help with research paper
Bassmy
art_2.pdf
Listen to me! Police officers’ views of appropriate use of force
Eugene A. Paoline, IIIa* and William Terrillb
aDepartment of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, P.O. Box 161600, Orlando, FL 32816, USA; bSchool of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 532 Baker Hall,
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
(Received 15 April 2011; final version received 5 July 2011)
Police use of force research has concentrated heavily on officer behavior. Much of what is known from the attitudinal side has tended to focus on officers’ views of excessive force. We currently lack a clear understanding of officers’ beliefs regarding the everyday application of less lethal force. Utilizing survey data collected as part of a national multi-agency use of force project, the current study addresses this empirical void by allowing patrol officers to choose, irrespective of their departmental guidelines, what they believe to be appropriate forms of force in dealing with different levels of non-compliance. Somewhat surprisingly, the findings reveal a natural progression in terms of a use of force continuum, whereby patrol officers are rather conservative in their force options relative to citizen resistance. Based on the survey responses, a model is constructed that depicts an officer-based use of force continuum.
Keywords: police; officer attitudes; use of force; chemical sprays; conducted energy devices
Introduction
In their dealings with citizens, police are granted coercive power. The interplay between the various hands and weapon-based tactics, relative to the degree of citizen resistance, shape departmental less lethal use of force policies, which are designed to assist officers in applying the appropriate amount of force for the situation encountered. Interestingly, we currently lack a commonly agreed upon (by practitioners or scholars) model of less lethal use of force policy, and instead find great variation across American police agencies, especially in terms of the ranking of various types of force (Terrill and Paoline 2006).
Recent concerns over the use of chemical sprays (e.g., oleoresin capsicum) and conducted energy devices (CEDs; e.g., TASER) have focused on the citizen resistance officers should encounter before deploying such weapons, as well as where these weapons be placed (relative to each other and other types of force) on the continuum (Adams and Jennison 2007). Such decisions are ultimately left up to the discretion of police administrators, who filter external feedback from national organizations (e.g., the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies and the International Association of Chiefs of Police), the media, judges,
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Journal of Crime and Justice Vol. 34, No. 3, November 2011, 178–189
ISSN 0735-648X print/ISSN 2158-9119 online ! 2011 Midwestern Criminal Justice Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2011.609740 http://www.tandfonline.com
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
and citizens (McEwen 1997, Adams 1999). Largely ignored, in developing and revising use of force policies, is input from patrol officers. This is unfortunate given that these organizational members are arguably the most knowledgeable internal sources of force information available.
The current study seeks to augment existing use of force knowledge by examining patrol officer attitudes with respect to the types of force they believe are most appropriate, irrespective of agency policy, when dealing with citizens displaying varying forms of resistance (compliance, verbal, passive, non-assaultive physical, and assaultive physical). In doing so, we utilize survey data collected as part of a national multi-method multi-agency use of force project. To date, studies of the routine use of coercion have concentrated heavily on police behavior, and most empirical examinations of force attitudes have focused on excessive force. In contrast, we take a look at a more fundamental issue, by asking officers to provide insight regarding the day-to-day force that they apply. In the end, this research allows for an officer-based assessment of a use of force continuum whereby hands and weapons- based tactics are ordered relative to forms of citizen non-compliance.
Police use of force appropriateness
While it is well established that as agents of social control the police are legally authorized to use force against citizens, the manner in which this coercive power is applied has been the subject of intense public scrutiny. The bulk of such concerns have focused on discussions over how much force is appropriate for the situation at hand. As such, in administering force, the police must determine not only when to use it, but how much of it to use. Not surprisingly, concerns over excessive force have worked to generate a number of research inquiries (e.g., Chevigny 1969, Carter 1976, Christopher 1991, Skolnick and Fyfe 1993, Martin et al. 1994, Klockars 1996, Micucci and Gomme 2005).
A critical component in assessing the appropriate amount of force by police is the level of citizen resistance encountered (Terrill 2001). For example, if a citizen fails to comply with a police request by going limp (i.e., passive resistance), the amount of force that a police officer is expected to apply is considerably less than if a citizen attempts to strike an officer with a baseball bat (i.e., assaultive resistance) to avoid apprehension. In determining how much force to use across the various con- tingencies of police–citizen encounters, officers are instructed via their agency’s less lethal use of force policy.
Interestingly, among American police departments, there is no universally agreed upon use of force policy. In fact, policies on force can vary dramatically from agency to agency. In a recent national survey of American police departments, Terrill et al. (2011) found that use of force policies were more likely to vary in terms of the ranking of various force tactics rather than policy design. More specifically, while over three-quarters (82.5%) of the agencies utilized a use of force continuum, 72.5% revealed that they employed a linear model over an alternative design (e.g., matrix/box, wheel, etc.), although the placement of the various force tactics (i.e., hands and weapons) within the policy varied greatly. So, in one agency it might be acceptable to utilize a CED, but not chemical spray, on someone that is pulling their arms away from the police to avoid being handcuffed (i.e., defensive resistance), while in another it is inappropriate to utilize the CED, but chemical spray is permitted. The point here is that agencies are given
Journal of Crime and Justice 179
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
autonomy, via their policy, to instruct their officers in using force. The lack of a universally shared policy on force could be a function of the fact that there is currently no commonly accepted ranking of force by researchers or practitioners, nor is there a policy that has been empirically shown to be better than others (Terrill and Paoline 2010).
The importance of use of force policies cannot be overstated, as they are not only designed to instruct officers as to when to use different types of force, but are also used to assess, ex post facto, whether the officer used proper force. Police administrators are largely responsible for constructing force policies, and then using the policy when determining force appropriateness (McEwen 1997).1 In the event that an officer’s inappropriate use of force reaches the court, judges may consider the officer’s departmental policy in making their decision. External judges may thus indirectly affect policy with their decisions (Adams 1999). Citizens too may respond to and affect an agency’s use of force policy, as recent examples of concerns over CEDs have led to some departments deciding against implementing the weapons, moving it on the continuum, or removing it from use (Terrill and Paoline 2006, Adams and Jennison 2007). Curiously absent is substantive input from the line officer, the street-level bureaucrat (Lipsky 1980), who is charged with applying the policy on a daily basis while also considering the concerns of police administrators, judges, and citizens (Terrill and Paoline 2010).
Police officer attitudes
The attitudes of police officers have long been used by scholars to help develop theories about police (Worden 1989). While the majority of police use of force inquiries have concentrated on the behavioral side, the attitudinal component, while receiving less empirical attention, is equally important. In explaining this point, Lester notes, ‘Not only do these attitudes play a role in determining the use of force by police, but the attitudes held by police officers can also function as a barometer of changes in police use of force’ (1996, p. 180). With respect to the use of force, attitudinal studies have concentrated on excessive force (Carter 1976, Martin et al. 1994, Micucci and Gomme 2005), deadly force (Brown 1983), the basis for using force (Westley 1970), and the ability to integrate force into one’s working style (Muir 1977).
To date, the only published study of officers’ perceptions of less lethal force is the work of Weisburd et al. (2000). Based on a national survey of police (N ¼ 925) from 121 police agencies, Weisburd et al. (2000) examined officers’ attitudes toward the use of force in general, as part of their abuse of authority study. When asked whether police were permitted to administer enough force in making arrests, over two-thirds of the respondents agreed that they exercised enough power to do so. In addition, roughly three-quarters of the officers disagreed that it is acceptable to use more force than what is legally permitted to control someone that assaults an officer. Interestingly, approximately 43% of the responding officers explained that following the rules is not always compatible with getting the job done. Overall, these results suggest that there is variation in the agreement among officers regarding the legally or administratively permissible force. What we do not know, based on this work, are the exact points (i.e., types of force encounters) for which officers might require more (or less) force or where following the rules do not coincide with getting their job done.
180 E.A. Paoline, III and W. Terrill
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
Current inquiry
The current inquiry examines officers’ views of appropriate force options across different types of police–citizen encounters. Utilizing surveys of over 2300 officers across eight police agencies, this study allows for an assessment of what officers believe to be, irrespective of their force policy, the acceptable ways to deal with a variety of resistant citizens. Force options relative to citizen resistance encountered have been at the heart of discussions over excessive use of force, as well as more recent debates over the proper placement of weapon-based tactics (i.e., chemical sprays and CEDs) (Terrill and Paoline forthcoming). The current study elicits input from the source – patrol officers, allowing them to hypothetically make the rules for force. Observational studies of police behavior have found that police tend to apply less force than what is permitted (Terrill 2005), although, to date, we do not know if this is merely a function of the organizational restrictions on the officer (i.e., it is safer in terms of individual responsibility to go with less) or if this is what officers truly believe. What follows is an empirical assessment of such beliefs.
Methodology
Data
The data for the current inquiry are drawn from the Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes project, a large-scale, multi-method study involving a host of force issues (e.g., reporting mechanisms, officer perceptions, degree of force usage, injuries, complaints, lawsuits, etc.). The initial phase of this project consisted of researchers surveying a nationally representative stratified random sample of 1083 police agencies, of which 662 responded. Eight agencies were then selected for deeper exploration as part of the second phase of the project, and include: Columbus, Ohio; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina; Portland, Oregon; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Colorado Springs, Colorado; St. Petersburg, Florida; Knoxville, Tennessee; and Fort Wayne, Indiana. While the project gathered a variety of survey (i.e., agency, patrol officer, patrol sergeant) and official (i.e., use of force reports, com- plaint records, civil litigation, training, arrests, calls for service, crime) data, this study relies exclusively on the surveys of patrol officers.
With the exception of one site,2 the patrol officer survey was administered during organizational roll call sessions, by trained project staff, before the start of the officers’ shifts. In administering the survey, project staff were on-site for a week to 10 days where the goal was to visit every patrol shift, across each geographic location, at least twice.3 Project staff coordinated with each agency to obtain an official roster of patrol officer assignments in order to develop a structured plan for survey administration. Roll call supervisors were aware, via an email or phone call from our agency contacts, that surveys were going to be conducted, although they did not always know the exact day of our visits. Once at the roll calls, researchers gave a brief overview of the project, explained that participation was voluntary, discussed human subject protections, and informed about confidentiality assurances. Officer surveys were returned to project staff before the end of each roll call. Those who did not take the survey were either physically absent or declined to participate.
Our aim was to survey a population of police officers assigned to patrol assignments. Across the eight agencies there were 3461 officers that were located on the official departmental patrol rosters, and thus ‘expected’ to be at roll calls. Even though there was an a priori plan in place to survey the patrol population
Journal of Crime and Justice 181
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
around scheduled days off, what we could not control for were those who took an unscheduled day off, attended court, in training, were injured, on military duty, suspended, or were not present due to some other circumstance.4 In the end, there were 2419 patrol officers that were physically present during our survey periods. Cumulatively, 2335 patrol officers completed the survey for a response rate of 96.5% of those that were present to be surveyed at departmental roll calls (and in-service training in Fort Wayne), and 67.5% of the official count of patrol personnel.
Force and citizen resistance measures
The initial sections of the survey concentrated on asking officers a series of questions about their agency’s policy in terms of assistance, restrictiveness, clarity, guidance, and review fairness. Officers were asked to assess their policy both overall as well as within the context of dealing with five varying types of resistant suspects (i.e., compliant, verbal, passive, non-assaultive physical, and assaultive physical). Officers were then asked to offer their views on the types of force they deem appropriate irrespective of their agency’s policy. More specifically, the instructions for this section of the survey read ‘In terms of dealing with the following types of resistant citizens, please indicate which of the following responses YOU believe are appropriate, irrespective of what XXPD’s policy states, by placing a check (!) next to ALL THAT APPLY.’ We bolded and italicized parts of these instructions to draw officers’ attention to the fact that we wanted them to give us their views, opposed to what their agency policy dictates. The actions included for officers to check were: verbal direction other than commands/threats (e.g., questioning), verbal commands and threats, pain compliance techniques (e.g., pressure point control), soft empty- hand techniques (e.g., grabbing, shoving), hard empty-hand techniques (e.g., striking with fists), chemical-irritant sprays (e.g., oleoresin capsicum), electronic devices (e.g., TASER1), baton (e.g., Armament Systems and ProceduresTM [ASP]), and projectile launchers (e.g., beanbag).5
Findings
Table 1 illustrates the percentage of officers identifying the types of force they believe are appropriate across the varying types of resistance. In assessing appropriate forms of force, we rely on majority agreement among respondents. In terms of dealing with compliant citizens (i.e., those who did not resist the officer), only the use of verbal direction (97.5%) garnered enough officers to reach a majority. The next most frequently listed force type was verbal commands/threats at 46.6%. Few officers felt that any other form of force should be permitted when encountering compliant citizens.
In relation to verbal resistance (e.g., refusing to comply with an officer’s requests or commands by stating that they ‘did nothing wrong’), three types of officer behavior received majority support from officers (verbal direction, commands/ threats, and soft hand tactics). These were followed by pain compliance, which was listed by 44.1% of the officers as appropriate. After that, the drop off was rather substantial, as the next most frequently reported form of force was chemical spray with roughly just one in five officers viewing this as acceptable.
With respect to passive resistance (e.g., ignoring an officer’s requests or commands and/or going limp), four forms of officer behavior received majority
182 E.A. Paoline, III and W. Terrill
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
support from officers (verbal direction, commands/threats, soft hand tactics, and pain compliance techniques). Beyond these four force types, there was generally little support for any of the remaining force options. For example, the next most frequently cited acceptable form of force was chemical spray, listed by just 17.3% of the officers.
Turning to citizens displaying some form of non-assaultive physical resistance (e.g., physically attempting to avoid control by pinning one’s hands under their body to thwart being handcuffed), we once again see that only the use of verbal direction, commands/threats, soft hand tactics, and pain compliance techniques are listed as appropriate forms of force by a majority of the officers (the same four listed for verbal resistance). However, there is a substantial increase in the percentage of officers identifying chemical spray (43.9%), a CED (33.8%), and even hard hand tactics (27.5%), as acceptable when dealing with a defensively resistant citizen as opposed to verbally or passively resistant citizens.
Finally, all forms of force received widespread support when officers are con- fronted with assaultive physical resistance (e.g., attacking an officer or another citizen). Only the use of a projectile launcher (e.g., an impact munitions such as a beanbag) failed to reach into the 80 and 90% range.
Beyond a simple reporting of officer percentages, we are able to glean a great deal of insight from this table. In particular, there appears to be four broad-based conclusions one can reasonably make. First, a natural progression emerges in terms of a force continuum. Specifically, there is general agreement (based on officer frequency percentages) that verbal control is the beginning point on the continuum, followed by low-level hands on force in the form of soft hand tactics and pain compliance techniques, followed by the use of a chemical spray and CED, followed by hard hand tactics, followed by the baton and a projectile launcher. While such an ordinal ranking of force may seem somewhat trivial (or obvious) to a casual observer, as previously indicated, police agencies currently struggle quite a bit with how to rank force on a continuum (Terrill et al. 2011). Moreover, organizations particularly struggle with where to place chemical sprays and CEDs (often trying to
Table 1. Percentage of officers identifying appropriateness of force per type of citizen resistance.
Officer force
Citizen resistance
Compliant (N ¼ 2304)
Verbal (N ¼ 2315)
Passive (N ¼ 2306)
Non-assaultive physical
(N ¼ 2302)
Assaultive physical
(N ¼ 2316)
Verbal direction 97.5 87.2 87.5 84.6 77.0 Verbal command/ threats
46.6 95.0 92.9 91.4 87.2
Soft empty hands 16.7 71.9 76.8 85.1 81.6 Pain compliance techniques
7.9 44.1 60.4 75.6 87.6
Chemical spray 3.8 20.6 17.3 43.9 92.1 Conducted energy device
3.1 11.7 9.0 33.8 91.7
Hard empty hands 2.6 7.6 6.0 27.5 90.1 Baton 1.6 2.2 2.8 10.9 83.3 Projectile launcher 1.8 2.3 2.3 6.9 62.1
Journal of Crime and Justice 183
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
figure out the extent to which they want officers to use some form of ‘hands on’ force prior to, or after the deployment, of these weapons). Interestingly, when street-level officers are asked (as they were here), they appear to indicate a clear preference for where they believe these two weapons should be placed – after lower-level hands on force (i.e., soft, pain compliance), but before the use of hard hand tactics or another impact weapon such as the baton or projectile launcher.
To place this finding into proper context, consider the aforementioned initial phase of the Assessing Police Use of Force Policy and Outcomes study where we administered a national police agency mail survey to identify the varying types of force polices that exist. As part of this effort we asked agencies to identify whether they use a force continuum, and if so the progression of force. What we found was that a large majority of agencies do use a force continuum, but struggle with where various force options should be placed on the continuum. Moreover, chemical spray and CEDs offered the greatest challenge for police administrators as to proper placement. For example, roughly a third of the agencies placed chemical spray just after verbal force or in combination with soft hands force, a third placed it with hard hand tactics, and yet another third placed it along with a number of other impact weapons (e.g., CED, baton, projectile launcher). Compared to chemical spray, there was somewhat less variation in terms of CED placement, although certainly no clear consensus. While nearly 60% of the agencies placed a CED at the impact weapon level, 25% placed it at the same level as hard empty-hand tactics, with another 13% placing it at the same level as pain compliance techniques (see Terrill et al. 2011).
A second general finding one can quickly deduce is that a pattern exists at the two ends of the citizen resistance continuum/columns (i.e., compliant and assaultive physical). When dealing with compliant citizens, officers overwhelmingly believe such incidents should be handled without the use of physical hands on force or a weapon. Conversely, when dealing with assaultive citizens a large majority of officers generally believe all forms of force behavior are permitted. Such a finding is not overly surprising as we posit that few people (inside or outside of policing) would view the use of physical force as acceptable behavior when interacting with a compliant citizen, just as many people would expect the police to exhaust nearly all means available to them when faced with someone who is physically attacking them or someone else.
Third, officers generally view verbal and passive resistance as fairly similar, with a few exceptions. The main difference is found in the pain compliance force option. While 44.1% of the officers believe pain compliance techniques are appropriate for verbally resistant citizens, the percentage increases to 60.4% for passively resistant citizens. We suspect this is probably due to officer training on how to deal with controlling protestors who passively resist. A few smaller differences are found as well. For instance, slightly more officers believe that the use of chemical spray, CED, and hard hand tactics are acceptable when encountering citizens who verbally resist opposed to passively resist. However, the percentages are still fairly low (20.6, 11.7, and 7.6%, respectively).
Fourth, it is not until a citizen becomes physically resistant that officers more widely view the use of chemical spray, CED, and hard hand tactics as appropriate force responses. For example, the percentage of officers who believe that chemical spray is an appropriate option more than doubles when moving from verbal (20.6%) to non-assaultive physically resistant citizens (43.9%), nearly triples with respect to CEDs (11.7% to 33.8%), and nearly quadruples in terms of hard hand tactics
184 E.A. Paoline, III and W. Terrill
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
(7.6% to 27.5%). Even baton use gets a fivefold increase, although the overall percentage is relatively small (2.2% to 10.9%). Still, it is important to point out that a majority of officers do not view anything more than low-level hands on force (i.e., soft hands/pain compliance) as appropriate until a citizen becomes assaultive. Once this occurs, we see that the percentage of officers viewing chemical spray, CED, and hard hand tactics as appropriate jumps into the 90 percentile, baton use goes to 83.3%, and even the use of a projectile launcher receives majority support (62.1%).
Officer-based force continuum model
Given the manner in which we systematically queried over 2300 street-level officers across eight different agencies as to their views concerning appropriate forms of force in relation to varying levels of citizen resistance, we are presented with a unique opportunity: to develop and illustrate an officer-based force continuum model. Drawing on the percentages reported in Table 1, the model depicted in Figure 1 illustrates not only the order of force options, but how such types of force should be ‘loosely’ linked to various forms of citizen resistance. That is, the appropriate types of force given the varying levels of resistance shown in Figure 1 are simply based on a majority percentage of officer beliefs. For example, when dealing with verbally resistant suspects, a majority of officers indicate that verbal direction (87.2%), commands/threats (95.0%), and soft hand (71.9%) force are appropriate. While a substantial percentage of officers (44.1%) believe pain compliance techniques are also appropriate when dealing with verbally resistant suspects, it is not until officers are faced with passively resistant suspects that a majority of officers indicated support for pain compliance (60.4%). Hence, note in Figure 1 that we draw the line for pain compliance between verbal and passive resistance. Of course it is important to note, as with any force continuum, determining an appropriate response is not confined solely to citizen resistance, but must also be placed within the context of any number of situational factors (e.g., suspect height/weight, perceived mental state, drug/alcohol use, seriousness of offense, presence of weapon, etc.). Thus, one must consider this model with these alternative factors in mind and understand that any force continuum must be fluid in practice.
Figure 1. Officer-based use of force continuum.
Journal of Crime and Justice 185
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
As shown in Figure 1, officers should primarily deal with compliant citizens with no more than verbal direction (e.g., discussion, questioning). If a citizen is initially, or becomes, verbally or passively resistant, officers may move to soft empty-hand tactics and perhaps to pain compliance techniques (more so when presented with passive resistance). The use of a chemical spray or CED should be considered sparingly, but may still be a reasonable option depending on the situation (e.g., the citizen is large in stature, the citizen is making irrational or threatening statements, there are many bystanders who appear to pose a threat, etc.). The use of a hard empty-hand tactic, baton, or projectile launcher should be avoided barring an extreme situational factor justifying such use (e.g., the citizen verbalizes a bomb threat and appears to have the capacity to carry it out in an imminent manner).
As a citizen progresses to, or initially presents, some type of non-assaultive resistance, officers are still expected to use a verbal form of communication or lower- level hands on force (e.g., soft empty-hand or pain compliance techniques) as the primary means to seek compliance. However, the use of chemical spray, CED, and hard empty-hand tactics – in this order – become more appropriate options. Moreover, this is not to say if an officer uses a CED or hard hand tactic on a defensively resistant citizen, before attempting lower forms of force, that such force would necessarily be unreasonable. Once again, this would be situationally dictated. However, all else being equal, most officers believe (as reported in Table 1) that they should be able to control non-assaultive resistant citizens with no more than low- level hands on force. Once a citizen becomes assaultive, officers are permitted to use all available means of force in an attempt to establish control (reserving the use of a projectile launcher as a less desirable option).
Discussion
It is clear, from the percentages reported in Table 1, and the corresponding model continuum shown in Figure 1, that officers are quite reserved in their views of force. We might even go so far as to say that the majority of street-level officers are more conservative in their views, as to what is and what is not reasonable force, than how police organizations presently conceptualize and implement the force continuum. While space constraints preclude a detailed accounting of our national agency survey noted above, the majority of agencies that reported using a force continuum (and provided a detailed accounting of force and resistance progression, N ¼ 476) appear to have one that is less restrictive than the model officer continuum. In fact, all else being equal, the findings show that unless one assaults a police officer or another citizen, most officers believe that anything more than simple restraint or pain compliance would be inappropriate. We would suppose this speaks highly of the police in at least two respects. First, that they have great confidence in their ability/ skills to control all citizens except those posing the greatest physical threat. And second, that this is a sign of professionalism, a state vigorously ascribed to for much of the past century.
While police practitioners and scholars, interested in accountability issues, would be pleased with the findings that the majority of patrol officers are not interested in pushing the limits of their coercive power, there is also evidence that not all officers feel this way. That is, there were officers (albeit few) that responded that hard hand techniques and weapons are appropriate for citizens that do not exert resistance in a physical manner (i.e., compliant, verbal, and passive). From an accountability
186 E.A. Paoline, III and W. Terrill
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
standpoint, officers with these orientations may present problems for police agencies in terms of their attitudes toward (and dealings with) citizens.
The present work, while offering a rare glimpse at officer attitudes toward non- lethal force, is not without its limitations. While our roll call survey administration allowed us to efficiently survey many officers at once, future approaches might focus on extended interviews with patrol officers in gaining deeper insight into cognitive justifications for their use of force orientations. For example, researchers could tease out the potential influence of the situational factors (e.g., suspect height/weight, perceived mental state, drug/alcohol use, seriousness of offense, presence of weapon, etc.) present in many use of force policies, and how they might influence use of force attitudes relative to citizen resistance. Moreover, researchers could also examine the potential impact of internal (e.g., police policies, training, administration, peers, etc.) and external (e.g., courts, media, public pressure, etc.) factors in shaping officers’ coercive attitudes. Finally, research could examine the role of officer experience in forming attitudes about the use of force. Such research could also assist in our understanding as to the way(s) in which coercive attitudes might change (or be stagnant) over the course of one’s career. Such empirical questions were not addressed in the current study, and if answered would lead to a more enriched understanding of police officers’ views of coercion.
Another logical question, and appropriate extension of the work presented here, is the extent to which these attitudes about the use of force translate to street-level behavior. That is, is this model purely attitudinal or would officers be willing to apply these coercive orientations toward citizens? The most straightforward answer is that we simply do not know. First, as mentioned previously in the review of the literature, studies devoted solely to officer attitudes toward less lethal force are rare, and thus examinations connecting them to behaviors are currently nonexistent. Second, among police (and general social science) studies, few empirical links between attitudes and behaviors have been found. The lack of statistical connections has been attributed to improper measurement of attitudes, behaviors or both (Frank and Brandl 1991, Worden 1995). The closest attitude–behavior connection currently available in the force area is the work of Terrill et al. (2003) that utilized Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN) data from St. Petersburg and Indianapolis to examine the relationship between police culture orientations and the use of coercion. The findings revealed that officers that endorsed the attitudes of the traditional police culture were more coercive toward suspects than those that differentially aligned with the culture.6 While the attitudes that Terrill et al. (2003) utilized were related to the use of force (e.g., aggressiveness and crime-fighting role orientation), they did not directly tap this concept. The current study seeks to augment such research, in shedding light on the first part of the equation. We believe these findings would be greatly enhanced if they could be connected to behavioral patterns on the street.
Notes
1. As McEwen (1997, p. 42) appropriately points out, administrators are not totally autonomous in constructing their use of force policy, as national organizations (e.g., the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies and the International Association of Chiefs of Police) have developed rough guidelines for agencies to consider. Moreover, state laws and local police philosophies might also play a part in a given agency’s use of force policy. Finally, administrators must consider, in developing policies and determining appropriateness, boundaries set forth by the US Supreme Court for
Journal of Crime and Justice 187
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
deadly force [i.e., the standard of imminent death or serious injury to the officer or citizens from a fleeing suspect of Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)], as well as the use of force in general [i.e., the standard of objective reasonableness of Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)].
2. Fort Wayne Police Department did not use a roll call system, thus we coordinated with the department’s annual in-service training and administered the survey during these training sessions.
3. The exact survey period varied per agency, with a range of September 2007 to June 2008. 4. Unfortunately, we were only able to officially document whether the officer was present or
not at a given roll call. This decision was largely a manpower issue, as a project staff member was responsible for administering surveys to the entire shift of officers. This meant that the staff member had to efficiently introduce the survey to personnel, read off all ‘expected’ officer names, and pass out (and collect) the 116 question survey. In terms of potential patterns of ‘missing’ officers, anecdotally there was no indication that officers were absent for any one reason over another (e.g., military leave versus court). We did find that departmental size and the numbers of precincts/divisions (i.e., spatial differentiation) were related to officer absences, as smaller, more centralized agencies, where it was tougher to absorb the loss of street personnel, were less inclined to have officers with unscheduled days off.
5. Cuffing, flashlight, and deadly force were also listed as options. Cuffing and deadly force are not included in the present study, while flashlight was included and treated the same as baton use.
6. In another attitude–behavior study, utilizing the same POPN data, Paoline and Terrill (2005) found that officers that endorsed the mandates of the traditional police culture were also more likely to engage in traffic stop searches than those officers who did not.
Notes on contributors
Eugene A. Paoline, III is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida. He holds a Ph.D. in criminal justice from the University at Albany, State University of New York. His research interests include police culture, police use of force, and occupational attitudes of criminal justice practitioners. Dr. Paoline is the author of Rethinking Police Culture (2001, LFB Scholarly Publishing), and recently completed a National Institute of Justice grant geared toward examining the variation in American less- lethal use of force policies and the various outcomes associated with the different policies.
William Terrill is an Associate Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. His research centers on police behavior, with an emphasis on police use of force policies and practices. He has published numerous scholarly articles, chapters, and reports, as well as a book entitled Police Coercion: Application of the Force Continuum (2001, LFB Scholarly Publishing). Dr. Terrill recently completed a National Institute of Justice grant geared toward examining the variation in American less-lethal use of force policies and the various outcomes associated with the different policies. He earned his Ph.D. in 2000 from the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, Newark.
References
Adams, K., 1999. A research agenda on police use of force. In: Use of force by police: overview of national and local data. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 61–74.
Adams, K. and Jennison, V., 2007. What we do not know about police use of tasers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 447–465.
Brown, M.F., 1983. Shooting policies: what patrolmen think. Police Chief, 50, 35–37. Carter, D.L., 1976. Police brutality. In: A.S. Blumberg and E. Niederhoffer, eds. The
ambivalent force. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 321–330. Chevigny, P., 1969. Police power: police abuses in New York City. New York: Pantheon. Christopher, W., 1991. Report of the independent commission on the Los Angeles Police
Department. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles. Frank, J. and Brandl, S., 1991. The police attitude–behavior relationship: methodological and
conceptual considerations. American Journal of Police, 10, 83–103.
188 E.A. Paoline, III and W. Terrill
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
Klockars, C.B., 1996. A theory of excessive force and its control. In: W.A. Geller and H.H. Toch, eds. Police violence: understanding and controlling police abuse of force. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1–22.
Lester, D., 1996. Officer attitudes toward police use of force. In: W.A. Geller and H.H. Toch, eds. Police violence: understanding and controlling police abuse of force. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 180–190.
Lipsky, M., 1980. Street level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.
Martin, C., Bensinger, P.B., and Baker, T.F., 1994. Illinois municipal officers’ perceptions of police ethics. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.
McEwen, T., 1997. Policies on less-than-lethal force in law enforcement agencies. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 20, 39–59.
Micucci, A.J. and Gomme, I.M., 2005. American police and subcultural support for the use of excessive force. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 487–500.
Muir, W.K., Jr., 1977. Police: streetcorner politicians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Paoline, E.A., III and Terrill, W., 2005. The impact of police culture on traffic stop searches:
an analysis of attitudes and behavior. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 28, 455–472.
Skolnick, J.H. and Fyfe, J.J., 1993. Above the law: police and the excessive use of force. New York: The Free Press.
Terrill, W., 2001. Police coercion: application of the force continuum. New York: LFB Publishing.
Terrill, W., 2005. Police use of force: a transactional approach. Justice Quarterly, 22, 107–138. Terrill, W. and Paoline, E.A., III, 2006. Police use of force policy types: results from a national
agency survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology 1–4 November 2006, Los Angeles.
Terrill, W. and Paoline, E.A., III, 2010. Non-lethal force by police in the United States: the various lenses through which appropriateness is examined. In: J.B. Kuhns and J. Knutsson, eds. Police use of force: a global perspective. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 6–13.
Terrill, W. and Paoline, E.A., III, forthcoming. Conducted energy devices (CEDs) and citizen injuries: the shocking empirical reality. Justice Quarterly.
Terrill, W., Paoline, E.A., III, and Ingram, J., 2011. Assessing police use of force policy and outcomes: final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Terrill, W., Paoline, E.A., III, and Manning, P.K., 2003. Police culture and coercion. Criminology, 41, 1003–1034.
Weisburd, D., Greenspan, R., Hamilton, E.E., Williams, H., and Bryant, K.A., 2000. Police attitudes toward abuse of authority: findings from a national study. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Westley, W.A., 1970. Violence and the police: a sociological study of law, custom, and morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Worden, R.E., 1989. Situational and attitudinal explanations of police behavior: a theoretical reappraisal and empirical assessment. Law & Society Review, 23, 667–711.
Worden, R.E., 1995. Police officers’ belief systems: a framework for analysis. American Journal of Police, 14, 49–81.
Journal of Crime and Justice 189
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [U
ni ve
rs ity
o f M
is so
ur i -
S t L
ou is
] a t 2
1: 22
1 9
N ov
em be
r 2 01
4
