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

Understanding the Use of Force By

and Against the Police

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

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director November 1996

continued . . .

ated with the use of force, as well as the

amount of force actually used.

Research results showed that, during the

study period, the Phoenix police employed

some degree of physical force in 22 percent of adult custody arrests and that suspect use of physical force was even less

frequent. Further, in situations where

members of either group did employ force,

the levels typically were low. Despite a

policy that requires the routine use of restraints in arrests of felons and belligerent

suspects, officers did not restrain suspects

The Phoenix Police Department, in conjunction with Rutgers University and

Arizona State University, designed and

implemented a study of the use of force

by and against Phoenix police officers.

Conducted during a 2-week period in

June 1994, the research was prompted

by the need to generate systematic information on the role of force in arrest tactics policy, training, and practice. This

study, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), was concerned with

determining the characteristics of arrest

situations, suspects, and officers associIssues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: An NIJsponsored study of 1,585 adult

custody arrests in Phoenix, Arizona,

the eighth largest city in the United

States, to determine the use of

force both by and against the

police.

Key issues: The research

conducted by Rutgers University

and Arizona State University was

prompted by a perceived need on

the part of the Phoenix Police

Department and NIJ to gather information about arrest situations,

tactics, policy, training, and practices. The study surveyed police

officers over a 2-week period in

June 1994 and interviewed 185

suspects.

Key findings: Force was used infrequently by the police and even

less frequently by suspects. Suspects interviewed reported levels of

police force similar to those obtained from officer self-reports.

Among the other findings:

● Police used some physical force

in about one of every five arrests.

Suspects used some physical force

in about one of every six arrests.

● Phoenix police officers are required to restrain only felony or

belligerent suspects. In 20 percent

of all adult custody arrests studied,

officers opted to use no restraints.

Exhibit 1: Consistent Predictors of Force

By Joel Garner, John Buchanan, Tom Schade, and John Hepburn

Contact and Cover


Suspect Reputation


Male Officer/Male Suspect

Increase in Number of Police


Suspect Alcohol Impairment


Bystanders Present

Violent Offense


Gang Involvement
 Force By


Suspect

Force By


Police
2

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

(front and back) survey completed by

Phoenix police officers after arrests were

made during a 2-week period in June

1994 (see exhibit 2). This form was used

to record specific behavioral aspects of

the arrests and gather information on police mobilization, the nature of the offense, and officer and suspect

characteristics.

From these surveys, detailed information

was compiled about the frequency of

specific officer and arrestee behaviors

along five dimensions:

• Voice (officer/suspect spoke in a conversational tone, articulated threats, issued commands, shouted, or cursed).

• Motion (mode of officer pursuit/suspect

flight).

• Restraints (mechanical devices used

by police to control arrestee, e.g., handcuffs, body cuffs, hobble).

• Weaponless tactics (officer/suspect

grabbing, twisting, pushing, shoving,

punching, kicking, biting, scratching,

wrestling, scuffling, and use of control

holds or pressure points).

• Weapons (suspect possession or officer/suspect threatened use, or actual

use of martial arts or a baton, flashlight,

knife, blunt instrument, chemical agent,

canine, handgun, rifle, or shotgun; includes use of a motor vehicle as a

weapon).

The detailed survey responses were used

to construct three measures of force—

physical force, continuum of force, and

maximum force. These measures were

designed to capture the full range of

force used, including low levels of force

not traditionally examined by police useof-force research. Multivariate statistical

models also were developed to evaluate

the extent to which officer, suspect, and

in one-fifth of all custody arrests involving adults. Finally, a number of factors—

most notably, suspect use of force—were

found to predict police use of force (see exhibit 1).

This Research in Brief explains the

methodology used to measure the use of

force, discusses study results, and presents the implications of these findings

for future policy and research.

Study method

The research was designed to address

some of the more important limitations of

prior research on use of force. First,

measures were developed to capture the

range of force used within the Department’s standard force continuum. Measures of the simple dichotomy between

force and no force (or excessive and reasonable force) neither capture the full

range of police or suspect behavior nor

recognize the great variety of forcerelated behavior in law enforcement.

Second, rather than focusing exclusively

on situations that involved severe uses of

force such as firearm discharges, serious

injuries, or deaths, data were collected

from a representative sample of arrests

to permit examination of the range of instances where some degree of force could

be used.

A third aim of the study was to determine the correlates of force. Although

helpful, descriptive data on arrest situations or force levels do not provide, by

themselves, an appropriate basis for developing arrest tactics training. Therefore, researchers sought to understand

the specific circumstances and situations where more or less force is used to

accomplish an arrest and to use that information to improve training and practice in arrest tactics.

Obtaining the information. The primary source of data was a one-page

Issues and Findings

continued . . .

● When force was used by the

police or suspects, it was typically at

the low end of the severity scale.

● Weapons were used by the police

in 2 percent of all arrests. The

weapon most frequently used by the

police was a flashlight (12 times in

1,585 arrests).

● Of 41 factors examined, only 9

consistently contributed to the prediction of police use of force.

● The single best predictor of police

use of force was suspect use of

force.

● Two-thirds of the variation in the

amount of force used by police

remains unexplained.

Target audience: Law enforcement

policymakers, practitioners, and police trainers.

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

Exhibit 2: Use-of-Force Survey Form

Arizona State University/Rutgers University Use-of-Force Research Project

This form is to be completed by the officer who fills out the DR and the arrest report. This officer will respond as the 1st officer. Complete one form for each arrest and

include the actions of all officers involved. The practice of including in the DR all information relevant to the possible guilt or innocence of suspects should be continued.

1. Your Assignment (✓)

2. Suspect’s Custody Status Upon Your

Arrival and Prior to Arrest (✓)

Patrol division n Other n

Already in custody of police/court/jail n

Already in custody of private security/citizen n

Not in custody n

3. Your Approach (✓)

Did you use “contact and cover” when approaching the suspect?

Yes n No n N/A n

4. Voice (✓ all that apply for officer(s) and suspect)

1st 2nd Officer Suspect

Conversational

Command

Verbal threats

Shouting/cursing

Immediate compliance with officer’s orders

Passive resistance (go limp, etc.)

Evade, hide, flee

Impede officer movement 

Resist cuffing

Resist placement in car

Assaultive

5. Suspect Response (✓ all that apply)

6. Officer Pursuit/Suspect Flight (✓ all that apply)

1st 2nd Officer Pursuit Flight by Suspect

No pursuit/flight

On foot or bike

Car

Helicopter

7. Restraint Technique (✓ all that apply)

No restraint used

Speed cuffing

Suspect kneeling Cuffing

Suspect standing

Suspect prone

Hobble

Leg cuff Soft

Body cuff restraints

Other restraints (specify)

8. Weaponless Tactic (✓ all that apply)

1st 2nd Officer Suspect

Not applicable/compliant

Grab, twist

Push, shove

Hit, punch, kick

Wrestle, scuffle

Bite, scratch

Pressure point

Carotid hold

Control hold (specify)

9. Weapons Possessed (✓ all that apply)

1st 2nd Officer Suspect

No weapon possessed

Straight baton Stick/blunt instrument

Expandable baton Knife/edged weapon

Sidehandle baton Household item

Flashlight Martial arts

Motor vehicle (as weapon)

Canine

Punch II/other chemical agent

Handgun

Rifle/shotgun

Other weapon

10. Weapons Used (circle U ) or

Threatened (circle T ) During Contact

1st 2nd Officer Suspect

No weapons used or threatened (✓) n

U T U T Straight baton Stick/blunt instrument U T

U T U T Expandable baton Knife/edged weapon U T

U T U T Sidehandle baton Household item U T

U T U T Flashlight Martial arts U T

U T U T Motor vehicle (as weapon) U T

U T U T Canine U T

U T U T Punch II/other chemical agent U T

U T U T Handgun U T

U T U T Rifle/shotgun U T

U T U T Other weapon U T

11. Effectiveness (✓)

Was a particular tactic or weapon ineffective in making the arrest?

Yes n No n

If yes, what was it and why ineffective?

12. Injuries (✓ all that apply)

1st 2nd Officer Suspect

None apparent

Complaint of pain

Bruise, abrasion, scratch

Puncture, cut

Concussion/loss of consciousness

Broken bone

Temporary chemical irritation

Other

13. Medical Attention (✓ most serious)

1st 2nd Officer Suspect

None

Offered and refused

First aid at scene

Hospital treatment and released

Hospital admission

Other medical attention
4

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

1st Officer 2nd Officer Suspect

yrs. yrs. Age yrs.

ft. in. ft. in. Height ft. in.

lbs. lbs. Weight lbs.

Wh. Bl. His. Oth. Wh. Bl. His. Oth. Race Wh. Bl. His. Oth.

M F M F Gender M F

0001–0400 n 1201–1600 n

0401–0800 n 1601–2000 n

0801–1200 n 2001–2400 n

14. Dispatch and Booking

Radio call type On-View

Arrest charge

CLD

Booked by arresting officer

Booked by other officer

15. Time of Arrest (✓)

Inside 19. Location of Completed Arrest (✓) Outside

Sun n Mon n Tue n Wed n Thu n Fri n Sat n

16. Day of Arrest (✓)

Early n Middle n Late n

17. Part of Shift (✓)

18. Grid in Which Arrest Took Place (✓) 

Suspect’s residence Major cross street

Other residence Secondary street/alley

Club/bar Parking lot

Restaurant Suspect’s yard

Retail store Other yard

Other

20. Officer’s Prior Knowledge of Location (✓ all that apply)

No prior knowledge of location

Location known to be nonthreatening

Location known for criminal activity

Location known to be hazardous to police

22. Arresting Officer Characteristics

Number of arrests in last 30 days

Number of years as Phoenix police officer

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Excellent Good Moderate Poor

21. Visibility at Arrest Location (circle most accurate number)

Last arrest tactics training at Academy (circle) 92 93 94

Describe 1. 92 93 94

non-PPD arrest 2. 92 93 94

tactics training 3. 92 93 94

23.Year of Last Arrest Tactics Training

No medical attention needed

First aid at scene

Private doctor

Transported to hospital

Overnight stay at hospital

24. Officer Injuries

At any time in the past, did you need medical attention

as a result of making an arrest? (✓ most serious)

27. Suspect’s Relationship to Victims 

and Bystanders (✓ all that apply)

Victims Witnesses/Bystanders

No victim No witnesses/bystanders

Unknown

No relationship/strangers

Acquaintance/friend

Family/intimate

26. Suspect’s and Bystanders’ Attitude

Toward Police (✓ predominant)

Suspect Witnesses/Bystanders

None

Civil Supportive

Angry Neutral

Aggressive Antagonistic

25. Number of Persons, Including Yourself,

Present at Arrest Scene

Number Present Initial Contact Completion of Arrest

# of Officers

# of Suspects

# of Bystanders

32. Suspect’s Prior Criminal Record

(from Phoenix P.D. PACE System)

Primary Offense Code (1–24) n

Violence Potential Code (1–X) n

Current warrant on suspect (✓ if no)

Warrant charge

Verified

Associate

No association

Unknown

No prior knowledge

Compliant

Resistive

Assaultive

Carry weapons

Criminal record

30. Suspect’s Gang

Membership (✓)

29. Officer’s Prior

Knowledge of Suspect 

(✓ all that apply)

31. Suspect’s Impairment (✓ all that apply)

Don’t know Yes No

Drugs 

Alcohol

Other

Thank you for your time and cooperation in helping with this research project.

Federal statute [42 U.S.C. § 3789(g)] states that these research data

are “immune from legal process” and shall not be “used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial, legislative or administrative proceedings.”

28. Characteristics of Officers and Suspect

No

Code Code (✔)
5

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

some form of physical force. In nearly

four out of every five adult custody arrests, police officers used no physical

force at all. The surveys indicated that

suspects used physical force in 228

(14.4 percent) of the 1,585 incidents.

In roughly five out of every six adult

arrests, suspects reportedly used no

physical force.

Continuum of force. The study’s

second measure of force was based on

two six-step rankings used by the

Phoenix Police Department (see exhibit 3), which are similar to those

used in many other jurisdictions to locate degrees of force in a progression.

The rankings are independent; a “3”

on the police scale (control and restraint) is not necessarily equivalent to

a “3” on the suspect scale (passive resistance). The measurement of this

“continuum of force” was intended not

only to reflect the official policies of

the Phoenix Police Department but

also to incorporate the widely held notion that the force/no force dichotomy

is inadequate to capture all important

variations in the ways police handle

encounters with the public.

Exhibits 4 and 5 show the highest

level of force used by police and suspects in terms of the force continuum.

In 918 (57.9 percent) arrests, the highest level of force used by the police

arrest situation characteristics consistently predicted the amount of force

used.

The reliability of the police survey was

assessed by interviewing a sample of

suspects booked in the Maricopa

County Jail; 185 interviews were

matched to officer surveys. Both the

officer surveys and suspect interviews

were voluntary and anonymous.

Overview of survey results

Of the 1,777 surveys obtained during

the 2-week period covered by the study,

1,585 pertained to adults who were

booked by Phoenix police officers at the

Maricopa County Jail (noncustody and

juvenile arrests were excluded). The

Department’s automated information

system (PACE) recorded 1,826 arrests

in which an adult suspect was booked.

Thus, surveys were obtained for more

than 85 percent of arrests involving detained adults.

The surveys revealed that, in making

these 1,585 adult custody arrests,

officers:

• Used threats or shouts less than 4

percent of the time.

• Pursued a fleeing suspect 7 percent

of the time.

• Placed cuffs or restraints on 77 percent of the suspects.

• Used a weaponless tactic (holding,

hitting, etc.) in 17 percent of the arrests.

• Threatened to, but did not, use a

weapon 3.7 percent of the time.

• Used a weapon in 2 percent of the

arrests.

Surveyed officers also reported that

the weapon most frequently used by

them against a suspect was a flashlight

(12 arrests). They also noted that no restraints were used in 20 percent of the

surveyed cases (3 percent of completed

surveys did not indicate whether restraints were used). According to survey data, use of force was reported

rarely by either police officers or suspects; when some form of force was

used, it was typically at the low end of

the study’s measures.

The three measures of force

Physical force. “Physical force” was

defined as officer or suspect use of any

weaponless tactic (such as kicking or

shoving) or the threatened or actual use

of any weapon. In addition, police use

of physical force included the application of severe restraints, including cuffing suspects while they were prone,

hobbling (hog-tying a suspect’s legs),

leg cuffing, and body restraint (e.g., a

straitjacket). The possibility that suspects would use restraints on police

officers was excluded from consideration. Suspect possession of a weapon,

even if not used or threatened, was included as an example of physical force

by suspects. Officer possession of a

weapon was not considered use of

physical force by officers.

In 349 of the 1,585 surveyed arrests

(22 percent), the police reported using

Suspects

0. No Resistance

1. Psychological Intimidation

2. Verbal Noncompliance

3. Passive Resistance

4. Defensive Resistance

5. Active Aggression

6. Firearms/Deadly Force

Exhibit 3: Phoenix Police Department Continuum of Force Categories

* Includes all physical tactics and weapons used except chemical agents and firearms.

Police

0. No Force

1. Police Presence

2. Verbal Commands

3. Control and Restraint (handcuffs)

4. Chemical Agents

5. Tactics and Weapons*

6. Firearms/Deadly Force
6

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

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

No Resistance

Psychological 


Resistance

Verbal Resistance

Passive Resistance

Defensive

Aggressive

Firearms*

Highest Level of Force Used

Number of Arrests

977

104 92 75

201

125

11

* This category includes any use or threatened use of a firearm. During the 2-week period, one

suspect discharged a firearm. During this same period, there is no indication that the police discharged a firearm.

Exhibit 5: Measure of Continuum of Force Used By Suspects

was some form of restraint; in another

350 (22.1 percent), no restraints were

used. Chemical weapons were the

highest level of force employed by the

police in 2 (.01 percent) arrests; although not discharged, firearms were

threatened or somehow used in 54 (3.4

percent) arrests. Other weapons and

Exhibit 4: Measure of Continuum of Force Used By Police

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

One Officer

Two or More


 Officers

Verbal 


Commands

Restraints

Chemicals

Tactics and 


Weapons

Firearms*

Highest Level of Force Used

Number of Arrests

106

185

59

918

2

261

54

weaponless tactics were used in 261

(16.5 percent) arrests.

In 977 (61.6 percent) arrests, suspects

offered no resistance to officers. In another 196 (12.4 percent), the forms of

resistance were either psychological or

verbal. In 136 (almost 9 percent) arrests, suspects used or threatened to

use a physical tactic or a weapon; in

11 (0.7 percent) of those arrests, the

weapon was a firearm (see exhibit 5).

Maximum force. A measure of maximum force was constructed by identifying the single most severe use of

force employed by the police, based on

a ranking of 80 different types of police statements, physical restraints,

tactics, and weapon use. These

rankings ranged on a scale of 0 to 100

(with 100 denoting maximum force).

The severity of behaviors was weighed

according to the judgment of 11 experienced and currently active Phoenix

patrol officers, whose opinions were

solicited for this purpose. In a similar

exercise, a measure of the maximum

amount of force used by suspects was

developed (see exhibits 6 and 7).

Suspects’ views on use of force. In

order to assess the reliability of the

study’s force measures, results of interviews with suspects from a sample

of 185 adults taken into custody during the 2-week period were matched to

corresponding police surveys. Interviewers from Arizona State University

asked detainees about the force used

by police in the course of their arrests,

as well as the force that they themselves exhibited. The interviews resulted in findings that were comparable

to those of the police surveys (see exhibit 8).

Influences on use of force

In addition to developing three measures of force, the study team compiled detailed information on how the

police were mobilized, the nature of

each offense, the location of each offense, the personal characteristics of

officers, the personal characteristics of

suspects, and any associations that

could be made between police and

* This category includes any use or threatened use of a firearm. During the 2-week period, one

suspect discharged a firearm. During this same period, there is no indication that the police discharged a firearm.
7

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

Exhibit 8: Summary Measures From Police Survey and Suspect Screens

 Type of Force By Police Police Survey Suspect Interview

Number Percent Number Percent

No Force 152 82.2 147 79.5

 Hit or Push 4 2.2 10 5.4

 Other Weaponless Tactic 18 9.7 18 9.7

 Use or Threatened Use

 of Weapon 11 5.9 10 5.4

 Total 185 100.0 185 100.0

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

89 90 93 98

1

86

1 223 8

85

2

80

3

75

1

71

41

65

4

63

36

62

65

60

6

56

3

55

5

53

11

52

1

51

31

50

1

49

13

46

61

37

85

23

16

18

27

9

1

6

892

3

263

0

Number of Arrests

Number of Arrests

Highest Level of Maximum Force (0–100) Used

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 8 14 21 36 32 43 46 47 50 54 56 58 63 68 69 71 72 75 80 84 86 87 99

8

47

5 2 1 12 4

38

3 7 1 2 21 2

34

10

39

12

566

433

5

49

257

27

Number of Arrests

Number of Arrests

Highest Level of Maximum Force (0–100) Used

Exhibit 6: Measure of Maximum Force Used By Police suspect characteristics. Information

about each arrest was collected on 41

specific items thought to influence the

use of force.

Analyses of these variables in relation

to each measure of force identified 16

consistent nonpredictors, 16 inconsistent predictors, and 9 consistent predictors of force.

Consistent nonpredictors. More

than one-third (16) of the 41 factors

examined did not predict any of the

three measures of police or suspect

use of force. These factors were:

Mobilization of the police

Custody status of arrestee

Dispatch or on-view arrest

Night time

Weekends

Weekend nights

Nature of the offense situation

Number of suspects at initial contact

Number of suspects at arrest completion

Victim and suspect friends or same

family

Bystander and suspect friends or same

family

Nature of the arrest location

Inside a residence

Location known for criminal activity

Personal characteristics of the police

Number of arrests in past 30 days

Years since last training

Personal characteristics of suspects

Known to have criminal record

Associated suspect and officer

characteristics

Height

Weight

Exhibit 7: Measure of Maximum Force Used By Suspects
8

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

Given the size and representative nature of the sample of adult arrests from

which various measures of potential

predictors were obtained and the

strength of the multivariate analyses

employed, these findings of “no effect”

cannot be attributed to either the research design or its implementation.

Although generalization of these findings awaits replication, future discussions of police use-of-force policies

and practices (and designs for additional research on police use of force)

should consider this study’s evidence

that these 16 factors consistently

failed to predict police or suspect use

of force.

Inconsistent predictors. Sixteen of

the 41 factors considered in the study

predicted only one or two of the three

measures of force used by and against

police. These factors retain their candidacy as predictors of force and warrant inclusion in subsequent research.

Each predicted some measure of force

but failed to meet this study’s conservative standard of predicting all three

measures.

In the following list of inconsistent predictors, the minus (-) signs indicate a

negative relationship. Thus, as a predictor (such as visibility) increases in value,

the use of force decreases. The negative

sign on the race variable is based on the

finding that Hispanic suspects on average use less force against the police than

non-Hispanic suspects.

Mobilization of the police

Patrol division (-)

Early, middle, or late phase of shift

Number of police at initial contact

Nature of the offense situation

Traffic offense

Property offense

Vice offense

Domestic call

Bystander’s demeanor

Nature of the arrest location

Visibility (-)

Inside a nonresidential building (-)

Location known to be hazardous

Personal police characteristics

Length of service

Past injury

Personal suspect characteristics

Drug impaired

Associated suspect and officer

characteristics

Age

Race (-)

Because suspect use of force influences police use of force, this list of

inconsistent predictors includes any

factor that predicted one measure of

suspect use of force. For instance,

prior injury to an officer did not predict police use of force directly, but it

did predict one of the three measures

of suspect force. Similarly, the race of

officers and suspects played no role in

predicting police use of force, but because Hispanic suspects used less

force than other suspects on one measure, race was listed as an inconsistent

predictor of force.

Age is one of the most consistent predictors of participation in and frequency of criminal behavior, and we

were surprised that age was not a substantial and consistent predictor of the

use of force. In fact, at least one of the

various components of “age”—officer

age, suspect age, and the interaction of

the two—was found to be associated

with all three measures of force employed in the study, but the direction

of the effects changed with different

measures and components.

Consistent predictors. The analyses

identified nine characteristics that

consistently predicted police use of

force:

Mobilization of the police

Use of contact and cover tactics

Increased number of police

Nature of the offense

Arrest for a violent offense

Nature of the location

Presence of bystanders

Personal police characteristics

None

Personal suspect characteristics

Use of force

Gang involvement

Alcohol impairment

Known to be resistive, assaultive, or to

carry a weapon

Associated suspect and officer

characteristics

Both male

Some predictors affected police use of

force directly; others affected it

through their influence on suspect use

of force. Some characteristics predicted both.

Among the predictors of police use of

force, suspect use of force had the

largest impact on each of the three

measures of police use of force. This

remained true when controlling for the

possibility that some suspect use of

force could be a reaction to police use

of force. This finding supports the
9

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

perspective that underlies use-of-force

policies and arrest tactics training in

the Phoenix Police Department and in

many other departments around the

country: Police use force (and are authorized to do so) in response to suspects’ levels of resistance.

However, suspect use of force does not

explain all or even a large proportion

of the variation in the amount of force

used by the police. This finding supports the perspective that response to

suspect force, although significant, is

not the only situation in which the police use force (see exhibit 1).

Implications of study findings

Policy implications. This research

has specific implications for police

policy, training, and practice in the

use of force. First, it provides systematic evidence that the use of force in

Phoenix is infrequent; when used,

force was typically at the lower end of

the measures of force. In addition, no

evidence was found to show that force

was applied unevenly or in discriminatory ways against racial minorities.

The findings did raise some issues for

further consideration. For instance, the

single most frequent weapon used

when arrests were made in Phoenix

was the flashlight. At the time of this

study (June 1994), the Phoenix Police

Department’s arrest tactics training

program provided limited guidance regarding the use of a flashlight as a

weapon. Officers are currently receiving enhanced training in the use of the

flashlight as a weapon. The same rules

that apply to the use of batons apply to

flashlights.

A second area of concern is that the

widely promoted “contact-and-cover”

tactic was consistently associated in

this study with increased use of force.

Contact and cover is a tactic whereby

one of two officers makes contact with

the suspect(s) or complaining citizen(s), while the second officer takes a

position a short distance away to maintain a view of the entire situation and

“cover” the contact officer. No assertion can be made on the basis of available evidence that the use of this

tactic caused the police in Phoenix to

use more force. However, the research

design included controls for some of

the characteristics of the arrest situation that might lead officers to use contact and cover—suspect use of force,

violent offense, number of suspects and

bystanders, low visibility—but these

characteristics cannot explain the consistent association between use of contact and cover and all three measures of

force. In addition, the contact-andcover tactic is intended to provide officers with a tactical advantage should

a physical confrontation occur. That

advantage, some might assume, should

reduce the amount of force used by police and suspects, but no evidence was

found to support this assumption. A

thorough examination of all aspects of

the use of contact and cover, beginning with a more indepth review of the

data collected in this study, is recommended.

The third implication for policy stems

from the finding that the gender of the

suspect and the police officer directly

affected the amount of force used by

the police. More force was used by police when both officer and suspect

were male than when both officer and

suspect were female or their gender

was unreported. However, male suspects were not found to use more force

against the police than female suspects when all of the predictors were

considered. For most officers and researchers, this is counterintuitive. Statistical controls for the height and

weight of officers and suspects, as well

as for the suspect’s use of force, were

included, and these controls (or other

factors not included in the research)

may account for the absence of an effect for suspect sex on suspect use of

force. Since most arrests (1,059, or 67

percent) involved a male officer and a

male suspect, we interpreted these

findings to mean that arrests of female

suspects by female officers involved

less force than the typical arrest.

A fourth area of concern is use of restraints and the possibility that Phoenix police officers are using too little

force when they make custody arrests.

In more than 20 percent of arrests, the

police officers asserted that they had

used no handcuffs or other restraints;

in another 3 percent of the arrests, this

item was not filled in on the officer

survey. The available data do not provide a basis for determining the soundness of the current policy, which

authorizes and encourages officers to

restrain any custody arrestee but requires them to do so only with felons

and belligerent suspects. The concern

is based on the seemingly high frequency with which the discretion to

not use restraints is exercised.

The last issue raised by this research

is the generic and imprecise quality of

some of the 12 categories of suspect

resistance and officer response that

are central to the department’s use-offorce policies. Behavioral indicators

for each of these categories were developed, with difficulty, and it is suspected that officers may have similar

problems determining whether, for

instance, flight in a 2,000-pound automobile belongs in category 4, “defensive resistance,” or category 5, “active
10

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

aggression.” Similarly, the policy

groups together all weapons except

chemical agents and firearms, which

are placed in separate categories. We

do not suggest the use of more than six

categories or the kind of detailed ranking distinguishing weapon possession,

threat, and use that was helpful for this

research. However, the policy could be

more clearly stated and the relative

rankings based more explicitly on the

relative severity of officer and suspect

behaviors. Finally, as new weapons

and tactics become available, the review of the continuum-of-force categories is inevitable.

Research implications

We used a representative sample of

police behavior, developed a variety of

measures of police and suspect use of

force, and employed explicit models

and appropriate multivariate statistical

procedures to assess the strength of individual predictors of force. Previous

research has not used these standards,

but future research could benefit from

using and improving on them.

The sampling was representative but

not systematic. We used one 2-week

period in June 1994 and were unable

to discern if seasonal variation played

a role in the amount or distribution of

force used. Other sampling schemes

need to be developed and implemented that will provide a more formal

statistical basis from which to make

inferences about all arrests in a particular jurisdiction.

Data collection was anonymous, and

understanding the behavior of individual officers or suspects over time

was thus precluded. Anonymity also

complicated the matching of officer

surveys and suspect interviews. Federal

protections of research-subject confidentiality are strong, even for police

officers. Future research could attempt

to better integrate survey, interview,

and official records of police and suspect behavior.

The measures of force are improvements over simple dichotomies of the

past, but, as ordinal or interval measures, they are simply illustrative. At

best, they should be early prototypes of

measurement models that reflect true

scales or the full extent of harm caused

by different forceful actions.

The data collection instrument included

many items thought to be important in

the study of police use of force. The

length of the form was a burden to participating police officers and reflected

the fact that the researchers could not

match officer responses to official

records about the arrest, the suspect’s

prior record, or the officer’s career. Improved data on weapon possession and

use are essential, and the sequencing of

officer and suspect behaviors should be

a high priority in future research.

The use of multivariate statistical models improved the rigor of this study, but

the available methods were only a small

subset of approaches to assessing

causal influences. Most police professionals and researchers believe that

community context is an important consideration in how much force is used.

This research does not incorporate contextual models to account for such influences.

Because this is only one study in one

jurisdiction at one point in time, the results may not generalize to other jurisdictions and their relationships between

citizens and police. There is no substitute for replication.

Conclusion

All prior assessments of police use of

force that employed a systematic

sample of police behavior as a foundation report that use of force is infrequent and that many of the factors

commonly thought to influence it do

not. Limitations in prior research left

the validity and reliability of those

findings uncertain. This research

implemented a design to overcome

some of these limitations, and the researchers reached the same conclusion: Using three alternative measures

of force, the survey of adult custody arrests in Phoenix revealed that no force,

or only low levels of force, was used in

a large proportion of cases.

In addition, the results did not support the notion that the race of officers or suspects directly or indirectly

affects the amount of force used in

adult custody arrests. The popular focus on racial factors in use of force

seems to be unsupported by this study

and other research evidence. Subsequent research must be attentive to

the low base rate for use of force by

police and the even lower base rate

by suspects.

On the other hand, official policy and

training on the use of force do not indicate an awareness of the common absence of force. Recognition that force

is rare and, when used, varies along a

continuum has implications for law enforcement policy, training, and street

behavior.
11

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

Joel Garner, Research Director, the

Joint Centers for Justice Studies,

was the principal investigator for

this study. John Buchanan, Commander, and Richard Groeneveld,

Lieutenant, Phoenix Police Department, served as project director and

deputy project director, respectively. Co-principal investigators

included Thomas Schade and John

Hepburn of Arizona State University and Jeffrey Fagan of Rutgers

University.

NCJ 158614

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.

This Research in Brief is based on

the study supported by award 92–

IJ–CX–K028 from the National Institute of Justice, the contributions

of the participating officers of the

Phoenix Police Department, and

the assistance of the Maricopa

County Sheriff’s Department.

The complete report is available

through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service on interlibrary loan or, for a fee, photocopy

reproduction. Call 1–800–851–

3420. Ask for NCJ 158614.

Dr. Garner discussed his work with

an audience of researchers and

criminal justice professionals and

practitioners. A 60-minute videotape, Understanding Use of Force,

is also available for $19 ($24 in

Canada and other foreign countries). Ask for NCJ 159739.

Points of view expressed in this

report are those of the authors and

do not necessarily represent the

official position or policies of the

Phoenix Police Department, the

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, or the U.S. Department of

Justice.