HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-2001 Articles Distributed as per request.
Meeting of November 13, 2001
POLIC t 'SEOFFORCE
AMeRiCA
lnternatiork~l Association of Chiefs of Police
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................i
I. Introduction and Background .....................................................................1
II. Use of Force Policies - Participating Agencies ..........................................6
III. General Characteristics of Police Use of Force Data .................................6
IV. Defining and Measuring Excessive Use of Force .....................................14
V. Use of Force By Circumstance .................................................................15
VI. Police Use of Force: Officer Characteristics ............................................18
VII. Officer Injury VVhen Using Force ..............................................................24
VIII. Subject Use of Force and Injury Characteristics ......................................28
IX. Racial Characteristics of Force Incidents (Officers and Subjects) ............44
X. Officer, Subject and Mutual Use of Force Characteristics ........................46
XI. Use of Force During Traffic Stops ............................................................48
XII. Force Related Complaints Against Officers .............................................58
Appendix A: Project History ...........................................................................................62
Appendix B: Police Department Policies on Use of Force .............................................71
Appendix C: Project Advisors ........................................................................................76
Appendix D: Project Staff ..............................................................................................77
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
I. PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Since its inception in 1995, the National Police Use of Force Database project
has sought to improve the manner in which law enforcement agencies
capture, maintain, analyze, and utilize use of force data. The project has four
principal objectives:
rn Research and standardize definitions and parameters for a use of
force continuum including physical, impact, chemical, electronic, and
firearm force by law enforcement officers.
Design, produce and disseminate a use of force software package and
provide technical assistance to enhance local agency capacities to
gather, maintain, and report use of force incidents and complaints.
n Utilize state associations of chiefs of police as statewide pilot agencies,
capitalizing on their role to enhance local agency participation in the
IACP database program, and extend their leadership in this critical
policy area.
n Accept use of force incident and complaint data anonymously from
local agencies to create an IACP National Use of Force Database that
can answer questions from the public, the media, and the law
enforcement community.
II, FINDINGS FROM THE DATA
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) National Police Use
of Force Database is the first substantial aggregation of state, county and
local law enforcement use of force data. What follows are some of the recent
and noteworthy findings from the data. Information in this report is based on
years 1991-2000 representing a composite population of 149,940,551;
45,913,161 calls for service (CFS); 177,215 use of force incidents, and 8,082
use of force complaints. In some cases single data years are represented to
show current levels of use of force. In other cases, multiple years are
grouped to provide a larger sample of incidents.
n How often do police use force?
Data for 1999, the last year for which complete data from participating
agencies is available, shows that police used force at a rate of 3.6f
~ While the project began in 1995, participating agencies have contributed data from earlier years as far back as
1991.
times per 10,000 calls-for-service. This translates to a rate of use of
force of 0.0361%. Expressed another way, police did not use force
99.9639% of the time. Data on the calculated rates of police use of
force are presented in Table 10 (on page 12).
rn How much force is used?
IACP tracks the most commonly used force by both subjects and
police. The street continuum tracks the actual progression of type of
force, employed by either officers or subjects. From 1999-2000,
physical force was the most common force used by officers,
followed by chemical force and then impacL The use of chemical
force, primarily OC products (i.e., pepper spray), was greater than the
combined totals for electronic, impact and firearm force.
[]
12359 11085 1:3114 n106
m ml
pePhysical IChemical 12Impact nFirearm ~ .......... ..................
Total Officer Use of Force by Force Type
'1999 - 2000
n Are Police usina force differently today than in years past?
Data from years 1995 - 2000 shows that the historical street
continuum for officers was physical force, chemical force and firearm
force. At that time, the ratio between the frequency of physical force
incidents to chemical force incidents was about 13 to 1, while the ratio
between physical and firearm was 16 to 1. Between 1999-2000, the
ratio of physicel to chemical was about 2 to 1, while the ratio of
physical to firearm was about 22 to 1. Thus, as officer use of chemical
force has increased, firearm use has decreased.
Can "excessive" force be measured?
The IACP has created a measure of excessive force that assumes a
force-related complaint, sustained as alleged equals an incident of
excessive force. Between 1994 and 2000, of the 7,495 force-related
complaints reported to the project, 750 were sustained. This total
number of sustained force-related complaints was produced by a total
of 174,820 total reported incidents. Expressed as a percentage of total
incidents, excessive force was used 0.42% of the time. Again
looking at this another way, excessive force was not used in 99.583%
of all reported cases. Complete data on calculated rates of excessive
use of force are presented in Table 8 (on page 10).
In what circumstance is force used?
Arrests were the most frequent circumstance of use of force in data
years 1999 - 2000. Of the reported incidents for these years, which
included circumstance descriptors, 39% were arrest related. The next
largest category was disturbance with 21% of use of force incidents,
and traffic stops with 14%. Complete data on Officer Use of Force by
Circumstance is presented in Table 14 (on page 17).
Domestic
Disturbance Traffic Stop
21i0 / 14%
Drunk/Disorderly
9%
~ ~_lnvestigation
Arrests
39%
Percent Officer Use of Force
By Circumstance of Encounter
(1999 - 2000)
rn What are the racial characteristics of use of force incidents?
From 1995 to 2000 there were 8,148 reported incidents in which the
contributors included racial descriptors for both the involved officers
and subjects. Of this total, 3,169, or 39% involved white officers using
force on white subjects, 3,622, or 44% involved white officers using
force on African American subjects, 585, or 7% involved African
American officers using force on African Amedcan subjects and 277, or
3.4% involved African American officers using force on white subjects.
Data for officer use of force by race is presented in Table 19 (on page
22). Specific data on inter vs. intra racial officer/subject force incidents
is presented in Table 48 (on page 45).
n Subiect Use of Drucls/Alcehol as a Use of Force Indicator Durina
Traffic Stops
Subject intoxication appears to be a substantial predictor of police use
of force during traffic stops. Where both force and intoxication
information is available (838 incidents during the period 1995 to 2000)
46% of all use of force incidents occurred where the subject was
intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.
350-'
· Intoxicated
· Not Intoxicated
[] Unknown
Physical Chemical Impact Firearm Other
Subject Use of Force during Traffic Stops
Intoxicated vs. Not Intoxicated Subjects
(1995-2000)
jv
n Subject Use of 'Other Types of Force Durinq Traffic Stops
Intoxicated drivers are almost three times as likely to engage officers in
use of force other than physical, chemicel, electronic, impact or
firearm, than subjects who are either not intoxicated or whose state of
intoxication is unknown. The predominant subject weapon in such
encounters is the automobile used in 43% of such cases, followed by
knives and baseball bats, each used in 11% of all such reported cases.
Complete data on subject intoxication and types of force used during
traffic stops is presented in Tables 60 and 61 (on page 56).
[] Who aets iniured - and how seriously - when force is used?
Between 1999 and 2000, 3,577 incidents were reported that included
data on force-related officer injuries. During this period, the majority of
officers, some 87%, suffered no injuries from their encounters. Minor
injuries were reported by 12% of these officers and less than one
percent of these officers reported major injuries. No officer deaths
during this period were reported.
Subject injury outcomes were reported for 2,427 incidents between
1999 and 2000. Uninjured subjects accounted for 60% of the total.
Subjects with minor injuries comprised 38%; subjects with major
injuries were reported at less than one percent. Five subject deaths
were reported.
90-/1
80
70-/
60-/
[] None
50-/
40,/ 1 •Minor
[] Major
30,/ I::3 Death
20-/
10,/
Officers Subjects
Percent OfficerlSubject Injuries by Severity
(1999-2000)
As shown below, officer injuries related to the use of chemical and
impact force substantially exceed subject injuries during the same time
period. Complete data on officer and subject injuries are presented starting
with Tables 27 (on page 26) and 42 (on page 37), respectively.
Numbers of Officer/Subject Injuries
Comparison by Officer Force Type
1999- 2000
Type of Force Officer Injuries Percent Subject Injuries Percent
Physical 297 66.15 813 85.22
Chemical 109 24.27 94 9.85
Electronic 0 0 0 0
Impact 35 7.80 27 2.83
Firearm 8 1.78 20 2.1
Totals 449 100 954 1 O0
[] What is the involvement of emotionally disturbed (EDS) subjects?
Based on 111 incidents involving emotionally disturbed subjects, between
1995 and 2000, a full 58% of female EDS were involved in use of force
incidents relating to their arrest, as opposed to only 52% of male EDS. This is
particularly of interest because in general, male EDS outnumbered 'female
EDS by over 2 to 1. Second only to arrests were disturbance-related calls, in
which the intra-gender percentages for male and female EDS was roughly
equal, at 41% to 39% respectively. Again this was despite the fact that the
actual number of male subjects for this circumstance exceeded the numbers
for female subjects by almost 3 to 1. Overall, calls related to EDS attempted
suicides accounted for 31% of the total specific incident circumstances for all
genders (including unreported genders) Specific data on EDS is presented
starting on page 40.
In addition to providing basic measurement of use of force, the database
contains a variety of other information to allow IACP rese~chers the clarity to
conduct in-depth analysis of the data. Data elements of interest included:
[] Officer age, education, gender
n Officer race/ethnicity
n Incident characteristics
[] Complaint characteristics
[] Department characteristics
[] Jurisdictional demographics
vi
III. PROJECT EVALUATION/FUTURE DIRECTION
The IACP continues to evaluate the progress and impact of the National Use
of Force Database. The following are some of the key process/impact areas
we are focusing on:
n Continued suDDort to State Association of Chiefs of Police (SACOP)
and local aqencies
SACOP is the underpinning of this effort. Support at the state level
(highlighting the project at statewide meetings) and supporting local
agencies to begin collecting data has been essential. Local agencies'
capacity to capture, maintain, analyze, and report on local force usage
is also critical.
n The Future of the National Database
A survey of agencies in receipt of the software has been completed
and information from that survey will be use to inform and redirect
project activities where necessary. While the database is not currently
representative of the more than 18,769 police departments in the
United States, it is representative in terms of the populations
represented by contributing jurisdictions as a percentage of the total
population of the United States. Data representation is discussed more
completely in Section VI, later in this summary.
IV. SIGNIFICANT PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The first two data reporting years of the National Use of Force Database
Project (1996-1997; supported by a joint grant from the National Institute of
Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics) allowed the IACP to create a
national advisory group, create standardized definitions for all applications of
force, and design a software package to facilitate use of force data collection.
Since 1998 this project has been supported exclusively by the IACP. During
this period, staff focused on gathering state level support for the database,
implementing the software in the field, and creating a prototype national use
of force report using data contributed by local agencies. Specific
accomplishments include:
[] Local Level
From 1996 to 2000, over 2,500 state, county and local law
enforcement agencies have requested the IACP software to gain
clearer understanding of use of force trends and issues. The software
captures information on subject force, officer force, use of force
vii
outcomes/injuries, a number of pertinent officer and suspect
demographics, and related complaint data.
State Level
State Associations of Chiefs of Police (SACOP) in Arkansas, the
District of Columbia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington,
and West Virginia are serving as the lead agency in their state to
expand the number of local agencies achieving full participation in the
use of fome project. Local agencies within these states receive
guidance and support from these associations as they sign on to the
database program.
National Level
Since project inception (1995), a total of 564 agencies have provided
anonymous and voluntary use of force incident/complaint data to the
IACP. This data consists of 45,gf3,16f calls-for-service, f77,2f5
use of force incidents and 8,082 use of force-related citizen
complaints. The IACP utilizes this data to craft annual use of force
updates for the law enforcement community, the media, and the public.
A detailed summary of data contributions by data year is presented in
Table 2 (on page 3).
The IACP Use of Force reporting software has been recognized by
CALEA as meeting or exceeding the current CALEA standards for
police use of force reporting and is in use by many departments
seeking accreditation.
V. INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION OF PRINCIPLE FINDINGS
In March 2001, the Department of Justice, through its Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) released the results of its 1999 National Survey on Contacts
Between the Police and the Public. In this comprehensive analysis of
police/citizen contacts, BJS reported that less than one percent of all such
contacts involved either use of force or the threat to use force.
IACP has previously released the results in 1996 and 1999 of the ongoing
National Police Use of Force Database survey, which showed similar values
for the frequencies of police use of force. The current baseline figure for the
rate of police use of force is 3.61 for every 10,000 dispatched calls-for-
service. This results in a rate of police use of force of less than one percent,
consistent with BJS findings.
viii
Despite the significant differences in study methodology, the fact that both
sets of results converge on the same low values for frequencies of police use
of force provides a convincing argument that overall levels of police use of
force are extremely low.
VI. DATA REPRESENTATION
Data contributed for the years 1991-2000 represent a population of
149,940,551; 45,913,161 calls-for-service; 177,215 use of force incidents;
and 8,082 use of force complaints.
As a work in progress, the IACP National Police Use of Force Database has
always had the ultimate goal of presenting a nationally representative picture
of police and subject use of force in America. There are two basic ways to
approach this goal. The first is to receive use of force data from a
representative sample of reporting departments. Sampling theory suggests
that a statistically valid sample should consist of no less than 10% of a given
population. At that rate, this project would require data contributions from
1,700 departments in order to construct a sample, which is nationally
representative of police departments nationwide.
The second method is to achieve national representation in terms of the
civilian population represented by comparing the combined jurisdictions of the
contributing departments, to the total civilian population of the United States.
The United States Census Bureau data from the 2000 Census puts the
population of the United States at 281,421,906. The sum of jurisdiction sizes
reported to the IACP for the year 2000 was 81,710,260. Thus, the IACP use
of force data for the year 2000 represents approximately 30% of the
entire US population.
II. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND I
PROJECT ORIGINS
To fulfill the legislative mandate of Public Law `193-322, the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994, IACP received funding from the Bureau of Justice
Statistics and the National Institute of Justice (from `1995 to '1997) to assemble a
national database on police use of force. This project, now funded exclusively by the
IACP, has resulted in the development of a unique, automated data collection software
package, implemented largely through the support of the IACP Division of State
Associations of Chiefs of Police (SACOP).
DESIGN AND APPROACH
The IACP software provides an automated data capture system for local departments to
analyze their specific uses of force and force-reIated complaints. The program makes
the data collection software available free of charge to any interested department.
Three types of records may be contributed to the project: Summary Records include
descriptive statistics of community and department demographics, types of use of force
policies in effect and absolute numbers of force-related incidents and complaints.
Individual Incident data consists of detailed records of specific incidents, which can
include statistical data on the involved officer(s), subject(s), and third party(ies). Finally,
Complaint Records provide data on force-related complaints and their outcomes.
From the universe of software recipients, a smaller proportion contributes actual data to
the project, Because data contributions are self-initiated at the local level, completely
voluntary, and preclude any identifying information, the aggregate responses can be
considered a self-selected sample of the law enforcement community. Originally, seven
pilot states, through their respective State Associations of Chiefs of Police and the
support of the IACP SACOP Division, contributed data to the project: Arkansas, New
Jersey, New York, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington (state), and the U.S.
Border Patrol. More recently, the states of Illinois, Rhode Island, Missouri, Maryland,
Kentucky, as well as the District of Columbia have also provided data support.
DEFINITIONS OF USE OF FORCE
The IACP use of force project defines force as "that amount of effort required by
police to compel compliance from an unwilling subject." Based on that general
definition, data on physical, chemical, impact, electronic, and firearm force is collected.
The IACP defines excessive use of force as "the application of an amount and/or
frequency of force greater than that required to compel compliance from a willing
or unwilling subject." Reports of excessive use of force from citizen or department
complaints against officers that are investigated and adjudicated (sustained) as alleged
are counted as excessive force incidents in the IACP database. The IACP has
developed a baseline rate of excessive use of police force: the rate of excessive force
per 10,000 incidents. We have calculated a composite rate for all contributing
jurisdictions as a framework for a national average. In future reporting pedods, IACP
hopes to present this rate as a function of discrete jurisdictional size, in the same
manner as the IACP baseline rate for police use of force is currently reported.
DATA CONTRIBUTIONS
All data submitted by police agencies is on a voluntary and anonymous basis. As such,
the number of data contributions varies from year to year. Data reported to the project
is contributed primarily by municipal police departments. Contributions have also been
received from special purpose departments (for example; campus, gaming commission
and park police) and county police organizations as well. The IACP has made an effort,
during the last year, to collect data from larger departments where levels of force related
data might be commensurately higher. Data contributions received, for data years 1999
through 2000 by agency type, are presented below:
Table 1
DATA CONTRIBUTIONS BY TYPE OF AGENCY
1999-2000
AGENCY TYPE PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL
CONTRIBUTIONS - 1999 CONTRIBUTIONS - 2000
Federal 0% 2%
State Police 14% 1%
County Police 14% 6%
Municipal Police 67% 81%
Shedffs Department 0% 5%
Special Purpose 5% 5%
Totals 100% 100%
II. USE OF FORCE POLICIES - PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
Since the inception of the IACP project in 1995, contributing departments have
demonstrated an increase in the numbers and types of departmental policies used to
regulate and manage police use of force. The continued use of less than lethal force
can be tracked by department policies governing their use, as well as by the number
and types of incidents in which they are used. For example, in 1998, 87% of all
reporting departments did not allow the use of MACE by officers. This was up from 70%
of reporting departments in 1996. In contrast, 97% of responding departments
approved the use of resin (OC products) during the same period, up from 82% of
respondents in 1996. Complete policy data can be found in Appendix B.
III.GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF POLICE USE OF FORCE
DATA
Use of force data represented in the following tables are broken down as a function of
jurisdiction size and depict the number of contributions per jurisdictional size range.
Rates of police use of force per 10,000 responded to (dispatched) calls-for-service per
jurisdictional range are also presented. Both the discrete rate (per cohort per year) and
the average rate of all contributing cohorts per year are presented in Tables 5 through
11, below.
~ ~ ~ddddddd
~ --
~ 'i 'ddddddd
0 .~o
o
~ ~ddddddd
~ dddddddd
0 ~
0 ~ .er
IV. DEFINING AND MEASURING EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE I
The IACP defines excessive police use of force as:
"The application of an amount and/or frequency of force greater than
that required to compel compliance from a (willing or unwilling)
subject."
Because the baseline levels of force required to secure compliance from an unwilling
subject are generally defined both administratively and by statute, the test of whether a
particular use of force incident is, or is not, excessive can be determined by the
administrative and/or civil outcomes of the incident investigation or complaint. We have
examined the citizen force-related complaints to identify those cases in which alleged
excessive police use of force was adjudicated (sustained). These complaints were then
designated as instances of excessive police use of force and analysis was performed to
identify additional statistical characteristics of these events.
Between 1994 and 2000 there were 150,026 police use of force incidents reported to
the project nationally by departments who also contributed accompanying complaints
(as of April 2001). Of these, 750 incidents resulted in citizen or department originated
complaints of excessive use of force that were subsequently sustained as alleged.
Thus, the percentage of excessive use of force during the reportin9 period was 0.42%
of the total incidents. This calculates to a rate of 42 instances of excessive use of force
per 10,000 incidents.
Table 12
FORCE RELATED CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
1994-2000
Type of Force Total Complaints Sustained Complaints % Sustained
Physical 5,773 572 9.90%
Chemical 656 32 4.87%
Electronic 482 67 14.00%
Impact 844 74 8.76%
Firearm 557 5 0.90%
Totals 8,312 750 9.02%
14
I V. USE OF FORCE BY CIRCUMSTANCE I
Data on police use of force by the circumstance of the confrontation is presented in the
following tables. The majority of use of force incidents was related to the arrest process
and involved physical force. The use of chemical force, primarily OC products, was
greater than the combined totals for electronic, impact, and firearm force combined.
15
Ivl.: POLICE USE OF FORCE:: OFFICER CHARACTERISTICS
USE OF FORCE BY OFFICER EDUCATION LEVEL
Table 15 shows the force continuum and its application based on officer education
beginning at less than 12 years through 18 years or more for the half decade 1995
through 2000. This data reflects the clustering of officers with 16 years of education as
an outcome of historical department employment practices, which have encouraged the
recruitment and retention of college educated officers. The most recent officer education
data, from 1999 - 2000, indicates that officers with a college education tend to use less
force of all types than officers with only a high school education.
Table 15
USE OF FORCE BY OFFICER EDUCATION LEVEL
1995-2000
YEARS OF EDUCATION
< 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 > 18 Totals
Firearm
Force 186 1,228 4 6 4 4,124 278 504 498 8,832
Physical 1,833 10,320 349 587 127 67,724 6,627 9,618 10,063 107,248
Force
Chemical
Force 753 2,675 138 207 49 3,531 358 552 557 8,820
Electronic
Force 4 10 0 4 0 345 35 52 13 463
Impact 45 301 14 19 4 949 94 152 104 1682
Force
Other
Force 10 304 3 24 1 19 0 0 0 361
TOtalS 2,831 14,850 508 847 185 76,692 7,392 10,878 11,235 125v406
Mean 472 2,473 85 141 31 12,782 1,232 1,813 1,873
Note: This report reflects data in both the incident and complaint systems.
18
:3 z ,-
13 0
USE OF FORCE BY AGE OF OFFICER
The highest number of use of force incidents reported to the project dudng 1995 - 2000
involved officers between the ages of 21 and 40. This finding is predictable given that
patrol assignments are principal activities of this age group.
Table 17
USE OF FORCE BY OFFICER AGE
1995-2000
2t-25 26-30 31-35 3640 4t-45 46-50 51-55 86-60 61-65 Totals
Physical 24,780 44,420 27,206 8,763 1,999 383 144 24 5 t07,724
Force
Chemical 2,463 3,422 1,848 722 237 113 40 7 0 8,852
Force
Electronic 99 183 151 51 13 4 0 0 0 501
Force
Impact 407 673 439 159 51 10 6 2 0 1,747
Force
Firearm 1,263 2,673 2,018 683 141 42 6 5 0 6,831
Force
Totals 29,012 5t,371 31,662 10,378 2,441 552 196 38 5 126,655
Mean 5,802 10,274 6,332 2,076 488 1t0 39 19 I
Note: This report reflects data in both the incident and complaint systems.
20
USE OF FORCE BY RACE AND GENDER
During the 1999 and 2000 data years, contributing departments submitted anonymous
records on 3,308 individual officers who used force. Of these, 3,062 were males and
240 were females and six were of unknown or unreported gender. In some cases,
departments that contributed officer data did not contribute equivalent subject data.
Based on the presented data, one cannot associate any probable likelihood that an
officer (or subject) is more or less likely to engage in a use of force encounter based
exclusively on their race and gender.
This data shows that for the reported data years, the majority of officers were white
(65%), followed by Hispanic (15%), and African American (11%). Although Hispanic
officers accounted for 15% of the reported officers, by ethnicity, they accounted for only
2.1% of all reported use of force incidents. The racial breakdown of these officers,
which aggregates both genders, follows.
Table 19
USE OF FORCE BY OFFICER RACE
1999- 2000
Reported Officer Race Incidents Reported Percent of Total
White 2,837 84.6
Afdcan American 337 10
Hispanic* 70 2.1
Asian American 32 0.95
Native American 5 0.15
Other/Unknown 69 2.1
Totals 3,350 100
Note: * Hispanic surname indicates ethnicity and may include individuals of any race. Identificet~on based
on officer perception of subject ethnic'try at time of incident,
USE OF FORCE BY OFFICER GENDER
Table 20 shows that female officers use chemical force at a slightly higher rate than
their male counterparts, when such usage is expressed as a percentage of the total
respective uses of force per gender. Male officers used chemical force in about five
percent of their total incidents, while female officers used chemical force in about six
percent of their total incidents.
The same calculation for years 1999-2000, as depicted in Table 21, shows that male
officers used chemical force in about 32% of their total incidents, while female officers
used chemical force in about 38% of theirs.
A similar difference can be calculated for male and female officers' use of physical
force. The half decade data presented in Table 20 shows that 73% of the total incidents
for male officers involved some form of physical force, while only 68% of the incidents
reported for female officers during the same period used physical force. In Table 21 we
see that physical force accounted for (coincidentally) 73% of the force used by male
officers and only 52% of the total incidents reported for female officers.
Table 20
USE OF FORCE BY OFFICER GENDER
1995-2000
Officer Gender Total Incidents Physical Chemical Electronic Impact Fiream Other
Male 119.770 87,354 6.519 19 778 5.640 215
Female 10.193 6.980 618 0 42 372 28
Totals 129,963 94,334 7,137 19 820 6,012 243
Table 21
USE OF FORCE BY OFFICER GENDER
1999- 2000
Officer Gender Total Incidents Physical Chemical Electronic Impact Firearm Other
Male 3.071 2,235 994 3 109 104 173
Female 237 124 91 0 5 2 26
Totals 3,308 2,359 1,085 3 114 106 199
23
tVII. OFFICER:INJURYWHEN USING FORCE ::: : I
For all data years collected, male officers' use of force is predominant. As such, they
also constitute the majority of force-related injuries reported to the project. Between
1999 and 2000, there were 3,128 incidents in which no officer injuries resulted. One
hundred and eighty-two (182) officer injuries were reported in 2000 and 276 reported for
1999. Officer injudes by gender per type of force used between 1995 and 2000 is
presented below.
Table 22
OFFICER INJURIES BY TYPE OF FORCE USED
1995-2000
Force Type None Minor Major Death Totals
Physical 96.706 5, 185 28 0 101,919
Chemical 7258 645 12 0 7,915
Electronic 17 2 0 0 19
Impact 750 150 1 0 901
Firearm 6,107 145 16 6 6,274
Totals 110,838 6,127 57 6 117,028
Percent 94.71 5.23 .048 .005 100
Table 23
OFFICER INJURIES BY TYPE OF FORCE USED
1999-2000
Type of Force None Minor Major Death Total Percent Total
Physical 1,984 293 4 0 2,281 63.76
Chemical 966 108 I 0 1,075 30.07
Electronic 3 0 0 0 3 0.08
Impact 78 35 0 0 113 3.16
Firearm 97 7 I 0 105 2.935
Totals 3,128 443 6 0 3,577 100
Percent 87.44 12.38 0.17 0
Table 24
OFFICER INJURIES BY GENDER: ALL FORCE TYPES
1995-2000
Officer
None % Total Minor % Total Major % Total Death % Total Totals
Gender
Male 114,729 95.85 4,926 4.11 44 3.68 6 5.012 119,705
Female 9,665 94.91 513 5.04 5 0.49 0 0 10,183
Totals 124,394 5,439 49 6 129,888
Table 25
OFFICER INJURIES BY GENDER: ALL FORCE TYPES
1999-2000
Officer
None % Total Minor % Total Major % Total Death % Total Totals
Gender
Male 2,693 91 259 8.7 6 0.2 0 0 2,958
Female 207 90.78 21 9.2 0 0 0 0 228
Totals 2,900 280 6 0 0 3,186
Note: This table excludes 228 officers uninjured officers of unknown gender.
25
Table 26
OFFICER INJURIES BY GENDER: PHYSICAL FORCE
1999-2000
Officer Gender None Minor Major Death Totals
Male 1,912 286 4 0 2,202
Female 102 16 0 0 118
Totals 2,014 302 4 0
Table 27
OFFICER INJURIES BY GENDER: CHEMICAL FORCE
1999-2000
Officer Gender None Minor Major Death Totals
Male 856 99 1 0 956
Female 80 9 0 0 89
Totals 936 108 I 0
Table 28
OFFICER INJURIES BY GENDER: IMPACT FORCE
1999-2000
Officer Gender None Minor Major Death Totals
Male 75 33 0 0 108
Female 3 2 0 0 5
Totals 78 35 0 0
Table 29
OFFICER INJURIES BY GENDER: ELECTRONIC FORCE
1999-2000
Officer Gender None Minor Major Death Totals
Male 3 0 0 0 3
Female 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 3 0 0 0
Table 30
OFFICER INJURIES BY GENDER: FIREARM FORCE
1999-2000
Officer Gender None Minor Major Death Totals
Male 95 7 I 0 103
Female 2 0 0 0 2
Totals 97 7 I 0
27
VIII. SUBJECT USE OF FORCE AND INJURY CHARACTERISTICS I
For the data years 1999 through 2000, departments contributed 2,803 anonymous
records on subjects who used force against police officers. 2,432 of these included
specific subject gender data. Of these, 2,147 or 88% involved male subjects and 385 or
12% involved female subjects. The basic indicators for subject use of forca against
officers during the reporting pedod are:
n Subject Deaths: Of the 1,787 reported uses of suspect physical force between
1999 and 2000, only 0.167%, or three cases, resulted in suspect death. By
contrast some 40% of subject injuries (minor or major) resulted from subject use
of physical force during the same time pedod.
n Juvenile Assaults on Officers: Between 1999 and 2000, assaults on police
officers by individuals 10 years of age or under accounted for three percant of all
reported chemical assaults, one percent of all reported physical assaults, and
seven percent of all reported firearm assaults on police officers. Subjects aged
11 to 20 were responsible for some 23% of all assaults on officers. Between
1999 and 2000, they committed 24% of all physical assaults, 20% of all chemical
assaults, 13% of all impact-related assaults and seven percent of all firearm
assaults against police officers.
When compared to white subjects, there appears to be a somewhat higher
involvement of non-white juveniles as subjects in use of force incidents in the
years 1995 through 2000. Among white subjects, there is a ratio of 80% to 20%
between adult and juvenile subjects respectively. Among African Americans,
Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans, this ratio was 70% to 30% adults to
juveniles.
n Adult Assaults on Officers: In general, there were almost three times as many
adult subjects in use of force incidents than juveniles. Young adults, age 21 to 30
years continue to be a significant age cohort involved in uses of force against
police officers. Between 1995 and 2000, this group was responsible for 34% of
the total (all types of forca) subject uses of force against offcars. Of this, physical
force was used most frequently, at 87% of the total, chemical force comprised
10%, impact comprised 1% and firearm force was used 2.3% of the time. Data
on subject use of force and subject injuries by type of force used are presented
next.
28
Table 33
SUBJECT USE OF FORCE: ADULT VS. JUVENILE BY SUBJECT RACE
INTRA - RACIAL PERCENT OF ADULTS VS. JUVENILES
1995- 2000
SUBJECT RACE ADULT (N) % ADULT BY JUVENILE (N) % JUVENILE TOTAL
RACE BY RACE
White 2,659 78 738 22 3,397
African American 2,752 68 1,301 32 4,053
Hispanic* 205 72 78 28 283
Asian 21 66 11 34 32
Native/American 7 64 4 36 11
Other/Unknown 649 80 155 19 804
Totals 6,293 2,287
Note: This table omits data in which subject race is missing.
Note: *Hispanic surname; may include individuals of any race and officer perception of ethnicity of
subject at time of incident.
Table 34
SUBJECT USE OF FORCE: PERCENT OF ALL RACES
INTER- RACIAL PERCENT ADULT VS. JUVENILE
1995-2000
SUBJECT ADULT % JUVENILE %
RACE 1995-2000 1995-2000
White 42.25 32.260
African American 43.73 56.886
Hispanic 3.250 3.410
Asian 0.333 0,480
Native/American 0.111 0.175
Other/Unknown 10.313 6.770
Totals 100.000 100.000
31
SUBJECT USE OF FORCE BY GENDER - 1999-2000
Male subjects demonstrate significantly higher levels of force of all types than females.
The type of force used by subjects by gender is presented below:
Table 35
SUBJECT USE OF FORCE BY GENDER
1999
Subject Gender Physical Chemical Electronic Impact Firearm Totals
Male 1,137 157 0 21 14 1,329
Female 125 22 0 0 0 147
Totals 1,262 179 0 21 14
Table 36
SUBJECT USE OF FORCE BY GENDER
2000
Subject Gender Physical Chemical Electronic Impact Firearm 'Totals
Male 657 146 0 6 9 818
Female 114 22 0 2 0 138
Totals 771 168 0 8 9
USE OF OTHER TYPES OF FORCE BY SUBJECT
In addition to the standard force types of physicel, chemical, electronic, impact, and
firearm, subjects can and do utilize whatever potential weapon is accessible while
resisting police officers. Examples of items used by subject, which also fall into the
reporting category of "other" types of force includes, but are not limited to: beer bottles,
dogs, autos, knives and active aggression (fighting). During the reporting period of
1995 to 2000, some 211 incidents of subjects using "other" types of force were reported
to the project.
Table 37
PRIMARY SUBJECT USE OF "OTHER" FORCE
1995-2000
Type of Force Male Subjects Female Subjects Total % Total
Active Aggression 42 5 47 22
Edged Weapons 31 5 36 17
Verbal Threats 26 1 13 13
Auto 12 I 13 6
All Others 81 7 102 42
Tota Is 192 19 211 100
The data shows that subjects are most likely to resist officers by fighting, followed by the
use, or attempted use of an edged weapon of some sort. A detailed table showing all
reported use of "other" force by subjects appears next.
Z
0
u -*
· ,- ..-
u
0 ~'
u
n~ Q- a-w'~
.... '= w e.~o-o-cs'~ w o :3:= o o w 0
<<<mmmmrnmOnODLUU.i..jnn"n'cO$--~>l- ,..
SUBJECT INJURIES
Table 40
SUBJECT INJURIES BY TYPE OF SUBJECT FORCE USED
'1999-2000
Type of Force None Minor Major Death Total Percent Total
Physical 1,212 797 13 3 2,025 83.44
Chemical 248 94 0 0 342 14.10
Electronic 0 0 0 0 0 0
Impact 8 27 0 0 35 1.44
Firearm 5 11 7 2 25 1.03
Totals t,473 929 20 5 2,427 100
Percent 60 38.27 0.82 0.21
Table 40a
SPECIFIC SUBJECT INJURIES BY TYPE OF SUBJECT FORCE USED
1999-2000
Type of Force Minor Major Death Totals Percent Total
Physical 797 13 3 813 85.22
Chemical 94 0 0 94 9.85
Electronic 0 0 0 0 0
Impact 27 0 0 27 2.83
Firearm 11 7 2 20 2.1
Totals 929 20 5 954 100
Percent 38.27 0.82 0.21
Table 4t
SUBJECT INJURIES BY GENDER: PHYSICAL FORCE*
1999-2000
Subject Gender None Minor Major Death Totals
Male 1,060 712 12 3 1,787
Female 51 85 I 0 137
TotaIs 1,211 797 13 3
Note: Subjects injured while using physical force against officers, includes data
on all subject races and data which excludes subject race.
Table 42
SUBJECT INJURIES BY GENDER: CHEMICAL FORCE
1999-2000
Subject Gender None Minor Major Death Totals
Male 210 93 0 0 303
Female 38 I 0 0 39
Totals 248 94 0 0
Table 43
SUBJECT INJURIES BY GENDER: IMPACT FORCE
1999-2000
Subject Gender None Minor Major Death Totals
Male 8 25 0 0 33
Female 0 2 0 0 2
Totals 8 27 0 0
37
Table 44
SUBJECT INJURIES BY GENDER: FIREARM FORCE
1999-2000
Subject Gender None Minor Major Death Totals
Male 3 11 7 2 22
Female 0 0 0 0 0
Tota Is 3 11 7 2
Relationship of Subject(s) Use of DruclslAIcohol to Subjects Use of Force
Male subjects had a higher frequency of alcohol/drug use at the time of the incident
than did their female counterparts. Fifty-three percent of male and 35% of female
subjects involved in police use of force incidents between 1999 and 2000 were
determined to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident. A
breakdown of reported alcohol/drug use by gender of subjects who used force against
police officers between 1999 and 2000 is presented below.
Table 46
SUBJECT USE OF DRUGS/ALCOHOL
1999-2000
Category Male Percent Total (m) Females Percent Total (f)
Using Drugs/Alcohol 1,305 53.33 124 35.13
Not Using Drugs/Alcohol 302 12;3 77 21.81
Unknown Drug/Alcohol Use 840 34.32 152 43.05
Totals 2,447 353
Total (m)=2,447 Total (f)=353
Police Use of Force and Emotionally Disturbed Subjects
The involvement of subjects, identified as emotionally disturbed, in police use of force
incidents is receiving increasing attention from both the law enforcement community
and the general public. For the purpose of this project, subjects are identified as
emotionally disturbed based on one of three factors: 1) the existence of a temporary
commitment, or mental health order for the subject, referenced in the incident report, or
2) officer perceptions based on the actions of the subject and indicated in the incident
report, 3) prior information on the subject's mental condition as referenced in the
incident report. Under the odginal data definitions used in this project, there was no
discrete circumstance code, which would allow contributing departments to explicitly
identify subjects considered to be emotionally disturbed. However, the data collection
software did have the flexibility to allow contributors to identify such individuals in the
comment field, which is provided for each incident.
The IACP has identified 111 incidents in which EDS were clearly indicated by the data
contributors between the years 1995 and 2000. However, because of the inability of
departments to directly identify such incidents by circumstance and because incidents
involving EDS are commonly contributed under other circumstance codes, such as
arrests or disturbance, it is possible that the actual number of EDS encountered by
police as subjects dudng this time period may be higher. In order to determine a more
accurate future count of incidents of this type, the IACP has recently modified its data
collection software to allow for the direct identification of EDS as special population
subjects.
For the data in hand, it is interesting to note that 31% of all police use of force with
identified EDS of all races and genders involved subject suicide attempts, Despite this,
no EDS deaths were reported for the data years in question. Specific data on EDS is
presented below.
Table 46a
EDS BY RACE AND GENDER
1995- 2000
Gender White Black Hispanic Asian N. American Unknown Totals
Male 37 14 I 0 1 20 73
Female 19 3 0 0 0 9 31
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 7 7
Totel 56 17 I 0 I 36 111
Table 46b
EDS USE OF FORCE BY TYPE OF FORCE USED
AND SUBJECT GENDER
1995- 2000
Subject Gender Number Physical Chemical Electronic Impact Firearm Other
Male 73 47 2 0 1 3 7
Female 31 31 2 0 0 0 1
Unknown 7 0 0 0 0 0 2
Totel 111 78 4 0 I 3 10
Table 46c
EDS SUBJECT INJURIES BY GENDER
1995 - 2000
Subject Gender None Minor Major Death Totals
Male 46 24 3 0 73
Female 28 3 0 0 31
Unknown 6 I 0 0 7
Total 80 28 3 0 111
41
Table 46d
EDS SPECIFIC INCIDENT CIRCUMSTANCES
BY GENDER
1995 - 2000
Gender MHO/TDO Evaluation A/Suicide Combative Unspecified Unknown
Male 8 12 17 11 19 67
Female 0 2 11 7 12 32
Unknown 0 0 6 0 1 7
Missing 0 0 0 0 5 5
Total 8 14 34 18 32 111
Nots: MHO = Mental Health Order, TDO = Temporary Detention Order, A/Suicide = Attempted
Suicide
Table 46e
EDS BY AGE AND GENDER
1995- 2000
Gender 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 - 70 Unknown Totals
Male 0 11 23 14 16 4 4 1 73
Female 0 9 7 8 3 3 I 0 31
Unknown 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7
Total 0 20 37 22 19 7 5 I 111
Nots: No EDS above 70 years of age were involved in contributed force incidents
Table 46f
EDS BY GENERAL INCIDENT CIRCUMSTANCES
AND SUBJECT GENDER
1995- 2000
Gender Arrest Arrest Arrest Disturbance Investigation Domestic Prisoner
(Field) (VVarrant) (Effecting) Transport
Male 25 2 11 30 3 I 1
Female 11 4 3 12 I 0 0
Unknown 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 43 6 14 42 4 I I
Based on the data listed above, we can see that a full 58% of female EDS were
involved in use of force incidents relating to their arrest, as opposed to only 52% of male
EDS. This is particularly of interest because in general, male EDS outnumbered female
EDS by over 2 to 1.
Second only to arrests were disturbance-related calls, in which the intra-gender
percentages for male and female EDS was roughly equal, at 41% to 39%, respectively.
Again this was despite the fact that the actual number of male subjects for this
circumstance exceeded the numbers for female subjects by almost 3 to 1.
:IX;:i!~::::?:RACIAECHARACTERISTICS OF:FORCE INCIDENTS :(OFFSCERS :::!I
L:.i!~!i: AND SUBJECTS)
Between 1995-2000, African Americans composed the greatest number of subjects
involved in use of forco incidents, followed by whites and then by Hispanics.
Frequencies of subjects' use of force by race am presented below.
Table 47
USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS:
SUBJECT RACE
1995-2000
SUBJECT RACE NUMBER OF SUBJECTS
White 3,542
African American 4,318
Hispanic 312
Asian 34
Native American 11
Other 51
Unknown 822
Total 9,090
· Note: Hispanic surname indicates ethnicity and may include individuals of any race.
Identification based on officer perception of subject ethnicity at time of incident.
· Table excludes subjects with missing race data.
One of the most publicly debated aspects of police use of force during the last year is
the racial characteristic of participants in use of force encounters. Th,e IACP has sorted
department responses into two categories: inter-racial (officer(s) and subject(s) are of
different races) and intra-mcial (the officer(s) and subject(s) are of the same race).
:~.:: OFFICER;SUBJECT AND MUTUAL :USEOF ::FORCE
I::'~::::: :i:C:H~CTERISTICS ~;~:i:i::!:~ii:!~:: ;:~:~:i:i:!: ::~;~!:!:::!~::i::i::;:~i::~!i!~:~:~::!~i:::!:;;:! i ~: i:: ::i: :~
The data provides insight into the mutual use of force during encounters. In the majority
of cases, both subject(s) and officer(s) use force. However, in a substantial number of
cases, only subjects use forca. This data is presented below.
Table 49
OFFICER - SUBJECT USE OF FORCE BY FORCE TYPE
'1999
Physical Chemical Impact Firearm Totals
Subject Only 289 19 14 3 325
Officer Only 223 507 79 8 817
Both 974 160 13 13 1 ,'160
Totals 1,486 686 '106 24 2,302
Note: This table depicts interactions between officers and subjects whether the same type of force is or is
not used by each.
Table 50
OFFICER - SUBJECT USE OF FORCE BY FORCE TYPE
1995-2000
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Physical Physical Chemical Chemical Impact Impact Firearm Firearm
Subject Only 1,398 18.800 54 1.63 60 17.96 40 19.51
Officer Only 460 6.193 2,507 75.71 242 72.40 45 21.95
Both 5,570 74.980 750 22.65 32 9.58 120 58.54
Totals 7,428 99.973 3,311 99.99 334 99.94 205
Note: This table depicts interactions between officers and subjects whether the same type of force is or is
not used by each.
MULTIPLE OFFICER/SUBJECT INCIDENTS
As shown above, the vast majority of use of force incidents took place between a single
officer and one or more subjects. Between 1995 and 2000, these numbered some 5,727
individual incidents. Of these, the majority of incidents were between individual officers
and individual subjects. In the table below, between 1995 and 2000, there were 5,398
incidents involving a single officer and a single subject. During that same period, there
were three incidents involving a single officer and 12 subjects.
Table 51
MULTIPLE OFFICER/MULTIPLE SUBJECT USE OF FORCE
1995-2000
Number of Subjects Per Incident
t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 t 12 Totals
1 5,398 229 52 12 8 5 4 4 3 5 3 3 5,727
2 1,751 109 37 6 3 I I 2 1 2 I 2 t,918
3 579 53 15 4 2 6 I I 1 I I I 668
4 188 31 5 2 I 1 I I I 1 I I 238
5 66 6 3 2 3 I I I I I I 1 02
6 29 3 2 I I 3 I 1 I I I I 51
7 13 I I I I I 3 I I I I I 33
Totals 8,024 432 1t5 28 19 t8 12 11 9 12 9 10
OFFICER/SUBJECT USE OF MULTIPLE FORCE TYPES
Reported incidents were further disaggregated to identify the numbers of different types
of force used by both subjects and officers during encounters. The physicel force
accounts for the majority of force used by both officer and subjects. Finally, the data
shows a significant amount of firearms use against officers by subjects.
47
Table 52
OFFICER-SUBJECT MULTIPLE FORCE TYPES USED
1995-2000
Subject(s) Type(s) of Force Used
Type of Force Physical Chemical Impact Firearm P/C P/I PCI PCIF Totals
(Officers)
Physical 4,242 7 10 6 24 11 7 0 4,307
Chemical 623 460 11 4 8 3 0 0 1,109
Impact 46 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 53
Firearm 18 1 2 102 0 0 0 0 123
Totals 4,929 468 28 112 32 16 7 0
Note: Officers used ONLY THE iNDICATED single type of force in the above table.
P/C = Subject use of both physical and chemical force.
P/I = Subject use of both physical and impact force.
PCI = Subject use of physical, chemical AND impact force.
PCIF = Subject use of physical, chemical, impact and firearm force.
I xl. USE OF FORCE DURING TRAFFIC STOPS : :~
Between 1995 and 2000, the IACP received data on 923 incidents involving officer use
of force during traffic stops. Of these, 838 records (or 91%) could be matched to
corresponding driver records, while the remaining officer records included no driver
data. The following section is based on these 838 traffic stops.
Physical force was used by officers in 75% of traffic stops as opposed to being used by
drivers in 86% of all reported traffic stops involving use of force. There was an
essentially equal use of tirearms reported for both drivers and officers, at 1.85% and
1.84% of total use of force during traffic stops for each group, respectively.
Table 53
FREQUENCIES OF OFFICER/DRIVER USE OF FORCE DURING
TRAFFIC STOPS BY FORCE TYPE: ALL RACES/ALL: GENDERS
1995-2000
Physical Chemical Impact Firearm Other Totals
Officer 628 270 36 18 22 974
Driver 722 31 15 15 26 809
Note: 1 ) N = 838 reported traffic stops for data years 1995 - 2000; 2) Data includes multiple uses of force
by either drivers, officers or both during single traffic stops,
48
The data suggests that neither the frequency of traffic stops, their associated uses of
driver force, nor the force-related outcomes of traffic stops could be predicted based
solely on judsdiction size. For example, jurisdictional cohort number five had the highest
frequency of traffic stops between 1995 and 2000, representing some 28% of the
reported stops dudng that period. This was more then twice as many stops as were
reported for cohort eight, which is more then 10 times as large. Data for traffic stop
frequencies and driver uses of force are presented in Table 56.
Driver Characteristics of Force Involved Traffic Stops
The race of officers and subjects was reported in 753 traffic stops reported to the project
between data years 1995 and 2000. All of these stops involved subject, officer, or
mutual uses of force during the encounter. These stops were divided into the
categories of inter-racial, (meaning the officers and subjects were of different races),
and intra-racial (meaning that the officers and subjects were of the same race).
Driver Race:
n Inter-racial traffic stops accounted for 55% of the total while intra-racial
traffic stops accounted for 45%.
[] 85% of intra-racial stops involved white officers involved with white
subjects, while 15% percent involved African American officers involved
with African American subjects.
[] For inter-racial stops: 84% of the reported stops were between white
officers and African American subjects. Five percent were between African
American officers and white subjects.
[] For all stops: white officers stopping African American drivers accounted
for 46% of all stops. White officers stopping white drivers accounted for
38% of the total reported stops. Data on inter vs. intra-racial traffic stops
is presented in Table 63.
Driver Intoxication:
[] Of the 838 reported traffic stops between 1995 and 2000, which resulted
in a police or subject use of force, some 387 or 46% involved subjects
who were intoxicated by either drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident.
n Intoxicated subjects are almost three times as likely to engage officers in
use of force other than physical, chemical, electronic, impact or firearm,
than subjects who are either not intoxicated or whose state of intoxication
is unknown.
Driver Resistance:
n For all traffic stops, the most common method of subject resistance was
through the use of physical fome. Subject use of physical force accounted
for 89% of all subject uses of force during traffic stops between 1995 and
2000.
n The use of firearm force, by either drivers or officers was quite rare;
accounting for less than two percent of all reported uses of force for this
category between 1995 and 2000. However, the frequency of firearm use
during traffic stops was essentially identical for both officers and ddvers.
Male drivers were the most likely to use force against officers in traffic stop
situations. Of the 825 stops reported between 1995 and 2000, for which
driver force and gender were also reported, 88% were males, 12% were
females.
Additionally, male drivers were almost 10 times more likely to use multiple types of
force against officers than female drivers in traffic stop situations. Driver use of
multiple force, by both male and female drivers, accounted for eight percent of the
total use of force reported to the project. 52% of the multiple force encounters
involved the use of chemical and physical force.
Basic data indicators for officer use of force during traffic stops are presented in
Tables 53a through 53d below. Detailed data on driver use of force and force related
outcomes resulting from traffic stops starts at Table 54.
TABLE 53a
FREQUENCY OF TRAFFIC STOPS BY OFFICER RACE AND GENDER
1995- 2000
Gender White Black Hispanic N.American Asian Unknown Totals
Male 640 68 11 1 13 737
Female 33 8 I 0 0 42
Totals 673 76 12 I t3 974
Note: 1) Missing race and/or gender = 195 Officers
2) N.American = Native American
Table 53b
OFFICER USE OF FORCE IN TRAFFIC STOPS:
BY GENDER AND TYPE OF FORCE USED
1995 - 2000
Gender Physical Chemical Impact Firearm Other Totals
Male 593 217 34 18 21 884
Female 31 13 1 0 I 46
Unknown 4 40 1 0 0 45
Totals 628 270 36 18 22 974
Table 53c
INTRA -GENDER OFFICER USE OF FORCE IN TRAFFIC STOPS:
TYPE OF FORCE USED BY PERCENT
1995-2000
Gender % Physical % Chemical % Impact % Firearm % Other Total
Male 67 25 4 2 2 100
Female 67 28 2 0 2 100
Unknown 9 89 2 0 0 100
Table 53d
OFFICER USE OF FORCE IN TRAFFIC STOP
TYPE OF OFFICER INJURY BY GENDER
1995- 2000
Gender None Minor Major Death Unknown Totals
Male 643 86 4 0 733
Female 33 7 1 0 41
Unknown 37 8 0 0 155 45
Totals 713 101 5 0 155 974
51
Table 53e
INTRA-GENDER OFFICER INJURIES IN TRAFFIC STOPS:
TYPE OF OFFICER INJURIES BY PERCENT
t995- 2000
Gender % None % Minor % Major % Death Total
Male 87.72 11.73 0.545 0 100
Female 80.49 17.07 2.44 0 100
Unknown 82.22 17.77 0 0 100
The data for officer use of force during traffic stops shows that when the type of force
used data is organized as a percent of the total force used within each gender cohort,
male and female officers use similar levels of physicel, chemical, impact and firearm
force in proportion to the total number of traffic stops made by each gender.
Despite this, females suffer higher rates of minor injuries than their male counterparts
during traffic stops. Although casual inspection of Table 53e may suggest that female
officers also suffer substantially higher rates of major injuries, lack of data, meaning the
infrequency of total major injury outcomes for female officers resulting from traffic stops,
precludes any such conclusion based on the current data.
~ Z
~ ~ ~ ~°°°oooooo
~ E°°°°~ooo~ ~
>w ~ ' ~ ~ a
Z~ ~i 0 o
Oz ~
~ ~ ~ ~ o oo
~ ~ o
~ 0 0
o
~ 0
't::
0 0
0 0
[:Xll~ FORCE,RELATED iCOMPLAINTS AGAINST OFFICERS:: I
The total number (both sustained and not sustained) of force-related citizen complaints
against Officers, in records where the specific type of force used by officers was also
reported, is presented below. Not surprisingly, the use of physical force, the most
predominant type of force used by officers dudng the reporting period, yielded the
greatest number of complaints. Impact force, which was used far less frequently by
police, generated a substantial number of complaints as well.
Table 64
COMPLAINTS AGAINST OFFICERS BY TYPE OF FORCE USED
1995-1997
Year Officers Physical Chemical Electronic Impact Firearm Not Listed
1995 2,991 2.048 65 186 274 0 548
' 1996 2,639 1,542 101 158 268 2 445
1997 2,486 1,614 134 138 225 44 510
'Totals 8,116 5,504 300 482 767 46 1,503
Table 65
COMPLAINTS AGAINST OFFICERS BY TYPE OF FORCE USED
1998-2000
1998 - 2000 536 254 144 0 42 86 0
Table 66
COMPLAINTS AGAINST OFFICERS BY TYPE OF FORCE USED
1995-2000
Not
Year Officers % Physical % Chemical % Electronic % Impact % Firsann Listed
1995 2,991 68.70 2.18 6.23 9.19 0 18.39
1996 2,639 69.79 3.83 5.99 10.16 0.07 16.86
1997 2,486 64.90 5.39 5.55 9.05 4 20.51
1998 206 24 31 0 2 4 39
1999 291 64 25 0 8 0 3
2000 39 72 20 0 8 0
TOTAL NUMBERS OF SUSTAINED COMPLAINTS BY FORCE TYPE
1995-1998
Year Sustained
Complaints Physical Chemical Electronic Impact Firearm
1995 245 197 9 21 18 0
1996 317 235 12 31 37 2
1997 184 137 11 15 19 2
1998 3 2 0 0 0 1
TotsIs 749 571 32 67 74 5
Table 68
ALL FORCE-RELATED COMPLAINTS BY CIRCUMSTANCE
1995-1999
YEAR A W E T P D R I O F Totals
1995 2,328 0 I 2 2 2 0 4 0 0 2,339
1996 1,985 2 7 3 0 1 0 I I 7 2,007
1997 1,745 5 5 18 I 13 5 5 5 0 1,800
1998 3 5 164 19 0 3 7 9 I 0 211
1999 8 14 167 5 23 3 5 10 0 0 235
Totals 6,069 26 344 47 26 22 17 29 7 7
CIRCUMSTANCE CODE: A = Arrest, W= Warrant, E = Effecting Arrest, T = Traffic Stop. P = Pdsoner
TransporL D = Disturbance, R = Drunk, I = Investigation, O = Domestic
Table 69
SUSTAINED FORCE RELATED COMPLAINTS BY CIRCUMSTANCE
1995-1999
YEAR A W E T P D R I O F .Totals
1995 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250
1996 310 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 312
1997 176 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 183
1998 I 0 3 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 5
1999 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t
Totals 737 0 8 2 0 t 0 I 2 0
Table 70
EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE COMPLAINTS
1995-2000
Total Total Total Total % Complaints
Year Calls-for- Incidents' Complain~ Sustained Sustained
Service
1994 4, 516, 130 250 0
1995 1,587,131 54,499 2,339 250 0.458%
1996 10,218, 183 47,277 2,000 310 0.655%
1997 5,265, 103 44,321 1,800 183 0.413%
1998 1,212,686 2,848 200 3 1.500%
1999 14,317,043 2227 211 I 0.474%
2000* 81,710,260 17,801 204 0
Mean 16,915,219 18,802.56 753.78 83 0.70%
* Additional data currently being collected for these years.
** Total Incidents = Reported Incidents for which Complaint data was also reported for the data years in
question,
61
IAPPENDIX A:~ PROJECT:: HISTORY :~:: i::~:!:~ ~: ~ ~ I
CREATION OF A NATIONAL USE OF FORCE DATABASE
Oriqins of Project
The Intemational Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has a long-standing
interest in the accurate capture and analysis of police data. This can be traced
from the IACP's development of the Uniform Cdme Reports (UCR) in the 1920s,
which still serves as the primary means of reporting and analyzing criminal
activities and police responses nationally. The development and implementation
of UCR is now considered a significant milestone in the evolution of professional
law enforcement and public accountability.
W'ith the many changes in society which have taken place since the development
of UCR, and with the public concerns resulting from recent incidents which have
had massive media coverage, it became clear that the data on use of force
trends and issues was critically needed. Data provided by UCR was never
intended to focus on the specific issue of police use of force or subject use of
force against police officers. Individual police agencies, law enforcement
organizations, and some states have long had a concern for use of force data in
order to render better service to their communities, and distinguish between the
perception and reality of use of force issues. Congress recognized this need in
1994 and mandated, in essence, that a new system of data collection be
identified which would enable the Attorney General to report nationally 0n the
levels and frequency of police use of forca.
Public Law 193-322, Section 210402, the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of '1994, directed the Attorney General to collect information
on excessive police use of force. At the time this legislation was passed, no
national data on this topic was available. In 1995, the Department of Justice
responded by funding the IACP to develop a National Police Use of Force
Database by which various police uses of force could be quantified.
Specifically, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), agencies within the Department of Justice's (DO.J) Office of Justice
Programs approached the IACP and offered to co-fund the development of a
national police use of fome database. OJP viewed the database as a logical
extension of already existing state level use of force databases (see next section
"The SACOP Role"). First year funding was proposed in 1995 and initial project
activities began on September 1, 1996.
From the perspective of the IACP, this project had value beyond the fulfillment of
the legislative mandate. The IACP believed that the development of an
automated incident-based police use of force reporting and analysis tool would
provide significant policy, training, and management benefits, and serve as a
bddge to guide law enforcement use of force policy in the 21 st century.
National Advisors
To ensure the success of the project, the IACP created two advisory panels to
support initial project activities: an ad hoc committee of police and justice
leaders was brought together at IACP Headquarters to react to the project scope
and give general policy input and advice. This group had representation from
DO J, state police, county sheriffs, local law enforcement, and other criminal
justice professionals. Consensus on key issues, such as definitions and data
elements, was achieved at project start-up.
A second and continuing advisory committee consisted of representatives from
each of seven pilot state associations, which volunteered to collect and submit
data. This group has provided ongoing advice on local concerns, state
association perspectives, and Iogistical issues from the outset. This group also
provides mid-year and end-year input on project direction and selected
milestones. A list of current members is provided in Appendix C.
The SACOP Role
The State Associations of Chiefs of Police (SACOP) division of the IACP laid the
foundation for this program. In particular, the Virginia Association of Chiefs of
Police had already instituted a statewide use of force reporting program that
served as the model for the IACP's national effort. The strength and reach of
SACOP organizations within most of the states provided a scaleable framework
for developing and expanding the project.
In collaboration with SACOP leadership, the IACP initially identified seven pilot
state associations that would help coordinate the statewide contribution of
information for the national database effort: Vermont, Arkansas, Virginia, West
Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and Washington (State). The DOJ also
arranged early federal support by designating the US Border Patrol (the
Department of Immigration and Naturalization) to contribute data.
Each of the state associations identified five local police departments in their
respective states to contribute data to the project. To accomplish the data
collection and transfer, the IACP developed, in-house, a new software application
specifically for this purpose. Two versions of this software were initially
developed. The first operates as a stand-alone application at participating local
police departments and the second operates as a regional data repository at
each of the individual SACOP sites. The software allows seamless data transfer,
via floppy disk, from individual departments to the SACOP sites, and from the
SACOP sites to the IACP. As it happened, some of the pilot states contributed
significantly more than the requested five departments and some SACOP
63
organizations contributed less. From the outset, the project adopted an
aggressive strategy to recruit data contributions from additional departments.
DistinQuishina Features of the Proiect
At the time of project inception, IACP's 104 years of service to the law
enforcement community placed the association in a unique position to implement
a comprehensive study on police use of force. Unlike previous academic
studies, the IACP Use of Force project was developed from the outset to reflect
the operational realities of modern law enfomement. This prospective has
resulted in greater access to the data, and is demonstrated by the amount and
scope of the information now available.
The street continuum of force definitions developed for the project, the
dissemination of software to local agencies to promote data capture, and the
collaborative design of the project at the national, state association, and local
level are all features that make this a unique project. While many single site
studies underway throughout the U.S. are yielding interesting information on use
of force, the IACP effort was designed to create an omnibus information system
and database to answer any and all questions about use of force for the nation
as a whole.
This project has the potential to provide the law enforcement community, the
Attorney General, and the Amedcan people with the most detailed and accurate
quantification of police use of force to date. The preliminary data already
acquired has significant value as an early indicator for policy and training' issues
and trends.
All data is contributed to the IACP from participating agencies on an anonymous
basis and is reported as aggregated totals each by jurisdictional size, force, or
incident type. In addition to providing an automated use of force data capture
system, the IACP software allows local departments and state associations to
generate a wide range of on-line reports which detail numerous aspects of
respective specific uses of police force, based on the data that they themselves
enter. These reports include a rate of use of force calculation per specific
jurisdictional size per type of force used, by year. This calculation allows each
agency to compare itself to the IACP National Police Use of Force National
Baseline, specifically data within the cohort for their specific jurisdictional size.
Three-Tiered Al~Droach to Data Collection
Data flow was designed from the outset to emanate from local departments,
through the respective SACOP offices, and then to the IACP. The identities of all
participating departments are masked by the use of a self-installing agency
reporting cede which is automatically appended to all local agency data records.
This code is the only means by which individual data records can be
distinguished from one contributing source to another. The SACOP
organizations have the capability to generate regional use of force data based on
the anonymous records reported to them by departments in their states.
Larger departments who maintain electronic repositories of their own use of force
data have the option of reporting their data (in any data format) directly to the
IACP in cases where the appropriate SACOP office is not participating in the
project. Even in this instance the identity of the contributing agency is protected
by an agency reporting code in exactly the same way as is accomplished for
departments which contribute data via their state organizations. These data
reporting pathways are graphically represented below.
NATIONAL USE OF FORCE PROJECT DATA FLOW SUMMARY
I J I
State ation
Voluntary and Anonymous Data Contribution
As previously stated, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994, Title XXI (State and Local Law Enforcement) Subtitle D (Police Pattern and
Practice), Sec. 210401 (Cause of Action), and Sec. 210402 (Data on Use of
Excessive Force), presented to individual members of the IACP an opportunity to
better fund and further study use of forco. Use of force is an issue made
extremely sensitive by the preconceptions of the agencies and public alike, and
the dilemma of accumulating data and authoring reports which could be used,
either accurately or inaccurately, to interpret police "pattern or practice".
The Act directs the U.S. Attorney General to, "acquire data about the use of
excessive force by law enforcement officers." Previous paragraphs of the Act
make deprivation of civil rights unlawful, when evidenced by "pattern or practice."
Yet another paragraph directs the Attorney General, through civil action, to
"obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate pattern or
practice."
All of this presented a serious dichotomy to law enforcement management. On
one side, pursuit of truth and subordination to the will of the communities they are
sworn to serve is a fundamental element in modern police service. On the other
65
hand, there is the possibility that raw use of force data standing alone, or even
accompanied by analysis, voluntarily given, could be subjected to inordinate,
prejudicial, or simply erroneous interpretations of "patterns and practice" which
might result in litigation.
Under these circumstances, the law enforcement community would be very
reluctant to provide attributable raw data. Complicating the situation was the fact
that, at the time of enactment, no vehicle or procedure was in place to capture
use of force data. However, as the Act was law, the Attorney General was
obligated to respond.
The IACP, in collaboration with its Division of State Associations of Chiefs of
Police, sought a solution that would be acceptable to both the Attorney General
and the membership of the IACP. Thus, the development of the IACP's Use of
Force Project. The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police previous experience
in capturing use of force data is initially based on anonymity and volunteerism in
order to bridge the natural reluctance of the contributor, and inspire the accuracy
of the contribution.
Definina Police Use of Force
There have been many attempts to define exactly what constitutes "police use of
force" in the United States. When carefully examined from the perspective of
day-to-day law enforcement activities, many previous definitions and/or
continuums of force do not provide a workable, functional definition that could be
applied nationally to all jurisdictions and department types for the purposes of
this project. For this reason, the IACP project developed both a formal definition
of police force and a street level continuum of force specifically for use in the
national database.
The first work of the project team and project advisors was to craft a simple and
straightforward definition of what "use of force" means to the law enforcement
community. That definition: the amount of effort required by police to compel
compliance by an unwilling subject; set out by law enforcement leaders at the
first advisory committee meeting, laid the foundation for many future project
activities.
The next phase of definition development centered on the acthal components of
force as used by law enforcement. Using a "street continuum" approach
(identifying those types of force used to bring a suspect under control), it was
decided to track the following basic types of force, used by either subjects or
officers:
n Physical Force (the use of fists, feet, hands, etc.)
n Chemical Force (the discharge of MACE, CAPSTUN, OC, CS, and CN
devices)
[] Electronic Force (the discharge of TASER, Stun Gun, or other electronic
weapons)
[] Impact Force (the use of a baton, other impact weapons)
[] Firearm (lethal) Force (the discharge of any kind of firearm).
The IACP project team made specific decisions at this juncture of the effort to
exclude certain measures of force that the team felt were 1) too broad to allow
agency reporting in an accurate and timely fashion, and 2) beyond what police
typically perceive or record as applications of force:
n The presence of a police officer at the scene
rn The presence of a K9 at the scene
[] The presence of chemical or electronic less than lethal devices at the
Scene
[] Officer verbal commands
[] Routine or voluntary handcuffing of prisoners for transport
[] Routine or voluntary handcuffing of subjects dudng field questioning or
investigation
rq The display or presentation of an officer's weapon.
While any of these actions can and are included in other academic studies of
police use of force, the IACP excluded them from the national database to allow
the creation of a concise, universally accepted, and practically achievable
information base on police use of force in the U.S. Attention to these excluded
elements would have overly complicated the project and substantially reduced
local agency participation.
Database Content
Guided by the broad framework of use of force issues and the experience of the
IACP with scores of other sensitive police policy issues, the team decided upon
the following data elements for inclusion in the national use of force database:
Department Characteristics
n Report year
[] Jurisdiction size
[] Department type
n Calls-for-Service
Ethnicity demographics
1:3 Numbers of use of force incidents by type
67
n Numbers of force related complaints
n Complaint resolution
n Types of less*than-lethal weapons authorized
n Use of force training and policies in place
n Administrative policies for use of force complaints.
Incident Characteristics
n Incident time
n Incident date
D Incident year
n Number of officers involved
D Number of subjects involved
n Number of third parties involved
D Age of officer(s)/subject(s)
D Type of assignment
D Duty status
D Officer(s)/subiect(s) education
D Officer(s)/subject(s) race-ethnicity
n Type of force used by officer(s)/subject(s)
D Officer/subject injury.
Complaint Characteristics
n Complaint time
D Complaint date
D Complaint year
Number of officers involved
n Number of subjects involved
D Number of third parties involved
n Age of officer(s)/subject(s)
n Type of assignment, duty status
Officer(s)/subject(s) education
n Officer(s)/subject(s) race-ethnicity
n Type of force used by officer(s)/subject(s)
n Officer/subject injury
D Previous complaints against officer
68
Complaintdisposition.
Software DesiGn
Design Philosophy
Based on the large number of data elements relevant to this study, it soon
became clear that an automated data collection system was required. The ideal
system would need to:
Be compatible across the widest possible spectrum of existing computers
to be found in departments nationwide
n Employ a graphical user interface which would facilitate self-instruction by
the user
Be able to handle the relationship between incidents involving a single
officer and multiple subjects, multiple officers and single subjects, and any
other possible combination.
Staff decided upon a system that could meet these needs and was scaleable in
that it could support the inevitable evolution of revisions, customizations,
additions and expansions that are inherent in software projects of this type.
Selected Platform
The database was built on a Microsoff Access platform, which offered all of the
advantages of a major software product. Microsoft provided software
development toolkits for use in this project. After a period of code development
and testing, our original release, which was ported to the Windows 3.1
environment, was distributed in August of 1996.
Local Agency and SACOP Versions of the Software
Because data flow was implemented from local agencies to SACOP regional
data repositories and from there to the IACP, two versions of this software were
produced. The first, the Local Agency version, was intended to automate data
capture at the local department level. This software was equipped with a
simplified data export function by which the user could write the captured use of
force data to a floppy disk by simply clicking an on-screen button.
The second version of the software was intended for use by the SACOP data
repositories. The SACOP version of the software remains identical with the
Local Agency version in terms of the number and type of data elements
captured. However, the SACOP version is provided with an import capability, by
which data on disks originating from local agencies can be easily incorporated
into the regional database. Data from each of the regional databases is
69
periodically exported to floppy disk and sent to the IACP for inclusion in the
national database.
SoflWare Refinements
Over the last two years, the software has been steadily refined by the inclusion
and refinement of numerous report functions in the user interface, and many
behind the scene cede improvements, which are designed to enhance the
robustness of the application. These improvements are generally made in the
form of modifications to the Visual Basic code, which runs behind the user
application. Starting with version 1.0 released in August of 1996 for Windows
3.1, we are now at version 3.1 of the Local Agency software, and support both
Windows NT, Windows 3.1, and Windows 95.
The Windows95 product was the result of an extensive re-write of the code and
takes full advantage of the 32-bit Advanced Programming Interface, as well as
the ODBC (Open Data Base Connectivity) compliance required for linking with
existing Microsoff Office applications. We have recently released Version 3.2 of
the SACOP software, which features full Windows NT compatibility, database
encryption, network compatibility, and password protection. Version 3.2 also
supports a dedicated Database Administrator, who can add and delete specific
users and groups, as well as administer passwords specifically for the IACP use
of force application.
Capturing Data from Independent Systems
In addition to the ongoing software development, the IACP has also implemented
a system for large-scale data transfer from larger municipal departments to the
IACP. These departments already have established various automated systems
by which use of force data has been captured. Often these systems have been
custom-designed specffically for the department in question and produce
exportable data in a non-standard format. Following a process of analysis, in
which the IACP has worked closely with the MIS management of these
departments, elements in this data which correspond to fields captured by the
IACP software can be identified. These data elements are then provided to the
IACP in the native format used by the particular department. The IACP has
developed the technical capability to convert the format of this data into a form
that can be incorporated into the IACP national database. This approach has
been demonstrated to have the minimal impact on the participating departments
while typically providing large volumes of data to the IACP.
I APPENDIX B: POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES ON USE OF FORCE I
Table 71
DEPARTMENT HAS A FORMAL USE OF FORCE POLICY
1996-1998
Year Yes(counfi No(counq Totals Yes(percent) No(percent)
1996 26 0 26 100 0
1997 52 0 52 100 0
1998 30 0 30 100 0
Table 72
DEPARTMENT HAS A FORMAL DISCIPLINARY POLICY
1996-1998
Year Yes (count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 25 2 27 92.6 7.4
1997 47 5 52 90,4 9.6
1998 30 0 30 100.0 0.0
Table 73
DEPARTMENT HAS A POLICY ON THE USE OF FORCE CONTINUUM
1996-1998
Year Yes (count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 26 1 27 96,3 3.7
1997 52 0 52 100.0 0.0
1998 29 1 30 97.0 3.0
71
Table 74
DEPARTMENT HAS A FORMAL USE OF FORCE CONTINUUM
t996-t998
Year Yes (count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 24 3 27 88.9 11.1
1997 51 1 52 98.1 1.9
1998 29 I 30 97.0 3,0
Table 75
DEPARTMENT REQUIRES A WRITTEN REPORT ON ALL USE OF
FORCE INCIDENTS
f996-f998
Year Yes (count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 26 I 27 96.3 3.7
1997 50 2 52 96.2 3,8
1998 30 0 30 100.0 0.0
Table 76
DEPARTMENT HAS AN AUTOMATED DATABASE FOR TRACKING
USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS
1996-1998
Year Yes (count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 21 6 27 77.8 22.2
1997 38 14 52 73.1 28.9
1998 21 9 30 70.0 30.0
Table 77
DEPARTMENT HAS A FORMAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR USE OF
FORCE INCIDENTS
1996-1998
Year Yes (count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 23 4 27 85.2 14.8
1997 45 7 52 86.5 13.5
1998 30 9 30 100.0 0.0
Table 78
ALL USE OF FORCE COMPLAINTS ROUTINELY INVESTIGATED BY
DEPARTMENT
1996-1998
Year Yes (count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 25 2 27 92.6 7.4
1997 47 5 52 90.4 9.6
1998 28 2 30 93.3 6.6
Table 79
ROUTINE NOTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS
1996-1998
Year Yes (count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 17 10 27 63 37
1997 36 16 52 69 31
1998 26 4 30 87 13
Table 80
DEPARTMENT HAS A FULL TIME INTERNAL AFFAIRS
(OR EQUIVALENT) STAFF
199~1998
Year Yes(count) No(count) Totals Yes(percent) No(percent)
1996 11 16 27 40.7 59,3
1997 23 29 52 44.2 55.8
1998 12 18 30 40.0 60.0
Table 81
DEPARTMENT PERMITS THE USE OF MACE
1996-1998
Year Yes(count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 8 19 27 29,6 70,4
1997 11 41 52 21.2 78.8
1998 4 26 30 13.0 87.0
Table 82
DEPARTMENT PERMITS THE USE OF STUN GUNS
1996-1998
Year Yes(count) No(count) Totals Yes(percent) No(percent)
t996 4 23 27 14.8 85.2
1997 5 47 52 9.6 90,4
1998 4 26 30 13.0 87.0
Table 83
DEPARTMENT PERMITS THE USE OF OLEOCAPSICUM RESIN
PRODUCTS (PEPPER SPRAY)
1996-1998
Year Yes (count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 22 5 27 81,5 18.5
1997 47 5 52 90.4 9.6
1998 29 1 30 97.0 3.0
Table 84
DEPARTMENT PERMITS THE USE OF OTHER LESS-THAN-LETHAL
PRODUCTS
1996-1998
Year Yes (count) No (count) Totals Yes (percent) No (percent)
1996 16 11 27 59.3 40.7
1997 18 34 52 34,6 65.4
1998 11 19 30 37.0 63.0
75
Chief James Powers, Chair-lACP Use of Force Advisory Committee
Fredericksburg Police Department
615 Princess Anne Street
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
Chief Charles Deane, Pdnce William County Police
I County Complex Court
Pdnce William, VA 22192
Chief Chades Moose, Montgomery County Police Department
2350 Reseamh Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20850
Col. Richard Holden, Supadntendent
North Carolina Highway Patrol
PO Box 29590
Raleigh. NC 27626
Chief Robert Hemdon, Allendale Police Department
290 Franklin Tumpike
Allendale, NJ 07401
Warden David Owens, Director
Camden County Department of Corrections
220 Federal Street
Camden, NJ 08103
Chief Michael Mastronardy
Dover Township Police Department
PO Box 876
Toms River, NJ 08754
Chief Greg Wean (Acting)
Edmonds Police Department
250 5t~ Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 90820
Col. David Mitchell, Superintendent
Maryland State Police
1201 Reisterstown Road
Pikesville, MD 21208
Col. W.G. Massengill, S-perintendent
Virginia State Police
PO Box 27472
Richmond, VA 23261
Chief Chades Ramsey
Metropolitan Police Department
300 Indiana Avenue
Washington, DC 20001
*The above list represents those individuals who were asked to provide advice for fie 2001 report.
APPENDIX D: PROJECT STAFF
EXECUTIVE STAFF
Dan Rosenblatt ................................................................................Executive Director
Eugene Cromartie ...................................................................Deputy Executive Director
Jerry Needle ..................................................................Programs and Research Director
Charles Higginbotham ..............................................................SACOP Division Director
PROJECT STAFF AND CONSULTANTS
John Firman ....................................................................Director, IACP Research Center
Mark Henriquez ..........................................Project Director/Principal Researcher/Author
Bob Moseley .........................................................................Senior Technical Consultant
Alan Barrett, Ph.D ...............................................................~.Statistical Consultant
Theresa Koepfler-Sontos ................................................Final Report Development
Jeanine Burchard ...................................................Project Administrative Assistant
Jennifer VVykoff. .............................................................................Cover Design
77
ICGov. Org Email Release Page 1 of 2
Madan Karr
From: webmaster@iowa-city.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 7:32 AM
To: marian-karr@iowa-city.org
Subject: ICGov.org Media Release: Police & Fire
r~lCGov,org
Title: POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCREDITATION
Release Date: Monday, November 26, 2001
Release Time: 7:31:00 AM
Originating Department: Police
Contact Person: SGT. KEVIN HURD
Contact Number: 319-356-5286
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT
Sgt. Kevin Hurd
Iowa City Police Department
356-5286
ACCREDITATION ASSESSMENT TEAM INVITES PUBLIC COMMENT
Iowa City, Iowa 11/22/01 A team of assessors from the Commission of Accreditation
for Law Enforcement Agencies, INC. (CALEA) will arrive Dec. 16th 2001 to examine
all aspects of the Iowa City Police Department policy and procedures, management,
operations, and support services.
Verification by the team that the Iowa City Police Department meets the
Commission's state-of-the-art standards is part of a voluntary process to gain
accreditation - a highly prized recognition of law enforcement professional excellence.
As part of the on-site assessment, department employees and members of the
community are invited to offer comments at a public information session December
17th at 5:00 PM. The session will be conducted in the Iowa City Civic Center at the
Emma J. Harvat Hall, located at 410 E Washington St. in Iowa City.
If for some reason an individual cannot speak at the public information session but
would still like to provide comments to the assessment team, he/she may do so by
telephone. The public may call 356-5441 between the hours of 08:00 and 16:00 on
December 16th.
Telephone comments as well as appearances at the public information session are
limited to 10 minutes and must address the agency's ability to comply with CALEA's
standards. A copy of the standards is available at the Iowa City Police
Department. Contact Sgt. Kevin Hurd at 356-5286.
Persons wishing to offer written comments about the Iowa City Police Department's
11/26/01
ICGov. Org Email Release Page 2 of 2
ability to meet the standards for accreditation are requested to write: Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, lnc. (CALEA), 10306 Eaton Place, Suite
320, Fairfax, Virginia 22030-2201.
CALEA has developed 439 individual standards that an agency must address in order
to gain accredited status. The Accreditation manager for the Iowa City Police
Department is Sgt. Kevin Hurd. He advises that the accreditation team is composed
of law enforcement practitioners from similar but out-of-state agencies. The
assessors will review written materials, interview individuals, and visit offices and
other places where compliance can be witnessed. The assessors are: Captain D.
Thomas Anderson, Anoka MN. Police Department; Lieutenant 3ohn Reid, University of
Arkansas Police Department; and Deputy Chief Brian Howerton of the Schaumburg
III. police department. Once the Commission's assessors complete their review of the
department, they report back to the full Commission, which will then decide if the
department is to be granted accredited status.
Accreditation is for three years, during which the agency must submit annual reports
attesting continued compliance with those standards under which it was initially
acc red ited.
For information regarding the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies, Inc. please write the Commission at 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 320, Fairfax,
Virginia, 22030-2201; or call (800) 368-3757 or (703) 352-4225.
To subscribe and unsubscribe from ICGov email releases click here:
httD://www.icqov.~rg/subscribe.asl~
C!ick here to go to the City 3obs page
11/26/01