The use of force between the police and persons with impaired judgment

10.1177/1098611103253456ARTICLEPOLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 7, No. 3, September 2004)Kaminski et al. / USE OF FORCE

THE USE OF FORCE

BETWEEN THE POLICE AND

PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED JUDGMENT

ROBERT J. KAMINSKIUniversity of South Carolina

CLETE DIGIOVANNINational Naval Medical Center

RAYMOND DOWNSNational Institute of Justice

This article examines the effects of perceived impaired judgment due to men-tal illness, drugs, or alcohol among a sample of arrestees on police use offorce and other outcomes. Using a combined measure of impairment,bivariate analysis of more than 2,000 arrests made by officers from a largesoutheastern municipal police department suggests that persons with per-ceived impaired judgment were only mildly problematic for police in thisstudy. Multiple regression analysis of the effects of perceived judgmentalimpairment on use of force indicates it significantly increased the odds thathigher levels of force were used, but the influence of this factor was less thanthe influence of other factors commonly examined in use-of-force studies.Additional analysis using a disaggregated measure of perceived impairedjudgment reveals that the significant effect of the combined measure is a func-tion of suspected drug intoxication rather than suspected alcohol intoxica-tion or mental illness.

Keywords: police; use of force; impairment; drugs; alcohol; mental illness

Most experienced police officers can recount at least one particularlyviolent encounter with a suspect impaired by intoxicating substances ormental illness. These impaired individuals sometimes are reported to pos-sess extraordinary strength and to be immune to the effects of a variety of

POLICE QUARTERLY Vol. 7 No. 3, September 2004 311–338DOI: 10.1177/1098611103253456© 2004 Sage Publications

less-lethal weapons (e.g., pepper spray, baton strikes, beanbag rounds).Gaining control of these persons, therefore, requires substantial effort onthe part of police, and, unfortunately, in some cases the use of deadly forceis necessary.

Although persons whose judgment is impaired from mental illness orintoxicating substances do not necessarily resist police or become vio-lent when confronted, police are concerned about interactions with theseindividuals.

Two situations that often give police officers cause for concern are whensuspects appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs and whencivilians appear to suffer from serious mental or emotional impairments.The concern stems from the fact that in such situations a person’s rationalfaculties appear impaired. In dealing with problem situations, officers mostoften talk their way, rather than force their way, into solutions. For thisreason, when a civilian is in a highly irrational state of mind, the chancesof the police officer having to use force presumably increase and the possi-bility of injury to both officer and civilian increases as well (Adams, 1999,p. 7).

These concerns are valid as there is evidence that arrests of personsimpaired by mental illness, drugs, and/or alcohol are common. Substan-tially more than half of male arrestees in urban areas are impaired by illicitdrugs or psychiatric disorders such as dementia or schizophrenia (Taylor,Fitzgerald, Hunt, Reardon, & Brownstein, 2001; Teplin, 2000), and manystudies show that police encounters with impaired persons are more likelyto involve the use of force than are encounters with unimpaired persons(Crawford & Burns, 1998; Friedrich, 1980; Engel, Sobol, & Worden, 2000;Garner, Buchanan, Schade, & Hepburn, 1996; Garner & Maxwell, 2001;Garner, Maxwell, & Heraux, 2002; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002; Worden,1995; for exceptions, see Alpert & Dunham, 1999; Bayley & Garofalo,1989).

Studies of assaults on police indicate that the majority of police assail-ants are under the influence of drugs or alcohol or suffer from an emotionalor psychiatric disorder (Croft, 1985; Kaminski & Sorensen, 1995; Stetser,2001) and that attacks by mentally ill persons may more often result in

312 POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 7, No. 3, September 2004)

The opinions expressed are those of the authors, and they do not necessarily reflect the opinions or poli-cies of the National Institute of Justice or the Department of the Navy. Direct correspondence to Robert J.Kaminski. Robert J. Kaminski is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and CriminalJustice, University of South Carolina. He received his Ph.D in criminal justice from the University at Al-bany, State University of New York. His research interests are primarily in the areas of violence againstthe police, police use of force, and public perceptions of the police.

injury to police officers (Margarita, 1980). Other research shows thatarrestees under the influence of drugs are less susceptible to the effects ofoleoresin capsicum (OC) or “pepper spray,” whereas suspects under theinfluence of alcohol may be somewhat more susceptible (Kaminski,Edwards, & Johnson, 1999). Results from the same study suggest also thatmentally ill persons are less susceptible to the effects of OC, but the rela-tionship was less robust.

Despite substantial evidence suggesting a positive relationship betweenimpairment and use of force, there is substantial variability in findingswhen specific forms of impairment are examined. One study, for example,found mental impairment to be statistically unrelated to use of force (Terrill& Mastrofski, 2002), and another found drug and alcohol intoxication to beweak or insignificant predictors (Bayley & Garofalo, 1989, p. 9). Otherresearch, however, found statistically significant and positive associationsbetween alcohol impairment and use of force (Friedrich, 1980; Garneret al., 1996) but not drug impairment (Garner et al., 1996). Yet three otherstudies that used a combined measure of alcohol and drug intoxicationfound statistically significant and positive associations (Engel et al., 2000;Garner et al., 2002; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002).

Research on the relationship between impairment and use-of-forcerelated injuries found that suspects under the influence of alcohol or drugs(combined measure) were no more likely to injure police than sober sus-pects (Alpert & Dunham, 1999), and another study found no relationshipbetween assailant alcohol use and officer injury (Ellis, Choi, & Blaus,1993). Other research, however, suggests an inverse relationship betweenofficer injury and suspect alcohol use; for example, sober assailants weremore likely to injure officers than assailants under the influence of alcohol(Kaminski & Sorensen, 1995).

In summary, a clear association between impairment and use of force hasnot been established in the literature. This study seeks to help clarify therelationship by examining the effect of impairment on the likelihood thatforce is used during arrests, controlling for the effects of several other fac-tors. Impairment is entered into a regression model using a combined mea-sure as well as a disaggregated one to assess the independent effects ofdifferent types of impairment (drug intoxication, alcohol intoxication,mental illness).1 In addition, we examine bivariate relationships betweengeneral impairment and several other factors, such as the level of threat pre-sented by arrestees, arrestee escape behavior, the amount of physical effortpolice expend to effect arrests, the types of force used during encounters,the effectiveness of that force, officer and suspect injuries, and so forth.

Kaminski et al. / USE OF FORCE 313

DATA AND METHOD

This study was conducted in a large southeastern municipal policedepartment. The agency employed approximately 500 sworn officers andserved a population of about 200,000 persons at the time of data collection.New recruits receive several hours of training on how to handle mentallydisturbed persons and persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol.2

From August 2000 through February 2001, officers were asked to completea questionnaire on each person they arrested and booked; routine traffic vio-lations and other encounters that did not result in a booking of the prisoner(e.g., emergency commitments) were excluded from the survey.3

To promote consistency in the completion of the survey forms and to pro-mote officer cooperation, the instrument and the purpose of the researchwere discussed at all roll-calls at the inception of the study. We also accom-panied patrol officers on ride-alongs to further explain the research andallay suspicions regarding the project. Arresting officers gave completedquestionnaires to the jailer at a central booking facility at the time theyturned over prisoners, and the jailer put the questionnaires into a lockedbox. One officer, who had a key to the box, periodically emptied it andmailed the batch of completed forms to the study investigators.

The questionnaire (see Appendix A) was designed to be anonymous toincrease cooperation from officers and help ensure valid responses. Fromthe information requested, it was unlikely that arresting officers, arrestees,or incidents could be identified. Furthermore, the chief ordered that nosupervisor review the completed forms, and that order was understood bythe patrol officers as well as the department’s leadership.

During the 7-month study period, 2,227 persons were arrested by thedepartment and booked at the jail. The number of completed survey formsreceived was 2,060, providing an overall compliance of 92.5%.

MEASURES OF IMPAIRMENT

Arrestee impairment is defined as officers’ perceptions of whether sub-jects were mentally ill, on drugs, or intoxicated on alcohol. Arrestees whowere observed drinking or were thought to be only under the influence ofalcohol—but apparently were not intoxicated on alcohol—are not countedas being judgmentally impaired. When officers were not sure whether anarrestee was impaired by mental illness, drugs, or alcohol, they werecounted as having intact judgment (i.e., not impaired). By this definition,


373 (18.2%) of arrestees were considered judgmentally impaired. Ofthose impaired, officers reported that 49 (2.4%) were mentally ill, 149(7.3%) were under the influence of drugs, and 179 (9.2%) were intoxicatedon alcohol.4

Similar to several previous studies on use of force, we use a combinedmeasure of impairment for most analyses in this article (see Engel et al.,2000; Garner et al., 2002; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002). However, becauseprior research also shows substantial variability regarding the effects of dif-ferent types of impairment on the use of force, we also estimate a regressionmodel using a disaggregated measure to assess their individual influences.

ANALYSIS

The analysis proceeds in three steps. First, basic descriptive statistics areprovided. Second, we explore bivariate relationships between impairmentand several other variables, many of which have not been examined previ-ously. We limited these analyses to bivariate relationships because of smallcell sizes for many of the variables of interest. Tests of independence areconducted using Pearson chi-square (χ2) and the strength of associations ismeasured using eta (η).5 Third, we examine the relationship of impairmentto use of force, controlling for the effects of several other variables. Becausethe dependent variable consists of three categories, multinomial logisticregression analysis is used.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Officers with 5 or fewer years of total experience in law enforcementaccounted for 58.6% of the arrests, and 85.1% of the arresting officers weremale. Of the arrestees, 1,647 (80.1%) were male; 758 (36.9%) were youn-ger than 24 years of age, 618 (30.1%) were 25 to 35 years of age, and 677(33.0%) were 36 years or older. African American arrestees numbered1,444 (70.3%) and Caucasians numbered 567 (27.6%).6

Based on their assessment at the time of arrest, officers believed that 373(18.2%) arrestees had impaired judgment, regardless of cause (psychiatricdisorder, alcohol intoxication [not mere use], or illicit drug intoxication).An additional 436 (21.3%) arrestees had been drinking but are not countedamong those perceived to be judgmentally impaired.

The vast majority of arrestees, 1,550 (75.7%), exhibited no threateningbehavior at the time of their arrest; 297 (14.5%) were upset, agitated, or


angry, and 72 (3.5%) were verbally abusive. Eighty-five arrestees (4.2%)engaged in mild struggling, and 43 (2.1%) were physically combative orassaultive. The arresting officers suspected or confirmed that 126 persons(6.2%) had weapons and were uncertain of the weapon status of 64 (3.1%)of those whom they arrested. One hundred sixty-eight persons (8.2%) werearrested after a car and/or foot pursuit by officers.

No force beyond a firm grip was required to effect 1,814 (88.6%) of thearrests. Officers judged that moderate effort was required to arrest 194(9.5%) persons and extreme effort for 42 (2.1%) persons. Beyond firm grip,force used by officers in making arrests consisted of open-hand techniquesin 196 (9.6%), punching or kicking in 22 (1.1%), pepper spray in 13 (0.6%),baton controls in 3 (0.1%), baton strikes in 4 (0.2%), neck restraints in 3(0.1%), the show of a police canine in 9 (0.4%), and the pointing but not fir-ing of a firearm in 42 (2.0%).

Table 1 lists the officers’subjective sense of the effectiveness of all formsof force they used in making the arrests reported in this study. The singlemost effective force was the presence on the scene of a police canine; offi-cers rated it as very effective in 9 out of 9 arrests. The pointing but not dis-charging of a firearm, used in 42 arrests, was very effective in 39 (92.3%).Verbal tactics, use of a firm grip, and open-hand techniques generally wererated as being very effective in most arrests, about 80%. Other types of forcewere used relatively infrequently.

Most arrested persons were transported from the scene of their arrest inhandcuffs as the only restraint (1,973, or 96.8%). Nine prisoners (0.4%)were in handcuffs and leg restraints, and 2 prisoners (0.1%) were hobbled.Officers reported that they used no restraints during transportation of 55(2.7%) of the arrestees. The majority of arrestees were transported in a sit-ting position (89.6%), including the 13 who were sprayed with oleoresincapsicum. Of the restrained arrestees placed in a prone position, 4 hand-cuffed prisoners and 1 in handcuffs and leg restraints were transportedwhile lying on their sides. The 2 hobbled prisoners were reportedly trans-ported in a sitting position.

During arrests, 32 prisoners and 18 police officers were injured. Seven-teen of the injured arrestees required no medical care, 14 required medi-cal care that did not result in hospitalization, and 1 was admitted to a hospi-tal for at least one overnight stay. Of the 18 police officers who sustainedinjuries during the arrest process, 12 required no medical care and theother 6 received medical care that did not require overnight admission to ahospital.


BIVARIATE ANALYSES

As indicated in Table 2, officers reported that substantially more effortwas required to arrest persons when they perceived them as having impairedrather than intact judgment. Specifically, officers indicated that 3.5% ofimpaired persons required extreme effort to effect arrests versus 1.7% forthose with intact judgment. Impaired persons also more often requiredmoderate effort than did nonimpaired persons (13.7% vs. 8.6%, respec-tively). Although impairment explains little of the variation in level of effort(η = .130), the association between impairment and level of effort is statisti-cally significant, χ2 = 34.59, p ≤ .000.

Table 3 shows the relationship between impairment and the level ofthreat presented by arrestees and escape behavior. Regardless of cause,impaired judgment was significantly associated with more threatening


TABLE 1. Effectiveness of Tactics Used During Arrests

1 = Not 2 = Moderately 3 = VeryEffective Effective Effective Total

Verbal Count 233 186 1,576 1,995% 11.7 9.3 79.0 100.0

Firm grip Count 74 113 819 1,006% 7.4 11.2 81.4 100.0

Open-hand techniques Count 11 31 154 196% 5.6 15.8 78.6 100.0

Punching/kicking Count 3 9 10 22% 13.6 40.9 45.5 100.0

Pepper spray Count 2 4 7 13% 15.4 30.8 53.8 100.0

Baton controls Count 1 1 1 3% 33.3 33.3 33.3 100.0

Baton strikes Count 0 2 2 4% .0 50.0 50.0 100.0

Neck restraint Count 1 0 2 3% 33.3 .0 66.7 100.0

Canine Count 0 0 9 9% .0 .0 100.0 100.0

Point firearm Count 2 1 39 42% 4.8 2.4 92.9 100.0

Note: Verbal refers to verbal commands/reasoningwith suspect only; firm grip refers to mild/firm grip orholding; open-hand techniques refers to pushing, shoving, wrist locks, grappling, etc., excluding strikes;punching/kicking excludes weapon strikes; canine force refers to presence of dog (show) at scene andnot necessarily release of dog. Types of force not used include restraining nets, electric stun devises,beanbag rounds, and discharging of firearm.

behavior, ranging from agitation and anger to mild struggling, than wasassociated with intact judgment, χ2 = 57.90, p ≤ .000; η = .133. However,impaired persons were no more likely than unimpaired persons to be com-bative/assaultive (2.2% vs. 2.1%, respectively). There were no significantdifferences between the two groups in their propensity to flee on foot or in avehicle, χ2 = 2.36, p = .124; η = .034, or in their possession, display, or use ofa weapon, χ2 = 2.83, p = .092; η = .037.

Most persons, whether with intact or impaired judgment, were arrestedsuccessfully with no or minimal physical force (see Table 4). Verbal com-mands alone were moderately or very effective in 1,455 (89.5%) of 1,626persons arrested with intact judgment and in 305 (83.2%) of 367 personswith impaired judgment. For firm grip/holding, the figures were 730(93.0%) of 786 persons with intact judgment and 202 (91.4%) of 221 per-sons with impaired judgment. Pepper spray was moderately or very effec-tive in 5 of 6 unimpaired arrestees (83.3%) and in 6 of 7 arrestees withimpaired judgment (85.7%). The presence of a police dog was very effec-tive in the arrest of all 6 persons with intact judgment for whom this methodof force was used and in all 3 persons with impaired judgment. (Tests of sig-nificance were not conducted in Table 4 due to the sparse data structure.)

More than 97% of police officers and arrestees, whether arrestees werejudgmentally impaired or not, received no injuries of any kind during thearrest process. As shown in Table 5, among those arrestees, χ2 = 0.32, p =.858; η = .004, and police officers, χ2 = 0.93, p = .336; η = .021, whoreceived injuries requiring medical care, impairment did not appear to be afactor.


TABLE 2. Level of Physical Effort by Suspect Impairment

Suspect Judgmentally Impaired?

0 = Not Judgmentally Impaired 1 = Judgmentally Impaired

Count Col. % Count Col. %

How much effort did it take togain control of suspect?

1 = No effort 1,060 63.6 177 47.72 = Little effort 434 26.1 130 35.03 = Moderate effort 143 8.6 51 13.74 = Extreme effort 29 1.7 14 3.5

Note: χ2 = 34.59; p ≤ .000; η = .130.

To summarize, the bivariate analyses suggest that judgmentally impairedpersons appear more threatening to officers than unimpaired persons, andthey require more effort by officers to arrest. The level of threat presented,however, generally was low; it was primarily in the form of agitation, verbalabuse, or mild physical resistance and not assaults on police. Impairmentwas not associated with arrestee flight or weapon status, and no differenceswere observed between the two groups regarding the effectiveness of tacticsused by officers in making arrests (e.g., verbal tactics, firm grip/holding,pepper spray, show of canine). Furthermore, impairment was unrelated tothe likelihood of officer and suspect injury.

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Officers reported that approximately 30% of the persons arrested duringthe study period were intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol; 7.3%were on drugs, and 2.4% appeared to be mentally ill. Excluding thosemerely under the influence of alcohol and taking into account that somearrestees were classified by officers as being impaired by two or more fac-tors simultaneously (intoxicated and/or on drugs and/or mentally ill), wefound that 18.2% of the 2,060 persons arrested and surveyed in this studyappeared to be impaired at the time of their arrest. Thus, officers encoun-


TABLE 3. Level of Threat and Escape Behavior by Suspect Impairment


0 = Not Judgmentally 1 = JudgmentallyImpaired Impaired


Most threatening behavior 1 = Not threatening 1,316 78.5 234 63.12 = Upset/agitated/angry 228 13.6 69 18.63 = Verbally abusive 43 2.6 29 7.84 = Mild struggling 54 3.2 31 8.45 = Combative/assaultive 35 2.1 8 2.2

Car/foot pursuit 0 = No pursuit 1,543 92.2 335 89.81 = Car/foot pursuit 130 7.8 38 10.2

Suspect had/used weapon? 1 = Yes 96 5.8 30 8.12 = No 1,523 91.4 325 87.63 = Not sure 48 2.9 16 4.3

Note: Impaired × Threat: χ2 = 57.90, p ≤ .000; η = .133. Impaired × Pursuit: χ2 = 2.36, p = .124; η = .034.Impaired × Weapon: χ2 = 2.83; p = .092; η = .037 (weapon coded 1 = yes, 0 = no/not sure).

320

TA

BL

E 4

.E

ffec

tive

ness

of

Tact

ics

by A

rres

tee

Impa

irm

ent

Susp

ect J

udgm

enta

lly

Impa

ired

?

0 =

Not

Jud

gmen

tall

y Im

pair

ed1

= J

udgm

enta

lly

Impa

ired

1 =

Not

2 =

Mod

erat

ely

3 =

Ver

y1

= N

ot2

= M

oder

atel

y3

= V

ery

Effe

ctiv

eE

ffect

ive

Effe

ctiv

eTo

tal

Effe

ctiv

eE

ffect

ive

Effe

ctiv

eTo

tal

Ver

bal

Cou

nt17

113

71,

318

1,62

662

4925

636

7%

10.5

8.4

81.1

100.

016

.913

.469

.810

0.0

Firm

gri

pC

ount

5580

650

785

1933

169

221

%7.

010

.282

.85

100.

08.

614

.976

.510

0.0

Ope

n-ha

ndte

chni

ques

Cou

nt8

2111

314

23

1041

54%

5.6

14.8

79.6

100.

05.

618

.575

.910

0.0

Punc

hing

/kic

king

Cou

nt2

55

121

45

10%

16.7

41.7

41.7

100.

010

.040

.050

.010

0.0

Pepp

er s

pray

Cou

nt1

32

61

15

7%

16.7

50.0

33.3

100.

014

.314

.371

.410

0.0

Bat

on c

ontr

ols

Cou

nt1

11

30

00

0%

33.3

33.3

33.3

100.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0B

aton

str

ikes

Cou

nt0

22

40

00

0%

0.0

50.0

50.0

100.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0N

eck

rest

rain

tC

ount

10

23

00

00

%33

.30.

066

.710

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Can

ine

Cou

nt0

06

60

03

3%

0.0

0.0

100.

010

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.

010

0.0

Poin

t fir

earm

Cou

nt2

130

330

09

9%

6.1

3.0

90.9

100.

00.

00.

010

0.0

100.

0

Not

e:Ve

rbal

refe

rsto

verb

alco

mm

ands

/rea

soni

ngw

ithsu

spec

tonl

y;fir

mgr

ipre

fers

tom

ild/f

irm

grip

orho

ldin

g;op

en-h

and

tech

niqu

esre

fers

topu

shin

g,sh

ovin

g,w

rist

lock

s,gr

appl

ing,

etc.

,exc

ludi

ngst

rike

s;pu

nchi

ng/k

icki

ngex

clud

esw

eapo

nst

rike

s;ca

nine

forc

ere

fers

topr

esen

ceof

dog

(sho

w)a

tsce

nean

dno

tnec

essa

rily

re-

leas

e of

dog

. Typ

es o

f fo

rce

not u

sed

incl

ude

rest

rain

ing

nets

, ele

ctri

c st

un d

evis

es, b

eanb

ag r

ound

s, a

nd d

isch

argi

ng o

f fi

rear

m.

tered impaired persons in approximately one of every five arrests, a substan-tial fraction.

The earlier bivariate tests of the relationships between suspect impair-ment and officer and suspect injuries are limited because very few injuriesoccurred during the study period. The small numbers make it difficult tostudy systematically the relationship between impairment and injury rates,and we should not place too much confidence in those findings. An alterna-tive approach to studying risk is to examine the relationships between theforce used in arrests, suspect and officer characteristics, and situational fac-tors. Although most officers and suspects are not injured when force isemployed, it is reasonable to assume that arrests requiring the use of forceincrease the risk of injury to officers and suspects.

Panels A and B in Table 6 show, in fact, that the risk of injury to suspects,χ2 = 142.84, p ≤ .000; η = .27, and officers, χ2 = 123.73, p ≤ .000; η = .25increases significantly as the level of force increases from no physical force(verbal tactics only), to firm grip/holding, to greater than firm grip/holding.Thus, it is useful to know whether suspect impairment is associated with theprobability that force is used in arrests. Because use of force occurs withenough frequency, we are able to employ multiple regression to assess therelationship between impairment and use of force.

Table 7 provides the variable names, description, coding, frequencies,and percentages for the variables used in the regression analysis. Thedependent variable force consists of three categories. These are (a) no phys-ical force (verbal tactics only), (b) the use of a firm grip or holding only(including routine cuffing), and (c) force greater than a firm grip or holding


TABLE 5. Suspect and Officer Injuries Requiring Medical Treatment by Suspect Impairment


0 = Not Judgmentally Impaired 1 = Judgmentally Impaired


Suspect injured? 0 = Not injured 1,649 99.3 367 99.21 = Injured 12 .7 3 .8

Officer injured? 0 = Not injured 1,659 99.8 368 99.51 = Injured 4 .2 2 .5

Note: Impaired × Suspect Injured: χ2 = 0.32, p = .858; η = .004; 1 cell (25.0%) has an expected count ofless than 5. Impaired × Officer Injured: χ2 = 0.93, p = .336; η = .021; 2 cells (50.0%) have an expectedcount of less than 5.

(come-along holds, wrestling, punching, baton strikes, canine, etc.). Wefrequently refer to these categories as no force, low force, and high force,respectively. As shown in Table 7, few arrests involved force of any magni-tude. Officers reported that 235 (11.5%) of arrests involved force greaterthan a firm grip/holding, and 1,028 (50.2%) arrests were made withoutresorting to physical force of any kind.

Independent variables included in the regression model are those factorsfrom the survey thought to influence the probability that physical force isused when making arrests. These variables are the suspects’ sex, age,height, weight, race/ethnicity, and level of impairment; the officers’sex andtotal years of experience as a police officer; whether a vehicle or foot pursuitwas involved in making the arrest; whether the arrestee appeared to possess,


TABLE 6. Suspect and Officer Injury by Level of Force

Suspect Injured?

0 = Not Injured 1 = Injured Total

A. Suspectsa

Force 1 = No physical force Count 1,010 3 1,013% 99.7 0.3 100.0

2 = Firm grip only Count 779 4 783% 99.5 0.5 100.0

3 = Greater than firmgrip

Count207 25 232

% 89.2 10.8 100.0Total Count 1,996 32 2,028

% 98.4 1.6 100.0

Officer Injured?

0 = Not Injured 1 = Injured Total

B. Officersb

Force 1 = No physical force Count 1,015 1,015% 100.0 100.0

2 = Firm grip only Count 782 1 783% 99.9 0.1 100.0

3 = Greater than firmgrip

Count215 17 232

% 92.7 7.3 100.0Total Count 2,012 18 2,030

% 99.1 0.9 100.0

a. χ2 = 142.84; p ≤ .000; η = .27.b. χ2 = 123.73, p ≤ .000; η = .25.

display, or use a weapon; and the most threatening behavior of the arresteetoward the officer before the officer handcuffed the suspect or used force.

Because the dependent variable is comprised of three categories, multi-nomial logistic regression is used for the analysis. The logistic regressionmodel predicts the odds of an observation being in one category of the de-pendent variable versus another (the reference category), given a set ofexplanatory variables. For this analysis, verbal tactics is the reference cate-gory for the dependent variable force.


TABLE 7. Descriptive Statistics for Variables in the Regression Analysis

Variable Description Coding Freq. %

Forcea Level of force used in making arrest 1 = Greater than firm grip 235 11.52 = Firm grip/holding 786 38.43 = Verbal tactics only 1,028 50.2

Suspsex Suspect’s sex 0 = Female 408 19.91 = Male 1,647 80.1

Sage Suspect’s age 1 = Up to 24 758 36.92 = 25 to 35 618 30.13 = 36 or older 677 33.0

Sheight Suspect’s height 1 = Up to 5.6 616 30.02 = 5.7 to 6.0 1,111 54.13 = 6.1 or taller 328 16.0

Sweight Suspect’s weight 1 = Up to 145 621 30.22 = 146 to 180 873 42.53 = 181 or heavier 561 27.3

Nonwhiteb Suspect’s race/ethnicity 0 = White 567 27.61 = Non-White 1,487 72.4

Impaired Suspect on drugs, alcohol, mentally ill 0 = Not impaired 1,680 81.81 = Impaired 373 18.2

Copsex Officer’s sex 0 = Female 307 14.91 = Male 1,747 85.1

Yrsexp Officer’s years’ experience as officer 1 = 0 to 2 649 31.82 = 3 to 5 547 26.83 = 6 to 10 630 30.94 = 11 or more 216 10.6

Pursuit Arrest involved car or foot pursuit 0 = No pursuit 1878 91.81 = Pursuit 168 8.2

Weapon Suspect possessed, displayed, or used 0 = No/not sure 1,913 93.81 = Yes 126 6.2

Threat Suspect’s most threatening behavior 1 = No threat 1,550 75.72 = Upset/verbally abusive 369 18.03 = Struggling/combative 128 6.3

a. Officers in a small number of arrests failed to report the use of any tactics, verbal or otherwise. Weassume that these exclusions were oversights and that these arrests likely involved voice only. Thesecases are therefore included in category 3 of the dependent variable verbal tactics only.b. All but 43 of non-White arrestees were African American.

An initial regression model indicated that officer sex and suspect age,weight, and height were unrelated to use of force. These variables wereeliminated and the model reestimated (see Appendix B for the results of thefull model). Excluding the nonsignificant variables had no appreciativeeffect on the pseudo-R2 values or on the values of the variables remaining inthe model.7 Likelihood ratio tests of the variables remaining in the model,reported in Appendix C, indicate that each contributes significantly andtherefore should not be excluded. The results from the trimmed model arepresented in Table 8.

The results indicate that confronting male arrestees (suspsex) increasessignificantly the odds that force greater than firm grip/holding (high force)and firm grip/holding (low force) are used over verbal tactics (no force).Specifically, the odds of high force versus no force increase by 217% (100 ×[3.17 – 1]) and low force versus no force by 46% (100 × [1.46 – 1]) whenarrestees are male. Additional tests (not shown) indicate male arrestees alsoincrease significantly the odds that high force rather than low force is used(odds ratio = 2.17; p = .008).

Non-White arrestees (nonwhite) increase the odds of high force versusno force by 53%, but the effect is not quite statistically significant (p =.065). However, the effect of nonwhite is statistically significant for lowforce versus no force, with a 49% increase in the odds that a firm grip/hold-ing is used rather than verbal tactics when arrestees are non-White com-pared to when they are White (p = .003). Additional tests (not shown) indi-cate that being non-White does not increase significantly the odds of usinghigh force over low force (odds ratio = 1.03; p = .892).

Judgmentally impaired suspects (impaired) increase the odds of bothhigh force and low force over no force by 57% (p = .051) and 37% (p =.023), respectively. Additional tests (not shown) indicate that impairmentdoes not significantly increase the odds of using high levels of force overlow levels of force (odds ratio = 1.15; p = .521).

Generally, officers with more experience on the job (yrsexp) are lesslikely to use force than officers with the least amount of experience. Spe-cifically, the odds that officers with 3 to 5 years of law enforcement experi-ence (yrsexp2) use high force rather than no force are 62% lower than forofficers with 2 years of experience or fewer (odds ratio = 0.38, p ≤ .000).Similar effects are observed for officers with 6 to 10 and 11 or more years ofexperience, but the effects are not statistically significant at the .05 level (p= .088 and .803, respectively). Additional analyses (not shown) indicatethat officers with more experience are not significantly more likely than


officers with the least amount of experience (2 years or fewer) to use highforce rather than low force.

Examining the second contrast (firm grip only vs. verbal tactics) foryrsexp, we see compared to officers with 2 years of experience or less, offi-cers with 3 to 5 and 6 to 10 years of experience are significantly less likely touse low force than no force (p ≤ .000 and p = .001, respectively). Officerswith the most experience (11 or more years), however, are more likely to uselow force than no force, but the effect is only near significant (p = .06).8


TABLE 8. Multinomial Logistic Regression Model Predicting Use of Force

Odds x-Std. Odds Std. WaldContrast Variable Ratio Ratio Error Statistic Sig.

Greater than firm grip Intercept 0.01 — .38 115.97 .000Suspsex 3.17 1.58 .30 14.84 .000Nonwhite 1.53 1.21 .23 3.42 .065Impaired 1.57 1.19 .23 3.80 .051Yrsexp(1) — — — — —Yrsexp(2) 0.38 0.65 .26 13.88 .000Yrsexp(3) 0.67 0.83 .24 2.91 .088Yrsexp(4) 0.92 0.97 .34 0.06 .803Pursuit 4.45 1.50 .28 27.62 .000Weapon 4.27 1.42 .31 22.00 .000Threat(1) — — — — —Threat(2) 16.09 2.91 .22 155.70 .000Threat(3) 830.59 5.08 .74 82.43 .000

Firm grip only Intercept 0.42 — .16 29.70 .000Suspsex 1.46 1.16 .13 8.61 .003Nonwhite 1.49 1.19 .12 11.84 .001Impaired 1.37 1.13 .14 5.15 .023Yrsexp(1) — — — — —Yrsexp(2) 0.45 0.70 .14 35.37 .000Yrsexp(3) 0.66 0.83 .13 10.36 .001Yrsexp(4) 1.40 1.11 .18 3.53 .060Pursuit 1.32 1.08 .22 1.52 .217Weapon 1.31 1.07 .23 1.34 .246Threat(1) — — — — —Threat(2) 4.29 1.75 .15 98.27 .000Threat(3) 21.40 2.10 .74 17.05 .000

–2 log likelihood = –1447.16LR χ2(20) = 772.59, p = .0000McFadden’s R2 = .20Cragg and Uhler’s R2 = .37

Note: Reference category on dependent variable = verbal tactics; constants are not exponentiated.

Arrests that involve pursuits (pursuit) significantly increase the odds thathigher levels of force are used. Specifically, there is a 345% increase in theodds that force greater than a firm grip/holding rather than verbal tactics isused when arrests involve pursuits (p ≤ .000). Pursuits, however, do notincrease the odds that firm grip/holding only is used (p = .217). Additionalanalyses (not shown) indicate a 239% increase in the odds that high ratherthan low force is used when arrests involve pursuits (odds ratio = 3.39; p ≤.000).

Suspect possession, display, or use of a weapon (weapon) significantlyincreases the odds that officers use high force rather than no force by 327%(p ≤ .000) but not the odds of low force versus no force (p = .246). Addi-tional analyses (not shown) indicate weapons also increase the odds thatofficers use high force rather than low force by 226% (p ≤ .000).

The level of threat (threat) presented by suspects significantly increasedthe level of force used by officers in making arrests. Specifically, the oddsthat officers use high and low force rather than no force increase by 1,509%and 329%, respectively, when arrestees are upset or verbally abusive(threat2) (p ≤ .000 and .000, respectively). Arrestees that struggle or arecombative (threat3) increase the odds of use of high force and low forcerather than no force by 82,959% (p ≤ .000) and 2,140% (p ≤ .000), respec-tively).9 Additional analysis (not shown) indicates that the odds of the use ofhigh force rather than low force increase by 275% (p ≤ .000) and 3,782%(p ≤ .000) when arrestees are upset or verbally abusive (threat2) and whenthey struggle or are combative (threat3), respectively.

In summary, the level of threat presented by arrestees; suspected posses-sion, display, or use of weapons; foot or vehicle pursuits; and the sex ofarrestees exhibit the greatest influence on the odds of higher levels of forcebeing used. Arrestee race, impairment, and officer experience, althoughexhibiting statistically significant effects, appear to exert less influence.Officer sex and most suspect characteristics (age, weight, and height) areunrelated to use of force.

Assessing the relative magnitudes of the effects of the independentvariables on the dependent variable, however, requires a comparison ofstandardized estimates. Unlike continuous independent variables, interpre-tation of standardized coefficients from dummy-coded or categorical vari-ables does not make substantive sense. Nevertheless, comparisons of therelative magnitudes of the effects of categorical independent variables onthe odds of use of force can still be made (see Long, 1997, pp. 16-17). Thecolumn labeled “x-Std. Odds Ratio” in Table 8 displays odds ratios stan-


dardized with respect to the independent variables, or x-standardized coeffi-cients.

As suggested by the unstandardized odds ratios, the x-standardized esti-mates indicate that the level of threat presented by suspects exerts the great-est influence on whether force greater than a firm grip is used in makingarrests (x-std. odds ratios = 5.08 and 2.91). The variable threat is followed indescending order of magnitude by suspsex (x-std. odds ratio = 1.58), pursuit(x-std. odds ratio = 1.50), weapon (x-std. odds ratio = 1.42), yrsexp2 (x-std.odds ratio = .65), nonwhite (x-std. odds ratio = 1.21), and impaired (x-std.odds ratio = 1.19).

The level of threat presented by the suspect also has the greatest influ-ence on whether a firm grip is used during arrests (x-std. odds ratios = 2.10and 1.75), followed in descending order of magnitude by nonwhite (x-std.odds ratio = 1.19), suspsex (x-std. odds ratio = 1.16), and impaired (x-std.odds ratio = 1.13).

Regarding impaired, then, the odds that higher levels of force are usedincreases significantly when arrestees are judgmentally impaired, but com-pared to the other variables in the regression model, impairment appears tohave the smallest impact.10

EXAMINING PROBABILITIES

An alternative approach to examining odds in the regression model is tocalculate changes in the probabilities for the various levels of force givenchanges in values of the independent variables. Because the values of theobtained probabilities depend on the values of all the other independentvariables in the model, it is common practice to set the other regressors totheir mean values, which is the approach taken here. The results are pre-sented in Table 9. The top row shows the probabilities of no force (verbaltactics only), low force (firm grip/holding only), and high force (forcebeyond firm grip/holding) being used during the “average arrest” in thesample, given all the independent variables in the model. Overall, we seethat the probability that high force is used in any given arrest is very low(p = .06).

Holding the remaining variables at their means, we observe only a smallincrease in the probability of the use of high force and low force whenimpaired changes from unimpaired to impaired (i.e., from 0 to 1). Similarly,small changes are observed when suspect sex (suspsex) changes fromfemale to male, when race/ethnicity (nonwhite) changes from White to non-


White, and when years of experience (yrsexp) as a police officer changesfrom 0 to 2 years to 3 to 5 years, 0 to 2 years to 6 to 10 years, and from 0 to 2years to 11 years or more.

Large changes in the probability that high force is used occurs, however,when pursuits (pursuit) were involved in making the arrest (p = .18); whenarrestees were thought to possess, display, or use a weapon (weapon) (p =.18); and when threat changed from no threat to upset/verbally abusive (p =.23) and from no threat to struggling/combative (p = .79).

These results indicate that the suspected presence, display, or use of aweapon; escape behavior; and the level of threat presented by arrestees moststrongly affect the probability that higher levels of force are used by offi-cers, although the level of threat presented by arrestees appears to exert thelargest effect on the level of force used. Judgmental impairment increasesthe probability that high force is used only slightly, with the impact beingsomewhat larger on the probability of the use of low levels of force.

EFFECT OF TYPE OF

IMPAIRMENT ON USE OF FORCE

Although the focus of this study is on the relationship between generalimpairment and the use of force, an interesting question is whether the spe-cific types of impairment that comprise our general measure influence theodds of use of force similarly. To examine this issue, we enter the three indi-


TABLE 9. Changes in Predicted Probabilities for Changes in Independent Variables, HoldingAll Other Variables at Their Means

No Force Low Force High Force

p for average person/x .4815 .4579 .0606Impaired ∆ 0-1 .4152 .5094 .0755Suspsex ∆ 0-1 .4581 .4694 .0725Nonwhite ∆ 0-1 .4538 .4819 .0644Pursuit ∆ 0-1 .3676 .4496 .1828Weapon ∆ 0-1 .3680 .4510 .1810Threat ∆ 1-2 .1865 .5847 .2288Threat ∆ 1-3 .0115 .1940 .7944Yrsexp ∆ 1-2 .6294 .3313 .0393Yrsexp ∆ 1-3 .5522 .3952 .0526Yrsexp ∆ 1-4 .4267 .5346 .0487

Note: ∆ = change.

cators of impairment separately into the full regression model (table notshown).

The results indicate that the positive relationship between general impair-ment and use of force observed in Table 8 is due to drug impairment. Specif-ically, the odds that high force versus no force is used increase by nearly100% when arrestees are impaired by drugs (odds ratio = 1.98; p = .052),and the odds of low force versus no force increase by 66% (odds ratio =1.66; p = .014). The effects of perceived mental status (odds ratio = 1.41; p =.520) and alcohol intoxication (odds ratio = 1.36; p = .338), although in theexpected direction, are statistically unrelated to use of force. Whether weuse the general measure of impairment or the specific indicators does notaffect the other regressors in the model, but because of their differentialimpacts, it is recommended that researchers examine the effects of specifictypes of impairment in addition to any combined measures.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Bivariate analysis of the data collected in this study indicates that personswith perceived impairment of judgment generally are only mildly problem-atic for police. Officers did report that they appeared more threatening andrequired greater effort to arrest than did persons with perceived intact judg-ment. Tactics used to make arrests, however, appear to be equally effectiveon both impaired and unimpaired persons, and impaired persons were nomore likely to injure police.

Given the small number of cases with injury, the infrequency with whichcertain tactics were used, and the bivariate nature of these analyses how-ever, the results should be considered preliminary. Larger samples or moreefficient sampling methods (e.g., case-control designs) and multivariatemethods would allow for a more thorough and reliable analysis of theserelationships.

Multiple regression analysis of the use of force indicates that impairedjudgment increases the odds that force beyond verbal commands will beneeded, but the influence of this factor on use of force is less than the influ-ence of other factors (i.e., level of threat, suspected or established weaponpossession, pursuit of suspect prior to arrest, and male sex of the arrestee).These findings are consistent with the examination of probabilities, whichshows that impairment in judgment increases only slightly the probabilitythat force beyond firm grip or holding is needed to effect arrests, although itincreases more substantially the probability that a firm grip or holding, and


not just the issuance of verbal commands, is required. Additional analysisusing a disaggregated measure of impairment revealed that the significanteffect of the combined measure is a function of arrestee drug intoxicationrather than arrestee alcohol intoxication or mental illness.

Results using the combined impairment measure are congruent withfindings from other studies using combined measures (Engel et al., 2000;Garner et al., 2002; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002). Unfortunately, becausethese studies did not disaggregate their general impairment variable, we donot know the independent effects of type of impairment on use of force(although Terrill and Mastrofski examined the independent effect of mentalillness). Garner et al. (1996) and Freidrich (1980), however, used dis-aggregated measures and found statistically significant and positive associ-ations between alcohol impairment and use of force. Our analysis using thedisaggregated measure, however, suggests that suspect alcohol intoxicationis unrelated to police use of force. In addition, whereas we find that drugimpairment is significantly and positively related to use of force, Garneret al. (1996) found it was statistically insignificant. Thus, our results regard-ing the independent effects of alcohol and drug impairment on use of forcelargely do not conform to the findings in previous research.11 The only studywe could identify that included a measure of mental impairment in amultivariate model is that by Terrill and Mastrofski (2002), and our findingsagree with theirs in that impairment by mental illness does not appear toincrease the likelihood of use of force.

To summarize, it appears that arrests of persons impaired by drugsincrease only slightly the need for higher levels of force than arrests ofunimpaired persons and those impaired by mental illness or alcohol, con-trolling for other factors. These other factors, such as suspected weaponpossession or use, arrestee escape behavior, level of threat, and arrestee sex,are more important determinants of force than is impairment, at least in thesample of arrests analyzed here.

Taken at face value, the results suggest that arrests of impaired personsgenerally are not very problematic for police and that field officers maynot need an abundance of specialized training for handling mentally illarrestees or those under the influence of drugs or alcohol. However, the fail-ure to detect a large effect simply may be because arrests of impaired per-sons that present significant risks to police or others are rare, and a muchlarger sample may be required to capture enough “critical incidents”involving arrests of such individuals. Given the substantial costs and effortassociated with selecting a very large sample, the case-control design seems


an especially efficient and attractive method for capturing enough criticalincidents for meaningful analysis (see, e.g., Loftin & McDowall, 1998;Schlesselman, 1982). In any event, even though these critical incidents maybe rare, the potentially serious consequences of officers being unpreparedfor them suggests that police administrators need to expend considerableresources to prepare officers to handle them in a way that minimizes therisks to arresting officers, suspects, and others at the scene.

APPENDIX ASurvey Instrument

Officer Information

1. Total years of experience as a police officer (regardless of department):1[ ] 0-2 2[ ] 3-5 3[ ] 6-10 4 [ ] 11-15 5[ ] 16 or more

2. Officer Sex: 1[ ] Male 2[ ] Female

Arrestee Information

3. Sex: 1[ ]Male 2[ ]Female4. Height:

1[ ] Less than 5.0 feet 2[ ] 5.1 - 5.6 feet 3[ ] 5.7 - 6.0 feet 4[ ] 6.1 feet or taller5. Weight:

1[ ] Less than 100 lbs. 2[ ] 100-125 3[ ]126-145 4[ ]146-165 5[ ]166-1806[ ]181-200 7[ ] 201 or more lbs.

6. Age:1[ ] 17 or younger 2[ ] 18-24 3[ ] 25-29 4[ ] 30-35 5[ ] 36-40 6[ ] 41-507 [ ] 51-60 8[ ] 61 or older

7. Race:1[ ] Caucasian 2[ ] African American 3[ ] Hispanic 4[ ] Asian 5[ ] Other

8. Approximate build: 1[ ] Thin 2 [ ] Normal or Athletic 3 [ ] Overweight/Fat9. Prior to arrest, did you chase the suspect on foot or in a vehicle?

1[ ] Yes—foot 2[ ] Yes—vehicle 3[ ] No—did not chase10. Do you believe the arrestee: (check all that apply)

a. Had a mental disorder? 1[ ]Yes 2[ ]No 3[ ]Not Sureb. Was under the influence of illegal drugs? 1[ ]Yes 2[ ]No 3[ ]Not Surec. Was under the influence of alcohol?

1[ ] Yes—had been drinking 2[ ] Yes—was intoxicated 3[ ] No 4[ ] Not Sure11. What was the most threatening behavior of the arrestee toward you BEFORE you

used force/cuffed him/her? (Check only one)1[ ] Not threatening 2[ ] Upset/Agitated/Angry 3[ ]Verbally abusive4[ ] Mild struggling 5[ ] Combative/Assaultive


12. For each type of force listed, please check the box under the column that bestdescribes the effectiveness of the force used by you or any other officers during thearrest. If a type of force was not used, check column 4 (Not Used).

Used, Used, Used,Not Moderately Very Not

Effective Effective Effective Used1 2 3 4

a. Verbal commands, reasoning withsuspect [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

b. Mild or firm grip/holding [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]c. Pushing, shoving, wrist locks,

grappling, etc., excluding strikes [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]d. Any punching or kicking, excluding

weapon strikes [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]e. Chemical irritant (pepper spray,

CS/CN) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]f. Any form of baton restraining

techniques, excluding strikes [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]g. Strikes with impact weapon or object

(baton, flashlight, vehicle) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]h. Carotid or other neck restraint [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]i. Canine or horse [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]j. Restraining net (thrown by hand) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]k. Restraining net (fired) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]l. Electric stunning device [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]m. Beanbag round [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]n. Pointing firearm but not discharging it [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]o. Discharging firearm [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]p. Other force (specify)_______________ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

13. How much total physical effort was needed to gain control of the arrestee?1[ ] No effort 2[ ] Little effort 3[ ] Moderate effort 4[ ] Extreme effort

14. Did the arrestee appear to possess, or display, or use any type of weapon (gun,cutting or blunt instrument, chemical, etc.)?1[ ] Yes 2[ ] No 3[ ] Not Sure

15. Which one of the following best describes the means of restraint used to transportthe arrestee from the site of arrest?1[ ] No restraints2[ ] Handcuffs only3[ ] Handcuffs and leg restraints4[ ] Hogtie5[ ] Restrained on a stretcher, litter, or gurney


16. What was the position of the arrestee during transport from the site of arrest?1[ ] Sitting2[ ] Kneeling3[ ] Standing4[ ] Lying face down, on stomach5[ ] Lying face up, on back6[ ] Lying on side

17. Where was the arrestee transported to immediately following his arrest by you?1[ ] Precinct/district lockup facility2[ ] Jail or central booking3[ ] Psychiatric unit4[ ] Medical unit5[ ] Headquarters6[ ] A medical or psychiatric unit first, then to any type of lockup facility/central

booking/jail7[ ] Other (specify)_______________________

18. If the arrestee was injured as a result of the force used in making this arrest, whatbest describes the condition of the arrestee at your last contact with him/her?1[ ] N/A—Suspect not injured as result of use of force2[ ] Injured but in no need of medical care3[ ] In need of medical care but no overnight hospital stay4[ ] In need of medical care requiring overnight hospital stay5[ ] Deceased

19. If any officers were injured as a result of the force used in making this arrest, whatbest describes the condition of the most seriously injured officer?1[ ] N/A, no officer injured as result of use of force2[ ] Injured but in no need of medical care3[ ] In need of medical care but no overnight hospital stay4[ ] In need of medical care requiring overnight hospital stay5[ ] Deceased

20. Including you, what was the total number of officers present to assist in the arrestat the time you first attempted to arrest the suspect? ___________

21. Including the arrestee, what was the total number of suspects present during thisarrest? ____________

APPENDIX BFull Multinomial Logistic

Regression Model Predicting Use of Force

Force3 β Std. Error Wald Sig. Exp(β)

Greater than firm grip Intercept –4.332 .567 58.339 .000Suspsex 1.121 .341 10.788 .001 3.067Sage=1 .154 .235 .430 .512 1.166


(continued)

Sage=2 –.211 .250 .713 .399 .810Sage=3 0 — — — —Sheight=1 –.143 .358 .159 .691 .867Sheight=2 1.931E-02 .282 .005 .945 1.019Sheight=3 0 — — — —Sweight=1 .153 .294 .272 .602 1.166Sweight=2 .118 .241 .241 .624 1.126Sweight=3 0 — — — —Nonwhite .406 .232 3.070 .080 1.501Impaired .448 .236 3.599 .058 1.565Copsex .218 .296 .541 .462 1.244Yrsexp=1 0 — — — —Yrsexp=2 –.971 .260 13.971 .000 .379Yrsexp=3 –.440 .241 3.335 .068 .644Yrsexp=4 –.108 .340 .100 .752 .898Pursuit 1.444 .287 25.257 .000 4.238Weapon 1.423 .311 20.927 .000 4.151Threat=1 0 — — — —Threat=2 2.815 .225 157.167 .000 16.699Threat=3 6.748 .742 82.668 .000 852.084

Firm grip only Intercept –.513 .262 3.846 .050Suspsex .292 .151 3.723 .054 1.339Sage=1 –7.186E-02 .125 .329 .566 .931Sage=2 –6.635E-02 .128 .267 .605 .936Sage=3 0 — — — —Sheight=1 –.323 .185 3.042 .081 .724Sheight=2 –.154 .149 1.065 .302 .858Sheight=3 0 — — — —Sweight=1 9.642E-02 .153 .395 .530 1.101Sweight=2 .201 .129 2.451 .117 1.223Sweight=3 0 — — — —Nonwhite .409 .116 12.425 .000 1.506Impaired .274 .139 3.869 .049 1.315Copsex –.250 .142 3.095 .079 .779Yrsexp=1 0 — — — —Yrsexp=2 –.794 .137 33.548 .000 .452Yrsexp=3 –.386 .129 8.945 .003 .680Yrsexp=4 .364 .179 4.126 .042 1.439Pursuit .284 .225 1.601 .206 1.329Weapon .256 .233 1.205 .272 1.292Threat=1 0 — — — —Threat=2 1.469 .148 98.531 .000 4.343Threat=3 3.091 .743 17.329 .000 21.998

Note: The column labeled β are log odds; the Exp(β) are odds ratios.


APPENDIX B (continued)

Force3 β Std. Error Wald Sig. Exp(β)

APPENDIX CLikelihood Ratio Test Statistics

for Variables Retained in Regression Model

–2 Log LikelihoodEffect of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig.

Intercept 674.567 .000 0 —Suspsex 695.069 20.503 2 .000Pursuit 703.215 28.648 2 .000Impaired 680.949 6.382 2 .041Weapon2 695.971 21.404 2 .000Nonwhite 687.286 12.719 2 .002Yrsexpr 734.210 59.644 6 .000Threat2r 1182.888 508.321 4 .000

NOTES

1. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, drugs, alcohol, and mental illness are notthe only possible sources of impairment among the arrestee population. Judgmental impair-ment also may be associated with young or advanced age or certain medical conditions, suchas epilepsy. Although not considered here, future research should consider these and otheralternate sources of impairment.

2. Newly hired recruits receive 640 hours of basic training. Two hours of instruction arespent on handling mentally disturbed subjects. Another 4 hours are dedicated to recognizing,assessing, and handling irrational subjects (e.g., those under the influence of drugs and alco-hol). At least 40 hours of training are devoted to use-of-force issues. Officers who completebasic training receive 4 months of on-the-job-training with a field training officer. Fortyhours of annual in-service training are also required for all officers.

3. A limitation of the study, therefore, is that an unknown number of contacts with per-sons, impaired or not, are handled informally and do not result in arrest. We have no informa-tion regarding these contacts. Furthermore, some seriously mentally ill persons are notarrested but are transported by police to psychiatric hospitals. Although not captured in theanalysis, the latter are likely few in number because bed availability and stringent criteria foradmission frequently limit commitments (Teplin, 2000).

4. Only 1 arrestee was reported by police to be mentally ill, on drugs, and intoxicated onalcohol; 12 were reportedly mentally ill and on drugs; 4 mentally ill and intoxicated on alco-hol; and 9 on drugs and intoxicated on alcohol. Thus, 26 (7.0%) of the impaired arresteeswere perceived as being multiply impaired. In recoding these cases into specific impairmenttypes, drugs took precedence, followed by mental illness. For example, the 1 subjectreported to be mentally ill, on drugs, and intoxicated on alcohol was recoded as a drugimpairment case; the 12 subjects reportedly mentally ill and intoxicated on alcohol wererecoded as being impaired by mental illness.


5. The Pearson chi-square (χ2) statistic of independence is commonly used to test thesignificance of the relationship between categorical variables. The eta coefficient (η) is ameasure of the strength of the association and is appropriate when the dependent variable isquantitative and the independent variable has ordered or unordered categories. Whensquared, the eta coefficient is interpreted as the proportion of the variability of the dependentvariable that is explained by knowing the values of the independent variable.

6. According to the 2000 Census, 51% of the jurisdiction’s residents are AfricanAmerican.

7. Pseudo-R2 measures are analogous to the R2 reported in linear regression and arecommonly interpreted as the amount of variation in the dependent variable explained by theindependent variables. A number of pseudo-R2 measures exist, and because the reported val-ues can vary substantially, we report two: McFadden’s R2, which is a more conservative mea-sure, and Cragg and Uhler’s R2, which is less conservative.

8. At the request of an anonymous reviewer, we also included an interaction term be-tween yrsexp (dichotomized) and impaired (results not shown). The interaction terms foreach contrast, however, were not near statistically significant. A likelihood ratio test of theinteractions overall also was statistically insignificant (p = .830). We were unable to testinteractions among the different forms of impairment and officer experience due to sparsedata cells.

9. The very large values for the odds ratios are not errors. Odds, like probabilities, have alower limit of zero but unlike probabilities, odds have no upper bound and can increasegreatly when probabilities change only slightly near their upper boundary of 1. As noted byPampel (2000),

Tiny changes in probabilities result in huge changes in the odds, and show that the odds increasetoward infinity as the probabilities come closer and closer to one. As examples, probabilities of.99, .999, .9999 and .99999 produce odds of 99, 999, 9999, and 99999. (p. 11)

10. At the request of an anonymous reviewer, we also included an interaction term be-tween threat (dichotomized) and impaired (results not shown). The results suggest thatarrests of impaired persons who appeared threatening increased significantly the odds of theuse of low force over no force (odds ratio = 2.23; p = .034) but not the odds of the use of highforce over no force (odds ratio = 2.65; p = .064). A likelihood ratio test of the interactionoverall, however, was statistically insignificant (p = .060). We were unable to test interac-tions among the different forms of impairment and level of threat due to sparse data cells.

11. There may be a number of reasons for the disparate findings, such as idiosyncrasies ofresearch design and analytic methods. Possibilities are the use of different sampling strate-gies (e.g., independent observations of police-citizen encounters; arrest-based officer self-reports; official records), studies conducted in different jurisdictions in different time peri-ods, the use of different dependent and independent variables (e.g., different thresholds forwhat constitutes “force”; force measured on a continuum vs. a dichotomy; “use” of alcoholvs. alcohol intoxication), and different model specifications (e.g., OLS vs. logistic regres-sion; main effects only vs. inclusion of interactions terms).

An additional factor concerns measurement error. Studies examining the effect ofimpairment on use of force (including the present one) rely on perceptions of whether or nota suspect is impaired and, if impaired, perceptions regarding the nature of the impairment.Acuteness of trained graduate students’ and police officers’ observational skills notwith-standing, observers will not always know when someone is mentally ill or under the


influence of drugs or alcohol; they will sometimes mistake physical illness or drug intoxica-tion for mental illness (e.g., seizures from epilepsy, disorientation due to diabetes, bizarrebehavior due to LSD), and officers sometimes fail to report information regarding impair-ment when filling out use-of-force or arrest reports.

REFERENCES

Adams, K. (1999). What we know about police use of force. In National Institute of Justice,Use of force by police: Overview of national and local data (pp. 1-14). Washington, DC:National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice.

Alpert, G., & Dunham, R. (1999). The force factor: Measuring and assessing police use offorce and suspect resistance. In National Institute of Justice, Use of force by police: Over-view of national and local data (pp. 45-60). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justiceand Bureau of Justice.

Bayley, D. H., & Garofalo, J. G. (1989). The management of violence by police officers.Criminology, 27, 1-25.

Crawford, C., & Burns, R. (1998). Predictors of the police use of force: The application of acontinuum perspective in Phoenix. Police Quarterly, 1, 41-63.

Croft, E. B. (1985). Police use of force: An empirical analysis. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Ellis, D., Choi, A., & Blaus, C. (1993). Injuries to police officers attending domestic distur-bances: An empirical study. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 35, 149-168.

Engel, R. S., Sobol, J. J., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Further exploration of the demeanorhypothesis: The interaction effects of suspects’ characteristics and demeanor on policebehavior. Justice Quarterly, 17, 236-258.

Freidrich, R. J. (1980). Police use of force: Individuals, situations and organizations. Annalsof the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 452, 87-97.

Garner, J. H., Buchanan, J., Schade, T., & Hepburn, J. (1996). Understanding the use of forceby and against the police (NCJ Report No. 158614). Washington DC: National Instituteof Justice.

Garner, J. H., & Maxwell, C. D. (2002). Understanding the use of force by and against thepolice in six jurisdictions (NCJ Report No. 196694). Washington, DC: National Instituteof Justice.

Garner, J. H., & Maxwell, C. D., & Heraux, C. (2002). Characteristics associated with theprevalence and severity of force used by the police. Report under review.

Kaminski, R. J., Edwards, S. M., & Johnson, J. W. (1999). Assessing the incapacitativeeffects of pepper spray during resistive encounters with the police. Policing: An Interna-tional Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 22, 7-29.

Kaminski, R. J., & Sorensen, D. W. M. (1995). A multivariate analysis of individual, situa-tional, and environmental factors associated with police assault injuries. American Jour-nal of Police, 14, 3-48.

Loftin, C., & McDowall, D. (1998). The analysis of case-control studies in criminology. TheJournal of Quantitative Criminology, 4, 85-98.

Long, S. J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Margarita, M. C. (1980). Criminal violence against police. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Pampel, F. C. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer (Sage University Papers Series on Quan-titative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schlesselman, J. J. (1982). Case-control studies: Design, conduct, analysis. New York:Oxford University Press.

Stetser, M. (2001). The use of force in police control of violence: Incidents resulting inassaults on officers. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

Taylor, B. G., Fitzgerald, N., Hunt, D., Reardon, J. A., & Brownstein, H. H. (2001). ADAMpreliminary 2000 findings on drug use and drug markets—Adult male arrestees. Wash-ington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Teplin, L. (2000). Keeping the peace: Police discretion and mentally ill persons. NationalInstitute of Justice Journal, 244, 8-15.

Terrill, W., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2002). Situational and officer-based determinants of policecoercion. Justice Quarterly, 19, 215-248.

Worden, R. (1995). The causes of police brutality: Theory and evidence on police use offorce. In W. Geller & H. Toch (Eds.), And justice for all: Understanding and controllingpolice abuse of force (pp. 31-60). Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Robert J. Kaminski is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminol-ogy and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina. He received his PhDin criminal justice from the University at Albany, State University of NewYork. His research interests are primarily in the areas of violence against thepolice, police use of force, and public perceptions of the police.

Clete DiGiovanni was a U.S. government psychiatrist with experience inlaw enforcement and paramilitary operations, operational support, andresearch. He is now retired.

Raymond Downs was a manager for the Less-Than-Lethal Technologyprogram at the National Institute of Justice. Over a period of 10 years, he ini-tiated and managed other technology program areas for the institute, includ-ing Safe Schools Technology and Concealed Weapons Technology. He spentmost of his career as a materials scientist in nuclear energy research. He isnow retired.


The use of force between the police and persons with impaired judgment

Documents

Transcript of The use of force between the police and persons with impaired judgment