Part 2 of 2
Read Part 1
In Part 1, the highlights from a study which examined 949 use of force incidents in 15 Michigan jails revealed common patterns of detainee resistance. The findings showed that just under 75% of the incidents comprised three patterns of resistance: verbal resistance, defensive resistance, and physical actions of assault. Officers confronted lethal force encounters in only 5% of the incidents. Officers were likely to face higher levels of resistance (actions of physical assault) from a mentally ill detainee (24%) and were likely to encounter resistance of any nature from an intoxicated detainee in about 38% of the incidents. The average blood alcohol content of these detainees was 0.20.
Here, I’ll examine the types of force techniques officers generally applied in responding to these encounters, and offer recommendations based on this.
Common types of force employed and injuries sustained
In 75% of the incidents multiple officers responded to a resisting detainee encounter and the presence of more than one officer, accompanied with verbal commands and instructions, were successful in controlling the resistive detainee in 60% of the situations without using physical force measures. Verbal commands preceded any use of force measure in 98% of the incidents. In the situations where officers used physical force or force equipment, detainees sustained a treatable injury (e.g., cut, hematoma, sprain, or fracture) in 11% of the cases.
Detainees were more likely to sustain an injury during booking, a forced cell extraction, a detainee disturbance or while an officer enforced a rule. Injuries were more likely when an officer(s) used a takedown technique, a control hold, a wristlock and when applying restraints of a combative detainee. Injuries were not sustained or minimized when officers used pressure points, the TASER, an aerosol or the restraint chair.
Officers sustained a treatable injury in 15% of the incidents and are likely to sustain an injury when they faced defensive and aggressive actions of assault, such as: wrestling with a detainee, performing forced cell extractions, strikes/kicks delivered from the detainee, when choked, and when facing an edged weapon. Further, officers were more likely to sustain an injury while performing a personal search of a detainee, when breaking up a fight, when performing booking duties, in self-defense, and during a cell transfer.
Officer injuries were more likely when they were applying a takedown technique, a control hold, and while applying restraints. Officers were less likely to incur an injury while using a TASER, using an aerosol, and/or when using a pressure point control technique. The TASER was applied in 15% of the incidents and an aerosol was used in 60% of the incidents displaying detainee defensive and assault actions.
Officers were less likely to sustain an injury when two or more officers responded to a resistive altercation. Further, when multiple officers responded to an incident, they were less likely to use an aerosol and apply handcuffs (45% of the incidents). When one officer was engaged with one detainee, the officer was more likely to use an aerosol and/or the TASER, and handcuffs to restrain the detainee.
An aerosol was more likely to be used by an officer in any circumstance after verbal instructions have been used and when confronted with defensive resistance or physical actions of assault. The restraint chair was used in 25% of the incidents and used primarily when officers encountered detainee disturbances, after breaking up a detainee fight with another detainee, after a cell extraction, assaults on officers, and after physical actions occurring at time of booking.
An officer is more likely to use a wristlock and takedown techniques when faced with a resistive detainee in self defense, particularly when assaulted during a personal search or conducting an escort. Pressure point control techniques were more likely to be used when multiple officers were encountering a resisting detainee. About 33% of the resistive incidents involved a forced cell extraction and comprise 30% of officer injuries (back related).
In 80% of these circumstances, a special response team of at least three officers performed the task, faced verbal threats, and defensive resistance, actions of assault, and lethal force resistance. The officers used verbal commands, and with frequency, used takedown techniques, wristlocks, pressure points, knee strikes, aerosols, the TASER, restraints, and the restraint chair. In the remaining 20% one or two officers attempted to perform the task and increased the frequency of incurring an injury.
A consistent finding showed that detainees engaged in wrestling with the officer, regardless of the circumstance (43%). The encounter may occur in three potential scenarios. First, defensive resistance may be encountered which escalates into aggressive physical actions of resistance, where the detainee ends up on the floor on top of the officer in a wrestling scenario. Second, the officer may encounter an assault whereby the detainee kicks, pushes, chokes, punches the officer, resulting in a loss of balance and the officer (s) and detainee end up on the floor, again in a wrestling position. Third, wrestling frequently occurred result during a forced cell extraction situation.
Conclusions and recommendation
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the types of detainee resistance, the types of fore techniques that officers employed in response and to determine what relationships emerged between varying research variables. Highlights of the significant findings, identification of major locations and circumstances where detainee resistance is highly likely to occur were addressed.
The study has also identified the various types of force officers use with regularity, as well as their associations. Key information was presented in order to make administrative decisions, and with information to work toward risk reduction in managing the use force within a detention facility.
The following recommendations are suggested.
Developing a use of force tracking system
Administrators should develop an internal tracking mechanism which is designed to track and assess all use of force incidents. It allows the manager, supervisors, and officers to know how frequently force is used within the facility, the type of force equipment that is used with frequency, the type of resistance, circumstances, and the location where force is applied with frequency. As a primary objective these trends are useful for training purposes, deploying personnel, increasing officer safety, facility security, and managing the detainee population. Adopting a tracking system can assist in researching the use of force more efficiently.
As a secondary objective, the tracking system can be used to monitor the proper implementation of policy and provide information for policy revision. Tracking the use of force has assisted in serving as an early warning system which can provide information pertinent to an individual officer who may need further training or counseling in using appropriate force measures.
Policy
In light of the findings, administrators are encouraged to review their use of force policy and revise it as warranted. Once the policy has been revised, all supervisors and officers should receive their own copy and training to its contents. Training should be conducted on an ongoing basis and allows for clarification and specification of critical policy components. It also provides a forum for personnel to ask questions on sections which need further clarification. Testing on the policy contents is recommended.
Principles of escalation and de-escalation should also be reviewed. Agency policy should be framed within Constitutional and state standards, and tailored to the unique needs of the agency. Agency officers and supervisors should receive training in the policy in order to respond to force incidents appropriately.
Use of force training
The study has shown that officers are using force appropriately and in direct proportion to the level of detainee resistance they encounter. This is evidenced by the low probability of incidents where a detainee received a treatable injury. An injury does not automatically equate to the use of excessive force. Additionally, based on the significant associations that exist between the type of detainee resistance and the officers’ use of force, responding officers are demonstrating their understanding of the principles of escalation and de-escalation of force measures.
Administrators are responsible for providing their officers with ongoing training to job tasks. This research has not only shown the types of detainee resistance officers’ encounter but has shown the circumstances, locations, and frequency of its occurrence. Such training should be ongoing and address the realities of the incidents officers confront.
Officer safety and force techniques
Based on the nature of detainee resistance officers should receive ongoing training in enhancing their skills in cuing into human behaviors. The findings show that encounters follow common patterns of combinations of detainee resistance. Further, having the ability to cue into non-physical and/or physical behaviors of resistance can enhance decision making regarding when to use verbal intervention strategies and how to approach an agitated detainee.
Personal safety training issues should be addressed on a regular basis which can assist the officers in executing their duties competently and confidently by addressing the following: the reactionary gap and reaction time, use of verbal intervention strategies, responding to the chemically and mentally ill detainee, cuing into assault behaviors, conducting escorts inside and outside of the facility, performing forced cell extractions, de-escalation intervention strategies, edge weapon defense, force equipment, restraints/restraint chair, policies and procedures, and health care response. Officers should continue to be diligent in maximizing their safety when confronted with a volatile situation by keeping appraised of their operating environment, circumstance dynamics, access to necessary force equipment, and access to other officers.
The study showed that officers frequently wrestle with a detainee. Officers should receive training which incorporates ground avoidance and ground fighting techniques. Such training should be conducted regularly and designed for one officer engaged with one detainee and multiple officers engaged with one detainee. Study findings showed that when multiple officers responded to an altercation officer injuries were reduced. Training should be designed and conducted which trains a coordinated response by multiple officers in the use of control techniques and force equipment. It is recommended that after a combative altercation, officers should apply handcuffs to ensure the officers and the detainee’s safety and a search of the detainee should be performed.
The findings also illustrated that 20% of the forced cell extractions were performed with only two officers, which resulted in more frequent officer injury. Performing this type of task is dangerous and to maximize officer safety 3 to 4 trained officers, suited in proper equipment, should perform the task. Forced cell extraction training should be conducted on a regular basis.
In the past questions and lawsuits have emerged about the proper use of aerosols, the TASER, and the use of varying restraints, including the restraint chair, suggesting that such equipment has been used excessively resulting in an increase likelihood of detainee injury or death. Study findings indicate that such questions are baseless.
The findings support that when such equipment is appropriately and properly used detainee and officer injuries were minimized. They underscore the manufactures design and specifications for using such equipment, that being to safely control combative persons.
Additional training should be directed toward keeping officers physical control skills honed and their competency in the use of fore equipment. Dynamic scenario-based training should be provided on a regular basis which is designed around the types of detainee resistance, the circumstances, and locations where such resistance is common.
Liability Issues
Finally, officers should receive training on the constitutional standards and responsibilities pertinent to the use of force in detention facilities. Training should be provided at two levels. First, supervisors need training on the legal parameters of using force and their responsibility of supervising officers and their applications of using force. Such training should address how the agency can place them in the best defensible position to defend a claim of “excessive force.” Second, officers should receive training regarding their own responsibilities when deciding to use a particular level of force. Training should address how the courts review cases of excessive force and apply constitutional and state standards to claims of excessive force.
Additional Resources
Use of Force Training
The use of less lethal weapons in corrections
by Sgt. John StanleyGround defense for correctional officers by Dave Young
- Policy
Training staff on policies and procedures
by Marty Drapkin Officer Safety and Force Techniques
Wall stabilization: Don’t end up on the ground
by Gary Klugiewicz10 liability issues factors influencing the use of force in a correctional institution
by Gary Klugiewicz
