male and

16 percent were female. Generally,

sprayed individuals were intoxicated

(drugs or alcohol), belligerent, and/or

combative. The majority (89 percent)

of incidents involved suspects who

physically threatened the police officer; very few incidents involved the

use of firearms or knives. The arrest/

intervention incidents necessitating

the use of the spray were primarily

battery, assault, and disorderly conduct (see exhibits 1 and 2).

Effectiveness of OC use

Overall, OC was very effective in the

194 incidents where it was used (see

“Officers’ Comments on OC”on page 6).

A total of 156 (90 percent) of the 174

* A total of 20 incidents involved animals, but 15 of these were initially classified (at the

time the call was dispatched) in other categories, such as “assault” on police officer.

Exhibit 2: Initial Contacts





 Bat (2) Knife (6)

Physical (153)

Vehicle (1) Firearm (2)

Fire (7)





0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Robbery 2

Burglary 3

*Animal 5

Other 10

Narcotics 11

Theft 13

Domestic 15

Mental 16

Traffic 18

Disorderly 22

Assault 22

Battery 57
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

seven individuals exhibited drugged

behavior or seemed to have emotional

problems. These data indicate that individuals who are heavily intoxicated,

drugged, or mentally unstable may be

resistant or immune to OC’s effects or

that OC may actually exacerbate the

difficulty associated with controlling

such persons.3

 Additionally, these

types of encounters may cause the officer to be cross-contaminated if the

incident escalates to a physical confrontation. BCoPD’s experience indicates that training officers may want to

stress the importance of accurately assessing the likely impact of pepper

spray in such an encounter and of being prepared to select another control

alternative.

Animal control. Interest in OC’s effectiveness in animal encounters was

high because, prior to project implementation, BCoPD had experienced a

number of incidents where officers

were forced to shoot threatening or attacking dogs. During the OC field

study, dogs were sprayed with OC in

20 incidents where the animals posed

a danger to officers. Ten of the dogs

sprayed weighed between 25 and 50

pounds, and 6 weighed more than 50

pounds.

Data showed that officers sprayed the

dogs at distances greater than those

from which they sprayed humans. The

majority of dogs were sprayed from a

distance of 3 to 8 feet, whereas most

humans were sprayed from a distance

of 1 to 3 feet. The difference in application distances may account for the

differences in the effectiveness levels

for dogs and humans. OC was effective

nearly 100 percent of the time in dog

encounters (one officer was bitten but

required no medical treatment).

Other results of OC use

Assaults on officers. Three years of

prior assault data (pre-OC data) were

collected for comparison with data

from the period after which OC was

adopted by the department (post-OC

data). The pre-OC data were examined

to identify any possible trends regarding assaults. Overall, these data

showed that officer assaults were decreasing prior to OC use. The post-OC

data indicated that assaults continued

to decline. In fact, the total number of

officers assaulted in the post-OC period was substantially lower than in

any pre-OC data period. While it is

likely that the introduction of OC

spray contributed to this significant

decline, the finding must be considered preliminary, since the pre- and

post-data for this study were not

strictly comparable in all cases.

Injuries to officers. Data from the

spray collection form showed that few

officers were injured when they used

OC to control a confrontational encounter. Only 21 officers (11 percent)

reported receiving any injury (see exhibit 4). Most of these were minor and

resulted in no lost work time. Although

data from the pre-OC use period were

not comparable and did not permit a

Exhibit 3: Suspect Actions After Application

he following comments were extracted from the OC data collection

sheets completed by the BCoPD officers

or from followup interviews:

• Wish we had had it a while ago.

• I think it’s a great...alternative to initial

use of force.

• Definitely better than using a nightstick.

• The word is out (on the street)...all

people have to do is hear the Velcro©

and they comply pretty quickly. [The officer who made this comment had actually pulled the OC from his holster at least

10 times, but had sprayed it only once.]

• Some subjects actually apologize after

being sprayed.

T Officers’ Comments on OC

Submissive


67%

N=117

Complied


16%

N=27

Struggled


17%

N=30
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

complete before-and-after analysis, the

relatively low level of injuries sustained by officers in the post-OC period suggests that OC use has the

potential to reduce officer injuries in

confrontational situations.

Injuries to suspects. Very few suspect injuries occurred during the postOC project period. Of the 174 spray

incidents, only 14 suspects (8 percent)

received any injuries, and all of these

were minor, requiring no hospital

treatment (see exhibit 4). Staff were

not able to gather pre-OC comparison

data; however, it was hypothesized that

if suspects were injured, complaints of

force would be filed more often. The

data collected during the study period

indicated that such complaints were

decreasing at a rate greater than that

observed prior to the introduction of

OC. It is reasonable to conclude that

OC had a positive effect on reducing

the number of suspect injuries.

Use-of-force complaints. Departmental policy states that a use-of-force

report must be completed if the subject complains of injury as a result of

arrest and goes to the hospital for

medical treatment. However, as is true

for other less-than-lethal weapons, a

als received aftercare from the officers

who sprayed them, which may have obviated the need to complain.

During the time of data collection (July

1993 through March 1994) and over the

span of 174 sprayings, five complaints

of brutality and one use-of-force case

were received by BCoPD. These complaints centered on the officer’s purportedly inappropriate behavior and did

not address the spray itself. To date,

BCoPD has not had any complaints or

suits filed that relate to the issue of OC

spray.

Summary

Most police departments in the United

States are concerned about officer and

suspect safety. In recent years, this

concern has focused on injuries to police officers and citizens during arrest

confrontations. To meet this problem,

departments have sought answers in

technology involving less-than-lethal

weapons. Aerosol pepper spray is one

weapon from the LTL arsenal that effectively addresses the issue of officer/

citizen injury.

use-of-force report is not required for

OC, absent a complaint or hospital

treatment. BCoPD officials concluded

that treating OC differently could inappropriately hinder its use.

Data suggest that despite an increase

in calls for service and fewer patrol officers working their beats, use-of-force

complaints declined by 53 percent

during the second pre-OC period (July

1991 through March 1992 ) and the

post-OC period. Similarly, a reduction

of 40 percent occurred between the

third pre-OC period (July 1992

through March 1993) and the post-OC

period (see exhibit 5). Since no other

major policy changes regarding use of

force took place during pre- and postdata collection, it is likely that the use

of pepper spray accounted for the decrease in complaints. Interviews with

Internal Affairs officers add weight to

this finding. These officers noted that,

unlike those of impact weapons, the

effects of OC are short-lived and

nontraumatic; pepper spray thus reduces the likelihood that brutality or

excessive force complaints would be

lodged. In addition, sprayed individuExhibit 4: Officer/Suspect Injuries

0

50

100

150

200

Officer Suspect

Yes No Missing

21 14

169 163

4

17

Exhibit 5: Complaints Alleging Force

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Jul Sep Nov

1991–1992 1992–1993 1993–1994

Jan Mar Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar
8

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

This study’s findings indicate that

BCoPD successfully implemented its

OC operation. Statistical measurements of effectiveness were high, and

those related to officer assaults, officer

and citizen injuries, and use-of-force

complaints were low. Study findings

showed that OC spray offers advantages over more problematic sprays

and that a well-developed OC spray

program can provide a variety of operational benefits for law enforcement

agencies. In addition, the process followed by BCoPD could guide other police departments interested in OC

implementation.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The full report summarized in this

Research in Brief was prepared by

Steven M. Edwards, John Granfield,

and Jamie Onnen under National

Institute of Justice grant number

92–IJ–CX–K026. The authors were

with the International Association

of Chiefs of Police while conducting

their evaluation. Questions about

the full report may be directed to

John Firman, research coordinator,

IACP.

NCJ 162358

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for

Victims of Crime.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

Notes

1. Granfield, John, Jamie Onnen, and Charles S.

Petty, M.D., Pepper Spray and In-Custody Deaths,

Executive Brief, Alexandria, Virginia: International

Association of Chiefs of Police, March 1994.

2. The terms “submissive” and “compliant” were

used by officers completing the data collection form.

An individual officer’s understanding and expectation of OC’s effect on a suspect may cause him or her

to make a distinction between the terms. Officers who

believe that the purpose of OC is to totally incapacitate a subject, with no resistance, might describe the

suspect as submissive and conclude, therefore, that

the product worked. If the OC did not perform as expected, the same officer might report that the product

had no effect—despite the fact that the suspect was

easier to arrest as a result of being sprayed. Other officers might believe that the product worked well,

even though the suspect offered a struggle. This discussion is offered to caution against strict interpretation of subjective responses.

3. More research is required to obtain definitive answers to the question of how intoxication, drug use,

and/or mental illness affect a person’s reaction to OC

spray.