Content uploaded by William Terrill
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William Terrill on May 20, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://pqx.sagepub.com/
Police Quarterly
http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/16/1098611112451262
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1098611112451262
published online 11 July 2012Police Quarterly
William Terrill and Eugene A. Paoline III
From a National Use-of-Force Study
Examining Less Lethal Force Policy and the Force Continuum: Results
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Police Executive Research Forum Police Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
can be found at:Police QuarterlyAdditional services and information for
http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Jul 11, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Jul 17, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Police Quarterly
XX(X) 1 –28
© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098611112451262
http://pqx.sagepub.com
451262PQXXXX10.1177/1098611112
451262Terrill and PaolinePolice Quarterly
1Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
2University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
William Terrill, Associate Professor, Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice,
532 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1118, USA
Email: terrillw@msu.edu
Examining Less Lethal
Force Policy and the Force
Continuum: Results From a
National Use-of-Force Study
William Terrill1 and Eugene A. Paoline, III2
Abstract
The less lethal coercive power granted to police officers is not without its
restrictions. Such limitations are delineated per the United States Supreme Court,
via Graham v. Connor, applying the broad standard of objective reasonableness. A far
more salient operational guide to assessing what is objectively reasonable rests within
departmental use-of-force policy, which like other police policies can vary widely
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To date, comprehensive empirical inquiries regarding
this jurisdictional variation is unknown. At best, extant research has noted that many
agencies tend to instruct officers via a force continuum, although the nature (i.e.,
various designs, levels, and ordering of force tactics, and appropriate force relative
to citizen resistance) of such policies are relatively unknown. Based on a multiwave
national survey of policing agencies, the following study examines not only the extent
to which departments utilize a use-of-force continuum within their less lethal force
policy, but also the types of continuum designs used and the ways in which various
force tactics and citizen resistance types are situated along a continuum. The results
reveal that more than 80% of responding agencies utilize a use-of-force continuum, of
which the linear design is the most popular. However, the placement of various force
tactics and consideration of suspect resistance vary greatly across departments. In
essence, there is no commonly accepted force continuum used by practitioners. The
implications of these findings are considered.
Keywords
police, use of force, coercion, policy, administrative rulemaking
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Police Quarterly XX(X)
Society permits the police to use force in the course of their duties. At the same time,
limitations are set defining the extent of coercive power that the police may exercise
in maintaining order and enforcing laws. Such restrictions have two interrelated com-
ponents. The first is legally based and stems from the U.S. Supreme Court via Graham
v. Connor, 490 U.S. 86 (1989), which states that force at arrest must be “. . . objec-
tively reasonable in view of all the facts and circumstances of each particular case. . .”
Despite direction from the high court, determining force that is “objectively reason-
able” is not an easy task. As a result, police departments rely on a second component,
use-of-force policy, which is administratively based to establish parameters for the
application of force (Walker, 2007). Within this context, such policies are sometimes
linked to a continuum, which detail varying levels of force in terms of severity, with
the explicit purpose of offering officers guidance on how to respond to resistant citi-
zens (Terrill, 2005).1 Thus, force continuum policies attempt to more readily clarify
what may be considered objectively reasonable force.
There are several structural permutations involving the use of a force continuum.
One of the earliest, the linear design, is modeled in the form of a ladder or hierarchical
steps. According to McEwen (1997), this type of “continuum approach is to rely first
on the officer’s presence to quell a situation, and if that fails, to move to increasingly
severe types of force” (p. 49). Another type of a continuum structure is referred to as
a modified-linear design, where subject resistance is placed into one of several levels
and force options for escalation (and de-escalation) are presented within each level
(see Connor, 1991). Other designs are laid out in matrix form or depicted by a wheel
(see Hoffman, Lawrence, & Brown, 2004). In the matrix approach, varying forms of
suspect resistance are presented along rows while varying police responses are offered
on a horizontal axis. The wheel design is depicted in a circular fashion, with resistance
and force options shown in a series of concentric circles (e.g., an inner circle of suspect
resistance types, followed by an outer circle displaying varying forms of force in ran-
dom order). This model, sometimes referred to as a “situational” continuum structure,
instructs officers not to assume stepwise or linear progression.
Regardless of what continuum approach (e.g., linear, modified linear, matrix,
wheel) a particular agency chooses to use (if any), the placement of different forms of
force within a continuum structure can vary. For instance, there has been some debate
as to whether chemical irritant sprays such as Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) should be
used before or after an officer attempts to use some form of hands-on force (i.e., weap-
onless force; Terrill, 2001). The same debate has begun to stir recently with respect to
the placement of Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs; for example, TASER®), as some
departments place these weapons low on the continuum (i.e., right after verbal direc-
tion) and other agencies place it high (i.e., just before deadly force; U.S. Government
Accountability Office, 2005, see also Alpert & Dunham, 2010; Thomas, Collins, &
Lovrich, 2010, 2011). Of course, the implication is that some agencies view CED use
as more of a first resort, whereas others encourage CED use just prior to deadly force.
Complicating matters further, some departments may rely on less specific types of
continuum policies whereby force and citizen resistance are referred to only in vague
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 3
terms and not categorized into specific levels, and others may offer very detailed poli-
cies that lay out several levels of both force and resistance (and link force to resis-
tance). Thus, not only can use-of-force policy designs vary but the placement of tactics
(i.e., the ordering of hands- and weapon-based tactics) within such designs can vary as
well, in terms of the incorporation of force relative to citizen resistance, which speaks
directly to policy restrictiveness.
Extant research on less lethal use-of-force policies has generally taken three broad-
based forms. One area has focused on the extent to which agencies utilize a use-of-
force continuum and/or the various supplemental or contextual elements of force
policy (e.g., whether or not there are written policies, types of tactics/weapons permit-
ted, training, report and review requirements, etc., Alpert & Dunham, 2004; Hough &
Tatum, 2012; McEwen, 1997; Pate & Fridell, 1993; U.S. Government Accountability
Office, 2005). A second area of research has focused on the theoretical and practical
principles underlying use-of-force policies that utilize a continuum (i.e., how force
should be calculated relative to citizen resistance), which has also included studies
aimed at the correlates of force along the continuum (Alpert & Dunham, 1997; Bazley,
Lersch, & Mieczkowski, 2007; Bertomen, 2003; Crawford & Burns, 1998; Garner,
Schade, Hepburn, & Buchanan, 1995; Kaminski, Edwards, & Johnson, 1999; Klinger,
1997; Terrill, 2005; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002). A third area has focused on the con-
troversy surrounding contemporary use-of-force weapons (i.e., chemical sprays and
CEDs). As part of such inquiries, researchers have examined the overall effectiveness
(e.g., incapacitating suspects, officer and suspect injuries, etc.) of chemical sprays and
CEDs, across single (or a handful of) police organizations, with implications for where
they might best be placed on a force continuum (Adang & Mensink, 2004; Kaminski
et al., 1999; Smith, Kaminski, Rojek, Alpert, & Mathis, 2007; Taylor & Woods, 2010;
Terrill & Paoline, 2012; White & Ready, 2007). Other work in this area, and more in
line with the current study, has focused on organizational analyses regarding where
these weapons are specifically placed on a use-of-force continuum (Alpert & Dunham,
2010; Thomas et al., 2010, 2011).
Although researchers have examined use-of-force policies and continuums in a
variety of ways, not a single peer-reviewed study, to date, has attempted to determine
the extent of, and variation in, less lethal force policies as a collective whole (i.e., the
full range of hands- and weapon-based force options). This void in the literature is
particularly noteworthy given the great number of police agencies throughout the
country (i.e., more than 12,000 local agencies according to Hickman & Reaves, 2003).
Unlike previous research on lethal force, where a defense-of-life protocol became the
standard policy approach adopted by nearly all large-scale departments, even prior to
the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner landmark case (Fyfe, 1988), the extent to which some
sort of consistent guiding principle pervades less lethal policy adaptations, across
American police departments, has simply not been investigated.
The present inquiry seeks to fill this empirical void using data collected as part of a
national survey of police departments. In particular, we seek to identify the types of
policy approaches being used by police agencies across the United States, the extent
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Police Quarterly XX(X)
of variation found within such approaches, and the degree to which police agencies
employ varying types of restrictive (and unrestrictive) forms of less lethal policies as
a means to guide officer decision making. As such, this research is different from pre-
vious policy inquiries in that it is a comprehensive examination of the overall structure
and the internal mechanisms of less lethal force instruction, which provides the foun-
dation for assessing use-of-force appropriateness.
Less Lethal Administrative Policy
and Force Continuums
Walker (1993) notes that the use of administrative policy is the primary instrument in
“. . . which law enforcement agencies attempt to control officer discretion” (p. 23).
One only needs to examine the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) survey results (Hickman & Reaves, 2003) to glean a rough
parameter as to the extent to which police agencies rely on administrative policies
over a wide range of activities (e.g., vehicle pursuits, domestic assaults, use-of-force,
etc.). In terms of less lethal force policy, Terrill and Paoline (2006) recently reported
that more than 97% of police departments in the United States use some form of writ-
ten policy. There is also evidence indicating that force and resistance continuums are
often part of broader less lethal policies. The earliest attempt to empirically document
how often police agencies use a force continuum approach was conducted by McEwen
(1997). He found that only 25% (24 of the 96) of the agency policies reviewed incor-
porated a continuum. However, agency selection was based on a convenience sample
rather than a national representative, thereby limiting generalizability. In 1998, the
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) conducted a national survey of police agen-
cies that focused on police use-of-force reporting protocols. One of the pieces of
information collected was whether agencies relied on a use-of-force continuum. As
part of this survey, Alpert and Dunham noted that of 571 responding agencies, “. . .
72 percent were based on a use-of-force continuum” (2004, p. 156).2
Beyond the fact that most agencies appear to use a force continuum approach as
part of their less lethal force policy approach, we know very little, at least empirically,
with respect to continuum design (e.g., linear, modified linear, matrix, wheel) and
tactical placement (e.g., force/resistance). In terms of design, Adams and Jennison
(2007, p. 450) state, “The most popular use-of-force continuum conceptualizes police
actions in a step-ladder arrangement.” However, they offer no evidence supporting
such a statement.3
In terms of tactical placement, there is also a lack of comprehensive empirical
assessments of less lethal force policies (i.e., explanations of variation across all force
options). As Fridell (2005, p. 47) notes regarding use-of-force continuums, “Police
agencies across the country differ with regard to the number and definitions of
force levels on the continuum.” However, we currently lack a clear understanding as
to the “extent” of policy variation. Nonetheless, researchers have begun to work
toward this end by focusing on the appropriate tactical placement of contemporary
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 5
use-of-force weapons (i.e., chemical sprays and CEDs) relative to resistance encoun-
tered from citizens.
In 2004-2005, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO, 2005) con-
ducted a review of force policies in seven police agencies and reported fairly wide-
spread variation in terms of the tactical placement of CEDs (e.g., from low to high
placement on the continuum). A few years later, in 2007-2008, Thomas and colleagues
(2010) conducted a national survey of 210 police agencies asking respondents to indi-
cate where, on a 0 to 10 standardized force continuum (with 0 being officer presence
and 10 being lethal force), CEDs would fall. They found that more than 60% of
the departments place CEDs between 5 and 7 (mean = 5.6). In a second article, using
the same data, but with a reduced number of cases (n = 124), Thomas and colleagues
(2011) compared CED policies with the model policy set forth by PERF in 2005. With
respect to tactical placement, they found that 75 of the 124 agencies place CED at a
level on the continuum where suspects must be “actively” resisting before CEDs are
permitted via policy.
In a final weapon-based policy inquiry, Alpert and Dunham (2010), drawing on the
PERF survey data noted in a governmental report by Smith et al. (2010), found
that 57% of the agencies locate CEDs and chemical irritant sprays (e.g., Oleoresin
Capsicum) at the same level on a force continuum, with another 36% placing CEDs
higher. After presenting responding agencies with five situational vignettes involving
varying types of citizen resistance, they found that the majority of agencies begin per-
mitting CED use once suspects engage in some form of midlevel-type resistance such
as “tensing up” or attempting to avoid being handcuffed. The authors conclude “that
there is a movement toward standardization of practices within agency policies regard-
ing the placement of CEDs” (2010, p. 246).
Current Inquiry
Although prior work has shed light on aspects of police use-of-force policy, and the
use of a continuum approach in connection with less lethal weapons, we are left with
few answers in relation to the extent of, and variation in, less lethal force policies as
a collected whole. Other than the prevalence of use-of-force continuums, at the pres-
ent time we know little (beyond anecdotal reports and rudimentary estimates) about
the extent of, and variation in, policy types in terms of design, tactical placement of
force options, and incorporation of varying types of citizen resistance. Within this
context, using data collected as part of a national survey of police departments, the
current study poses the following research questions:
Research Question 1: To what extent do agencies use a force continuum?
Research Question 2: What type of force continuum designs do agencies most
often use?
Research Question 3: How do agencies rank force tactics and citizen resistance
on a continuum?
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
6 Police Quarterly XX(X)
Method
The data for the current inquiry are drawn from the Assessing Police Use of Force
Policy and Outcomes project, a National Institute of Justice (NIJ)–funded study
designed to examine a host of use-of-force issues (e.g., officer perceptions, degree of
force usage, injuries, complaints, lawsuits). A primary component of this project
involved administering a mail survey to a stratified random sample of police agencies
across the country to explore the types of force policies that exist.
Survey Elements
The survey included several sections involving a total of 57 questions. For instance,
we asked whether the agency had a formal written policy on less lethal force and
whether there were specific written directives for each type of force as well as numer-
ous questions involving the report and review process (e.g., if force reporting was
required, what constituted reportable force, whether an officer or supervisor was
responsible for filing the report, and at what levels of the organization were reports
reviewed?). The key elements of the survey captured whether an agency employed a
force continuum approach within their policy, the type or design of continuum used,
and more important, the placement of various force and resistance behaviors within a
continuum framework. Thus, we draw on those questions asking respondents whether
their agency relied on a force continuum as part of their policy, and if so, the type (i.e.,
design) of policy followed by a listing of how varying tactics and weapons are placed
on the continuum (i.e., tactical placement) in terms of severity, as well as the connec-
tion between force types/levels and varying forms of citizen resistance.
Sampling Frame
Although there were 17,784 police agencies in the United States as of 2000, according
to the Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, our sampling frame was
comprised to include the 7,306 agencies that (a) have primary responsibility for polic-
ing a residential population, (b) employ 10 or more full-time police officers, and
(c) are a municipal or county agency (see Table 1). Selection based on these three
criteria include more than 90% of all full-time sworn officers in the country (Weisburd,
Greenspan, Hamilton, Williams, & Bryant, 2000).4
Sample Selection
Due to large differences in the number of agencies in different size categories, a dis-
proportionate stratified random sampling strategy was employed based on agency size
and type. For agency size, we chose five categories based on number of full-time
sworn officers with arrest powers (i.e., 10-49, 50-99, 100-249, 250-749, and 750+
officers). For agency type, we established two categories. The first was police, formed
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 7
by combining municipal, county, and regional police into one category. The second
was sheriff’s organizations. Once these breakdowns were incorporated, we then
selected 5% of agencies with 10 to 49 officers, 25% of agencies with 50 to 99 officers,
50% of agencies with 100 to 249 officers, and all agencies in the next two size catego-
ries of 250 to 749 and 750 and more. This strategy resulted in an overall sample size
of 1,083 agencies (see Table 1).
Survey Distribution and Response Rate
Relying on well-established techniques (see Dillman, 1978), the survey methodology
involved a multistage process beginning with pretesting the instrument on 17 sworn
officers employed by 14 different police agencies located in 5 different states in January
and February of 2006. Upon receiving comments and making revisions, the final survey
instrument was mailed out to all 1,083 agencies in March of 2006.5 Three additional
waves of surveys were distributed between May, 2006 and February 2007, with a tele-
phone call follow-up to all nonresponding agencies between the second and third
waves.6 In total, 662 agency surveys were completed for a response rate of 61.1%.7
As illustrated in Table 1, within each of the five group breakdowns, the response
rate progressively increases as the size of the agency increases. At the ends of the
spectrum the difference is most pronounced. Although just less than 40% of the agen-
cies with 10 to 49 sworn officers responded to the survey (105 responded of 272 sur-
veyed), more than 90% of the largest (750 or more sworn officers) agencies responded
(67 responded of 74 surveyed). In terms of agency type, police agencies were more
likely to respond than sheriff agencies. Of the 762 police departments surveyed, 494
responded (64.8%). For sheriff agencies, 168 of 321 responded (52.3%). Thus, from a
generalizability standpoint, the results are most reflective of mid- to large-size police
Table 1. Sampling Frame, Sample Size, and Response Rate Across Size and Type of Agency
Type 10-49 50-99 100-249 250-749 750+Total
Sampling frame
Police 4,104 745 378 125 57 5,409
Sheriff 1,342 286 174 78 17 1,897
Total 5,446 1,031 552 203 74 7,306
Sample size
Police 205 186 189 125 57 762
Sheriff 67 72 87 78 17 321
Total 272 258 276 203 74 1,083
Response rate
Police 82 109 145 107 51 494
Sheriff 23 30 40 59 16 168
Total 105 139 185 166 67 662
Percent 38.6 53.9 67.0 81.7 90.5 61.1
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8 Police Quarterly XX(X)
agencies and are consistent with what other police researchers who have conducted
mail surveys have found (e.g., Pate & Fridell, 1995; Strom et al., 2009; Worrall, 2002).
Findings
To What Extent Do Agencies Use a Force Continuum?
In line with extant research (Alpert & Dunham, 2004; GAO, 2005; McEwen, 1997),
we began by asking agencies whether they relied on a force continuum approach as
part of their less lethal force policy. In doing so, we offered explicit direction so as to
clarify our intent stating:
By force continuum, we mean a guideline (sometimes depicted graphically) that
officers can use to determine the type of force that may be used in generic situ-
ations. Such guidelines are sometimes (but not always) linked with varying
forms of citizen resistance in an attempt to assist officers in matching the level
of force to the level of resistance/threat encountered. Some examples include
linear (e.g., ladder, stair, FLETC), wheel, and matrix/box designs, although
there are many variations of continuum designs besides these few examples.
Of the 662 responding agencies, 641 answered this question; of these, 518 indi-
cated they utilized a force continuum. Thus, more than 80% of the respondents indi-
cated that they relied on some form of a force continuum, which is a bit higher than the
72% reported by Alpert and Dunham (2004).
What Type of Force Continuum Designs
Do Agencies Most Often Use?
For those agencies that indicated the use of a continuum, we then asked them to iden-
tify the “type” of force continuum their agency uses. We cautioned that there is no
correct or ideal continuum design in existence but rather that some agencies simply
prefer one design over another. To help guide them further we offered basic illustra-
tive template examples of continuum designs currently in existence. Of the 518 agen-
cies stating they use a force continuum, 516 agencies answered this question. By far,
the most prevalent response was the use of a linear design “without” graphic repre-
sentation (n = 240, 46.5%), followed by a linear approach “with” a graphic design
(n = 139, 26.9%). Hence, nearly three quarters of the responding agencies indicated
the use of a linear design in some form. The next most frequently used designs
reported were the matrix/box approach (n = 52) and some sort of circular/wheel
approach (n = 48), with both used about 10% of the time (10.1% and 9.3%, respec-
tively). The remaining 37 agencies (7.2%) stated that they use some “other” type of
continuum structure. In sum, our findings show that a substantial majority of police
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 9
agencies do rely on a force continuum structure and that the most frequently used type
is some form of linear design.
How Do Agencies Rank Force and Resistance on a Continuum?
Although our first two research questions were answered with relatively straightfor-
ward responses from individual survey items, the multidimensional nature of our third
research question added a higher degree of complication. As such, the bulk of our
inquiry focused on tactical placement, or how officers are instructed to use varying
forms of force given varying types of citizen resistance encountered. Hence, this
includes not only the ordering of verbal, hands-, and weapons-based tactics, but also
the potential linking of force to various forms of citizen resistance that an officer
might encounter. To address this research question, we asked respondents to detail
their force and citizen resistance progression by asking,
Please identify the progression of citizen resistance and police use of force out-
lined in your continuum policy, from the lowest level to the highest level, and
indicate the types/levels of force recommended to officers for each type of
resistance/threat they encounter (i.e., the range of force options available to
officers for each type of citizen resistance encountered).
Of the 518 agencies that indicated they use a force continuum as part of their policy,
476 provided sufficient enough detail to examine their force progression and 371
agencies provided sufficient enough detail to examine their resistance progression.
Force placement. Before discussing the findings involving tactical force placement,
it is useful to consider policy from within the context of a “restrictiveness” framework.
While restrictiveness may be conceptualized in various ways, one such mechanism
would be to gauge how rapidly officers may progress to higher forms of force. For
instance, an agency containing a six-level continuum that distinguishes each type of
force as separate entities may be more restrictive than a three-level continuum that
combines several types of force into similar categories. An example of this scenario is
offered below. Here we see that Department A parses out many different forms of
force. More specifically, three different types of hands-on force (physical, soft, empty
hand; pain compliance; physical, hard, empty hand) are distinguished in relation to
severity. Conversely, Department B treats all forms of hands-on force in a similar
manner at Level 2.
Department A:
Level 1: Presence/verbal direction
Level 2: Physical soft empty hands
Level 3: Pain compliance
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10 Police Quarterly XX(X)
Department A (continued):
Level 4: Physical hard empty hands
Level 5: Impact weapons
Level 6: Deadly force
Department B:
Level 1: Presence/verbal direction
Level 2: Physical soft empty hands, pain compliance, physical hard empty hands
Level 3: Impact weapons, deadly force
However, one must also use caution not to treat departments using a similar num-
ber of “levels” as being equivalent in terms of restrictiveness either. In the following
example, although Department B and C have the same number of force levels, they
are not the same in terms of restrictiveness. In this case, one can easily argue that
Department B is more restrictive than Department C, since the latter permits soft-
hands force at Level 1, as well as impact weapons at Level 2.
Department C:
Level 1: Presence/verbal direction, physical, soft, empty hands
Level 2: Pain compliance, physical hard empty hands, impact weapons
Level 3: Deadly force
Using this type of restrictiveness approach as a backdrop, we turn our attention to
how the agencies in our sample instructed officers via a force continuum. Of the 476
agencies that outlined their force progression, a total of 123 different permutations
were uncovered ranging from 3 to 9 different levels, resulting in a great deal of varia-
tion in terms of how police agencies go about detailing their policy in relation to the
number of levels and the placement of tactics. In an attempt to simplify placement
patterns for illustrative purposes, we categorized force into six categories: officer
presence/verbal direction; soft empty hands (e.g., touching, pat down, firm grip,
simple restraint); pain compliance techniques (e.g., pressure point controls); hard
empty hands (e.g., hand strikes, punches, kicks, take downs without a weapon);
impact weapons (e.g., baton/ASP/flashlight strikes, pepperball, beanbag); and deadly
force (e.g., handgun, rifle). In addition to these six categories, chemical sprays and
CEDs were also coded but distinguished from the other six categories so as to present
the varying types of continuum placements different agencies use.
Excluding the 115 agencies that placed chemical sprays and/or CEDs on their own
distinct level of force (we return to this below), Table 2 shows how the remaining 361
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 11
detail their force progression. First, looking at the ends of the continuum, a large
majority of the departments place the least and most severe forms of force on their
own level. More than 86% of the agencies place officer presence/verbal direction on a
level by itself, whereas 97.8% place deadly force by itself. Nonetheless, some agen-
cies do not place such rigid restrictions on force placement at the ends of the contin-
uum. For example, 49 of the agencies place officer presence/verbal direction on the
same level as soft-hand tactics, whereas 8 departments permit a deadly force option
along with less lethal force options.
Another way to consider force progression is by the extent to which agencies per-
mit the use of impact methods with varying forms of hands-on tactics or at a higher
level “after” hands-on tactics. In this case, roughly two thirds (n = 232, 64.3%) adopt
a more restrictive approach by placing impact weapons only after all hand-on options,
with the remaining one third (n = 129, 35.7%) of agencies placing impact weapons on
the same level with hands-on force.
Tables 3 and 4 illustrate where chemical sprays and CEDs are placed when such
force types are found at the same level as one of the six other categories of force (i.e.,
officer presence/verbal direction; soft empty hands; pain compliance; hard empty
hands; impact weapons; and deadly force), and Table 5 shows where these weapons
are located on the continuum when placed on their own distinct force level. Exactly
how or where chemical sprays and CEDs fit into force continuum progression has not
been entirely clear from past research (see Alpert & Dunham, 2010; Thomas et al.,
2010, 2011) and has been the subject of rather intense public debate over the past two
decades (Terrill & Paoline, 2012). The findings presented here show precisely where
on the force continuum such mechanisms fall using a representative nationwide sam-
ple. As shown in Table 3, the placement of chemical sprays on the force continuum
varies widely. Roughly 30% of the agencies place chemical sprays with pain compli-
ance techniques, another 29.2% place chemical sprays with hard-hand tactics, and
35.3% place chemical sprays with impact weapons. A handful of departments even
place chemical sprays as low as empty-hand soft techniques (n = 12) and as high as
deadly force (n = 6). Such widespread variation indicates a tremendous lack of agree-
ment by police practitioners as to where chemical sprays should be placed on a force
continuum.
Similar to the approach used for chemical sprays, Table 4 depicts where CEDs are
placed when embedded with other types of force. Compared to chemical sprays there
is somewhat less variation but far from a clear consensus. Nearly 60% of the agencies
place CEDs at the impact weapon level, with another 2% placing CEDs along with
deadly force. Thus, just below two thirds of the departments require some type of
hands-on force before resorting to a CED. However, more than a third of the agencies
place CEDs with some sort of hands-on force. In particular, a quarter of the agencies
place CEDs at the same level as hard empty-hand tactics, with another 13.1% placing
CEDs with pain compliance techniques.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
12 Police Quarterly XX(X)
Table 2. Progression of Force Across Agencies
Factor N%
Level 1: Presence/verbal 84 23.3
Level 2: Physical soft
Level 3: Pain compliance, physical hard
Level 4: Impact
Level 5: Deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal 75 20.8
Level 2: Physical soft
Level 3: Pain compliance
Level 4: Physical hard, impact
Level 5: Deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal 59 16.3
Level 2: Physical soft, pain compliance
Level 3: Physical hard
Level 4: Impact
Level 5: Deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal 45 12.5
Level 2: Physical soft, pain compliance, physical hard
Level 3: Impact
Level 4: Deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal, physical soft 24 6.6
Level 2: Pain compliance, physical hard
Level 3: Impact
Level 4: Deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal 21 5.8
Level 2: Physical soft, pain compliance
Level 3: Physical hard, impact
Level 4: Deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal, physical soft 13 3.6
Level 2: Pain compliance
Level 3: Physical hard
Level 4: Impact
Level 5: Deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal 12 3.3
Level 2: Physical soft
Level 3: Pain compliance, physical hard, impact
Level 4: Deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal, physical soft 11 3.0
Level 2: Pain compliance
Level 3: Physical hard, impact
Level 4: Deadly
(continued)
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 13
Table 3. Force Level of Chemical Spray When Shared With Other Force
Factor N%
Physical soft 12 3.3
Pain compliance 110 30.5
Physical hard 105 29.2
Impact 127 35.3
Deadly 6 1.7
Total 360 100
Factor N%
Level 1: Presence/verbal 7 1.9
Level 2: Physical soft
Level 3: Pain compliance
Level 4: Physical hard
Level 5: Impact
Level 6: Deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal 7 1.9
Level 2: Physical soft, pain compliance, physical hard
Level 3: Impact, deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal 1 0.3
Level 2: Physical soft
Level 3: Pain compliance, physical hard, impact, deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal 1 0.3
Level 2: Physical soft, pain compliance, physical hard, impact
Level 3: Deadly
Level 1: Presence/verbal, physical soft 1 0.3
Level 2: Pain compliance, physical hard, impact
Level 3: Deadly
Total 361 100
Table 2. (continued)
Table 4. Force Level of CED (Conducted Energy Devices) When Shared With Other Force
Factor N%
Physical soft 2 0.8
Pain compliance 32 13.1
Physical hard 60 24.6
Impact 145 59.4
Deadly 5 2.0
Total 244 100
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
14 Police Quarterly XX(X)
Table 5. Force Level of Chemical Sprays and CED When Occupying Own Force Levela
Chemical
Spray CED Both
Factor N%N%N%
After presence/verbal 13 19.1 1 7.7 7 18.4
After physical soft 8 11.8 — — 3 7.9
After pain compliance 25 36.8 2 15.4 16 42.1
After physical hard 20 29.4 5 38.5 12 31.6
After impact 2 2.9 5 38.5 — —
Total 68 100 13 100 38 100
aSeven agencies placed CED (conducted energy device) on its own level directly after chemical sprays
(11 agencies had both chemical spray and CED on their own, but separate levels).
As noted previously, 115 of the 476 agencies that offered sufficient detail to deter-
mine force progression placed chemical sprays and/or CEDs on their own distinct
force level. Table 5 shows where these weapons are placed on the continuum. Similar
to the results depicted in Tables 3 and 4, the location of chemical sprays, when placed
on their own level of force, is much more varied than that of CEDs. The most frequent
location for chemical sprays is right after pain compliance techniques (36.8%), fol-
lowed by hard empty-hand tactics (29.4%). Fewer than 20% of the agencies place
chemical sprays prior to any form on hands-on force (right after officer presence/
verbal force). With respect to CEDs, of the relatively few agencies that place this
weapon on a separate level of force by itself (n = 13), the majority locate it higher on
the continuum. For instance, 10 of the 13 agencies place CEDs after hard hands (n = 5)
or impact (n = 5), whereas only one agency places the weapon right after verbal force
(and before hands-on). Finally, and somewhat interesting after the CED findings, is
the placement of chemical sprays and CEDs when they are both placed on the same
level together, but by themselves on their own level (e.g., as the only force options at
this level). In this case, the modal placement location (42.1%) is after pain compliance
(but before physical hard hands).
Citizen resistance placement. A second fundamental element of use-of-force policy
is the consideration of resistance encountered from citizens, which can also vary in its
placement. Of the 371 agencies that listed a citizen resistance progression, a total of 23
permutations were uncovered ranging from 3 to 7 different levels. Thus, similar to
force, in an attempt to simplify progression patterns for illustrative purposes, we
placed the numerous types of citizen resistance into six categories: compliant, verbal
(e.g., refusing verbal direction), passive (e.g., failing to respond to an officer/ignoring),
physical defensive (e.g., bracing, pulling away, fleeing), physical active (e.g., hostile
and overt physical aggression toward the officer), and deadly (e.g., attempt or actual
attack that could cause death).
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 15
As shown in Table 6, nearly half (n = 179, 48.2%) of all the responding agencies
who detailed their citizen resistance progression use a five-level layout in the follow-
ing order: 1—compliant, 2—verbal/passive combined, 3—physical defensive, 4—
physical active, and 5—deadly. The second most frequently used approach (n = 123,
33.2%) is similar except that verbal and passive resistance are split and placed on
separate levels according to the following: 1—compliant, 2—verbal, 3—passive, 4—
physical defensive, 5—physical active, and 6—deadly. These two approaches com-
bined account for 302 (81.4%) of the 371 agencies. Although there are 12 additional
permutations used, the drop-off in frequency is dramatic (e.g., the third most fre-
quently used progression format only contains 16 departments). Thus, there is much
less variation in how agencies detail citizen resistance compared to force progression.
Force and citizen resistance placement. Next, we consider the extent to which police
agencies connect varying levels and types of citizen resistance to varying levels and
types of force. Of the 476 agencies indicating that they incorporate a force continuum
approach into their policy, 140 (29.5%) noted that they instruct officers in the form of
a progression of force across levels via a continuum but do not indicate (i.e., link) how
such force should be used in response to varying levels of citizen resistance or only
semilink force and resistance.8 If the two continuums (i.e., resistance and force) are not
linked, and thereby do not provide officers guidance as to the most appropriate force
responses given specific types of resistance faced, the nature of restrictiveness is
inherently lessened. In fact, in terms of restrictiveness, one may argue that such agen-
cies are the least restrictive of those that use a force continuum.
At the other end of the spectrum, 336 (70.6%) of the responding agencies indicated
that they rank both resistance and force along a continuum, as well as link specific
types of force to specific types of resistance (i.e., instruct officers as to what types of
force are permitted given varying types of citizen resistance).9 Interestingly, all apply
some sort of “out-clause” in the sense that there is no requirement that officers “prog-
ress” up or down force continuum levels in strict form (e.g., that officers must exhaust
all lower forms of force prior to moving up the continuum),10 but all do specify the
range of force that should be used given the level of resistance posed by the suspect.
Given the varied placement of chemical sprays and CEDs throughout the force
continuum, and the complicating manner in which agencies treat these weapons (as
illustrated in Tables 3 through 5), we examine the most popular policy approaches
used by these 336 agencies in two ways. First, in Table 7a, we consider the top policies
used without explicit notation for where chemical sprays and CEDs fit into the con-
tinuum (similar to Table 2). Second, in Table 7b, we consider the top policies used
specifically considering where these weapons fit into the continuum.
As illustrated in Table 7a, the most frequent approach is used by just 20.2% of
departments. In this model, officers are restricted from using any hands-on force
unless (or until) a suspect presents at least some form of verbal or passive resistance
(which are treated as similar types of resistance). If a suspect presents defensive resis-
tance (i.e., pulling, pushing away from the officers attempting to avoid control),
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
16 Police Quarterly XX(X)
Table 6. Progression of Citizen Resistance Across Agencies
Factor N%
Level 1: Compliant 179 48.2
Level 2: Verbal, passive
Level 3: Physical defensive
Level 4: Physical active
Level 5: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant 123 33.2
Level 2: Verbal
Level 3: Passive
Level 4: Physical defensive
Level 5: Physical active
Level 6: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant, verbal 16 4.3
Level 2: Passive
Level 3: Physical defensive
Level 4: Physical active
Level 5: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant, verbal 12 3.2
Level 2: Passive, physical defensive
Level 3: Physical active
Level 4: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant 9 2.4
Level 2: Verbal, passive, physical defensive
Level 3: Physical active, deadly
Level 1: Compliant 7 1.9
Level 2: Verbal, passive, physical defensive
Level 3: Physical active
Level 4: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant, verbal, passive 6 1.6
Level 2: Physical defensive
Level 3: Physical active
Level 4: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant 6 1.6
Level 2: Verbal
Level 3: Passive, physical defensive
Level 4: Physical active
Level 5: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant 4 1.1
Level 2: Verbal, passive
Level 3: Physical defensive, physical active
Level 4: Deadly
(continued)
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 17
Factor N%
Level 1: Compliant 2 0.5
Level 2: Verbal
Level 3: Passive
Level 4: Physical defensive
Level 5: Physical active, deadly
Level 1: Compliant 2 0.5
Level 2: Verbal
Level 3: Passive
Level 4: Physical defensive, physical active
Level 5: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant 2 0.5
Level 2: Passive
Level 3: Verbal
Level 4: Physical defensive
Level 5: Physical active
Level 6: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant 1 0.3
Level 2: Verbal, passive, physical defensive, physical active
Level 3: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant, verbal, passive 1 0.3
Level 2: Physical defensive, physical active
Level 3: Deadly
Level 1: Compliant, verbal, passive, physical defensive 1 0.3
Level 2: Physical active
Level 3: Deadly
Total 371 100
Table 6. (continued)
officers are instructed to apply pain compliance techniques such as a wristlock or arm
bar (as opposed to hand strikes or impact weapons). Not unless (or until) a suspect
would become actively aggressive in the form of attempting or actually striking an
officer is it recommended that officers resort to hard-hands tactics (e.g., punching,
striking, kicking) or impact weapons (e.g., baton).
For comparison purposes, contrast the most frequent approach to the second most
frequent approach, which is used by just 10.4% of the police departments across the
country. In many respects the two approaches resemble one another fairly closely, but
from a pragmatic perspective there is a key distinction. In the latter case, officers are
not restricted to the use of pain compliance techniques when faced with a defensively
resisting suspect. Rather, pain compliance and hard-hand tactics are treated as equiva-
lent and officers are permitted to select the option they feel is most warranted given the
situation. This is not to say that officers working in an agency that uses the former
approach cannot resort to hard-hand tactics on defensively resisting suspects, only that
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
18 Police Quarterly XX(X)
Table 7a. Three Most Frequently Used Force Continuums Policies (Nonexplicit Chemical
Spray and CEDs)
Level Resistance Force N%*
Number 1
1 Compliant Presence/verbal 68 20.2
2 Verbal, passive Physical soft
3 Physical defensive Pain compliance
4 Physical active Physical hard, impact
5 Deadly Deadly
Number 2
1 Compliant Presence/verbal 35 10.4
2 Verbal, passive Physical soft
3 Physical defensive Pain compliance, physical hard
4 Physical active Impact
5 Deadly Deadly
Number 3
1 Compliant Presence/verbal 34 10.1
2 Verbal Presence/verbal
3 Passive Physical soft, pain compliance
4 Physical defensive Physical hard
5 Physical active Impact
6 Deadly Deadly
Note: CED = conducted energy devices.
aPercent is calculated based on total number of agencies that link force to resistance in a force
continuum format (n = 336).
such force is considered a higher (not commensurate) response given the level of resis-
tance. Obviously, if pain compliance techniques are ineffective, or an alternative rea-
son for a higher level of force is warranted (e.g., the suspect is very large and the
officer is very small, a weapon is visible and within close range, etc.), officers may
apply hard-hand tactics. As such, we refrain from overstating the distinction of these
two approaches. Nonetheless, the former is clearly more restrictive than the latter
approach.
The third most frequent approach, which is used by just 10.1% of departments,
offers yet another policy variation. In this approach, both verbal and passive citizen
resistance occupy separate levels on the continuum. Officers are instructed to use no
more than verbal force when faced with verbally resistant citizens but may use soft-
hands or pain compliance tactics if a citizen poses passive resistance. The remaining
three levels then have a one-for-one relationship in terms of resistance and force (i.e.,
officers are instructed that hard-hand tactics may be used on physically defensive citi-
zens, impact methods may be used on physically active citizens, and deadly resistance
may be met with deadly force).
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 19
Table 7b. Three Most Frequently Used Force Continuums Policies (Explicit Chemical Spray
and CEDs)
Level Resistance Force N%a
Number 1
1 Compliant Presence/verbal 29 8.6
2 Verbal, passive Physical soft
3 Physical defensive Pain compliance, chemical spray
4 Physical active Physical hard, impact, CED
5 Deadly Deadly
Number 2
1 Compliant Presence/verbal 24 7.1
2 Verbal, passive Physical soft
3 Physical defensive Pain compliance, chemical spray
4 Physical active Physical hard, impact
5 Deadly Deadly
Number 3
1 Compliant Presence/verbal 17 5.1
2 Verbal Presence/verbal
3 Passive Physical soft, pain compliance
4 Physical defensive Physical hard
5 Physical active Impact, chemical spray, CED
6 Deadly Deadly
Note: CED = conducted energy devices.
aPercent is calculated based on total number of agencies that link force to resistance in a force continuum
format (n = 336).
The key findings gleaned from Table 7a is how few agencies employ even the most
commonly used approaches, as well as the rapid decline in relation to the number of
agencies using the most frequent approaches. Of the 336 agencies linking force to
resistance, the top approach is used by just 20% (n = 68) of the departments, and the
second and third most frequently used approaches are just half that at 10% (n = 35 and
n = 34, respectively). The next most frequent continuum approach (not depicted) drops
in half again (5.0%, n = 17). The remaining approaches all have less than 10 agencies
using them. More specifically, the remaining 199 agencies use an additional 99 differ-
ent variations of a force continuum. This speaks to the enormous amount of variation
in existence when it comes to force policy.
The extent of policy variation depicted in Table 7a tells only part of the story,
however, when it comes to how police officers across the country are instructed on
less lethal force. That is, Table 7a depicts but a simplified version of policy variation
given that agencies do not always treat and place chemical sprays and CEDs into the
impact weapon category. As illustrated in Table 7b, when the placement of these
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
20 Police Quarterly XX(X)
weapons are considered in tandem with the other less lethal force options, the most
common policy approach is used by just 8.6% (n = 29) of the responding agencies.
This model mirrors the top approach identified in Table 7a, but with chemical sprays
treated on the third level of continuum similar to pain compliance force, which is to
be used in response to physically defensive resistance. The second most common
policy approach is used by just 24 (7.1%) of the agencies. This model again places
chemical sprays on the same level as pain compliance in response to physically
defensive resistance, but these agencies do not issue or permit CEDs. The third
approach is used by just 17 (5.1%) of the agencies and is identical to the third-ranked
approach in Table 7a, but with explicit notation as to chemical sprays and CEDs
listed as impact weapons in response to physically active resistance. Each of the
remaining policy approaches are used by less than 5% of the responding agencies.
More specifically, the rest of the 266 agencies use an additional 166 different varia-
tions of the force continuum. Once again, this speaks to the enormous amount of
variation in existence when it comes to force policy. For further elaboration, please
see the Appendix regarding how the three most commonly used force continuum
approaches vary based on agency size and type, which also corresponds with how the
sample was stratified for the national mail survey.11
Discussion
The results presented here illustrate how police agencies across the country go about
instructing officers via policy regarding force, particularly within the confines of force
continuum structures. We found that a large majority of police agencies (more than
80%) use some type of continuum. Of these agencies, the linear design was, by far,
the most frequently used (73%), followed by matrix/box designs and circular/wheel
designs, each with roughly 10% of the agencies using them. This finding is somewhat
interesting given recent discussions within the literature concerning the potential
negatives of force/resistance continuums in general, and linear designs in particular
(see Aveni, 2003; Peters & Brave, 2006; Petrowski, 2002; Williams, 2002). More
specifically, some have argued against the use-of-force/resistance continuums on a
number of fronts, such as in relation to hampering decision making, fear of liability
issues, and being more restrictive than the law.12 Even during site visits to a number
of agencies as part of the second phase of the Assessing Police Use of Force Policy
and Outcomes project we heard concerns from police officials about the potential
down side of using a force continuum. Nonetheless, what is apparent from the find-
ings presented here is that a large majority of police agencies do incorporate a force
continuum into their policy, and the preferred model is linear in design.
With respect to the tactical placement of hands-on force tactics (e.g., soft hands,
pain compliance controls, hard hands) and weapons (e.g., batons, chemical sprays,
CEDs), and how police agencies rank the order of such in terms of progression, the
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 21
key finding uncovered was the enormous variation present. Even with an attempt to
consolidate the many force types into broader categories, vast differences were
uncovered in terms of how police agencies go about detailing their policy in relation
to the number of levels and placement of tactics.13
In addition, our results reveal that it is difficult to identify a typically used force
continuum approach that ranks hands- and weapon-based tactics in relation to citizen
resistance levels. Although some departments are quite restrictive in terms of allowing
officers to use more severe forms of force only on actively aggressive suspects, other
agencies are quite liberal and place a large amount of discretion in officers hands by
allowing them to use nearly all types of force against nearly all types of resistance
short of extreme imbalance (e.g., allowing a baton strike to a compliant suspect).
Moreover, as illustrated in Table 7a, whereas the most frequent continuum approach
places hard-hand tactics (e.g., striking, punching, kicking) and impact weapons at the
same force level to be used against actively aggressive suspects, the second most fre-
quent policy approach moves hard-hand tactics up one level and permits such force to
be used on suspects who are displaying defensive resistance (a less severe form than
active aggression). Although the latter approach is clearly less restrictive compared to
the former, given the low percentages uncovered it is nearly impossible to identify a
standard approach being used other than the one with the greatest frequency. This fact
becomes even more highlighted when chemical sprays and CEDs are broken out as
separate forms of force as illustrated in Table 7b. In essence, with the exception of
general agreement tending toward the ends of a continuum structure (e.g., hard-hand
tactics and impact weapons are more severe than verbal commands and threats, and
subsequently ranked higher), there really is no “commonly” used means of tactical
placement in terms of force continuum policies (i.e., where various forms of hands-on
techniques and weapons should be placed in relation to varying forms of suspect resis-
tance). Departments pick and chose, and tweak and adapt, in a multitude of ways—all
unfortunately, with little to no empirical evidence as to which approach is best or even
better than another.
The results of this study have implications for police practitioners. Perhaps the
primary contribution is that it informs police trainers, supervisors, and administrators
with a glimpse of use-of-force policies that are currently in operation. Anyone who has
spent time researching in a police department has undoubtedly been asked by police
personnel, “What are other departments doing?” Our findings reveal that most
American police departments are using a use-of-force continuum and most likely one
that is depicted in a linear fashion. Unfortunately, conclusions regarding the placement
of force tactics and consideration of various levels of citizen resistance within policies
are less clear cut, as we found vast differences across these dimensions. As such, infor-
mative summary statements for police practitioners are much easier to make in terms
of whether agencies nationally are utilizing a force continuum and the type of design
over policy restrictiveness.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
22 Police Quarterly XX(X)
Although this research provides the first comprehensive empirical national exami-
nation regarding the contours of less lethal police use-of-force policies as a collective
whole, it is not without limitations. First, like that confronted by other researchers,
resource limitations prohibited a full-scale attempt to survey the population of
American police agencies; thus, we relied on a disproportionate random sample of
agencies based on size and type. Second, we realized over the course of our survey
administration that the 70% to 80% response rate norm of decades past (Maguire,
2002) has changed rather dramatically, especially when the subject matter is poten-
tially sensitive in nature (e.g., citizen complaints, lawsuits, use-of-force, etc.). Our
telephone follow-ups between the second and third waves provided some insight into
the current state of affairs. Several agencies intimated that they are inundated with
surveys (i.e., mail, email, and fax) and either lack sufficient resources to complete the
survey (i.e., especially smaller departments), do surveys “randomly” (i.e., pick and
choose a certain number to complete), or use a “systematic” selection (e.g., only do a
survey if it arrives on a certain day of the week). As a result, our 61% response rate
may be good for today’s standards but might only be regarded as fair by past expecta-
tions. Finally, our approach here is but the first stage in understanding the complexi-
ties regarding use-of-force policies in operation. What we provide is a descriptive
snapshot into what agencies are doing in terms of guiding officers, via the policy, in
the application of force. What we do not know, which is of interest to practitioners and
researchers alike, are the potential costs and benefits of the varying approaches, espe-
cially in terms of our latter analyses on policy restrictiveness.
For police researchers and scholars, this study provides empirical evidence to sup-
port the generalized claims regarding less lethal use-of-force policy structures and
designs (i.e., linear continuums), although much more work is needed. The next step
is to examine the policy approaches, via multisite examinations, that provide the most
and least beneficial police outcomes (e.g., force usage, citizen complaints, injuries,
lawsuits, etc.). In addition, the findings also suggest that aggregate comparisons
(across police agencies), in terms of what might constitute objectively reasonable
force, might prove to be difficult because officers, from various departments, are being
guided (per their policy) in vastly different ways. Evidence of this is especially evident
in our findings with respect to policy restrictiveness (i.e., the placement of force tactics
and the incorporation of levels of citizen resistance). Further complicating the picture
are the various “out clauses” provided by agencies that provide situational contingen-
cies for circumventing, or perhaps more optimistically enhancing, the policy (e.g.,
suspect height/ weight, skill, mental state, drug/alcohol use, distance from officer,
officer fatigue, officer injury, etc.). This suggests that officers who are applying force
have a great deal of latitude depending on their individual interpretations of the
encounter before them. Although our aim was to provide the front-half template for
mapping the various force policies in operation, controlling for and understanding
such nuances certainly presents an exciting opportunity for those interested in policy
effects and outcomes.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 23
Appendix
Agency Size by Top Continuum Approaches
Used (Non-Explicit Chemical Spray and CEDs)
Agency Size by # Sworn Officers
Top
Continuum 10-49 n (%) 50-99 n (%) 100-249 n (%) 250-749 n (%) 750+ n (%) Total n (%)
1 12 (54.5) 16 (47.1) 22 (57.9) 14 (42.4) 4 (40.0) 68 (49.6)
2 7 (31.8) 10 (29.4) 6 (15.8) 9 (27.3) 3 (30.0) 35 (25.5)
3 3 (13.6) 8 (23.5) 10 (26.3) 10 (30.3) 3 (30.0) 34 (24.8)
Total 22 (100.0) 34 (100.0) 38 (100.0) 33 (100.0) 10 (100.0) 137 (100.0)
Chi-Sq=4.951, p=.763
Agency Size by Top Continuum Approaches
Used (Explicit Chemical Spray and CEDs)
Agency Size by # of Sworn Officers
Top
Continuum 10-49 n (%) 50-99 n (%) 100-249 n (%) 250-749 n (%) 750+ n (%) Total n (%)
1 6 (60.0) 5 (33.3) 7 (29.2) 10 (55.6) 1 (33.3) 29 (41.4)
2 4 (40.0) 6 (40.0) 11 (45.8) 3 (16.7) 0 (0.0) 24 (34.3)
3 0 (0.0) 4 (26.7) 6 (25.0) 5 (27.8) 2 (66.7) 17 (24.3)
Total 10 (100.0) 15 (100.0) 24 (100.0) 18 (100.0) 3 (100.0) 70 (100.0)
Chi-Sq=11.463, p=.177
Agency Type by Top Continuum Approaches
Used (Non-Explicit Chemical Spray and CEDs)
Agency Type
Top Continuum Police Agency n (%) Sheriff Agency n (%) Total n (%)
1 43 (43.4) 25 (65.8) 68 (49.6)
2 27 (27.3) 8 (21.1) 35 (25.5)
3 29 (29.3) 5 (13.2) 34 (24.8)
Total 99 (100.0) 38 (100.0) 137 (100.0)
Chi-Sq=6.061, p=.048
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
24 Police Quarterly XX(X)
Agency Type by Top Continuum Approaches
Used (Explicit Chemical Spray and CEDs)
Agency Type
Top Continuum Police Agency n (%) Sheriff Agency n (%) Total n (%)
1 13 (29.5) 16 (61.5) 29 (41.4)
2 17 (38.6) 7 (26.9) 24 (34.3)
3 14 (31.8) 3 (11.5) 17 (24.3)
Total 44 (100.0) 26 (100.0) 70 (100.0)
Chi-Sq=7.459, p=.024
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This article is based on data from the Assessing Police Use of
Force Policy and Outcomes project, supported by Grant No. 2005-IJ-CX-0055 by the National
Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view are
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the
U.S. Department of Justice.
Notes
1. McEwen notes that force policies incorporating a continuum approach “. . . are much more
likely than other policies to address the fundamental issue of physical force (open hand
control, fists, use of body, etc.)” (1997, p. 50).
2. In addition, during the same funding cycle as our NIJ (National Institute of Justice) force
grant (from which the present manuscript is based), Smith et al. also received funding for
a force project. As part of their project, they too administered a national survey to police
agencies, with an emphasis on policies related to less lethal technologies (i.e., CEDs).
Given that we ended up conducting our survey first, prior to the administration of their
agency mail survey we provided a list of the departments we had already surveyed to quell
their concerns over “survey overload” (Smith et al., 2010, cp. 3, pp. 4, fn.6). Of the 950
agencies that were part of their sample population, 518 responded, for a response rate of
54.5%. According to Smith et al.’s (2010, pp. 3-7) final unpublished NIJ report, 87.9% of
the responding agencies noted that they utilized a use-of-force continuum.
3. The aforementioned Smith et al. (2010) less lethal force project, in their survey of 518
police departments, found that 51.9% indicated that they utilized a “linear” design,
23.8% a “matrix” design, 18.5% a “circular” design, and 4.9% some “other” design.
Appendix (continued)
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 25
Although this provides some initial assessments of force continuum designs in operation,
this work has not been subject to the scrutiny of the academic journal–style peer-review
process. For example, one issue left unresolved is the number of agencies (i.e., rather
than just percentages) that answered the question(s) regarding continuum design, as it is
unknown whether or not all 518 departments answered these items or whether it was a
subset of responding agencies. In addition, as pointed out by the authors themselves, the
results should be taken cautiously because “agencies appeared to interpret these terms
differently” (2010, cp. 3, pp. 8). As such, until these issues are resolved (i.e., via peer-
review publication and deciphering survey responses on continuum model type from
actual policies in operation), the picture on continuum design remains, at best, unclear.
4. The sample was drawn with the assistance of Dr. Edward Maguire, a nationally recog-
nized police organization theorist and researcher, using the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics. Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA),
2000: [United States] [Computer File]. Conducted by U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. 3rd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and
Social Research [producer and distributor], 2003.
5. A personalized cover letter identifying the potential benefits of participation along with
human subject protection information accompanied each survey instrument.
6. The telephone follow-ups revealed, in many instances, that police chiefs had moved on
(and thus the survey was not opened) or that police department addresses had changed and/
or were incorrect (and thus the survey was not received). This allowed project staff to mail/
fax another survey for agency participation.
7. Nine additional surveys were received but were filled out so minimally (e.g., answered
only one or two questions), or did not include a signature as required by our Institutional
Review Boards (IRB), that they were not included in the final count. In addition, 10 agen-
cies contacted us (via a response letter or phone call/message) indicating that they either
did not wish to participate in our particular survey or, in some cases, they do not participate
in any survey research (it was noted that such decisions are sometimes arbitrary, and at
other times the result of insufficient personnel to devote appropriate time allocations).
8. Of these 140 agencies, 105 just specify force progression within their policy, 20 specify both
resistance and force but make no connection (or such a vague connection) indicating that force
is not linked to resistance levels, and 15 specify that they only “semi-link” force with resistance.
These latter agencies provide some partial guidance as to the force–resistance relationship
but are only loosely coupled (e.g., a graphic illustration in the policy may depict impact
weapons most closely connected to active resistance but also partially connected to defen-
sive and passive resistance).
9. Somewhat interestingly, 21 of the 48 (or 43.8%) departments that use a partial or full-
wheel/circular continuum design indicated a specific connection or link between force and
resistance. The presumed reason for adopting a wheel/circular approach is because the
agency does not want to “lock-in” officers as to what force to use given a level of resis-
tance. Although such a goal may be accomplished given the graphical depiction of a wheel/
circular model, in these 21 agencies the policy still makes the connection anyway via the
text of the policy, which would seem to defeat the original purpose of selecting a wheel/
circular design in the first place.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
26 Police Quarterly XX(X)
10. For instance, agencies identified numerous factors (other than citizen resistance) officers
may consider in determining the type of force that may be used (e.g., suspect height/weight,
perceived mental state, drug/alcohol use, seriousness of offense, presence of weapon, offi-
cer fatigue, etc.).
11. We thank an anonymous reviewer for facilitating this thought.
12. We even received written comments on some return surveys indicating that a force con-
tinuum was not part of policy for fear of liability concerns, but it was used in training—
and apparently in the views of administrators somehow outside the scope of plaintiff
attorneys.
13. Even in states with state-level guidelines regarding policy on police use-of-force (e.g.,
Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey) variation was present (i.e., individual agencies would
take the state guidelines and tweak them to accommodate their individual agency preference—
such as moving the TASER® from one level to another).
References
Adams, K., & Jennison, V. (2007). What we do not know about police use of Tasers. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 30, 447-465.
Adang, O., & Mensink, J. (2004). Pepper spray: An unreasonable response to suspect verbal
resistance. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 27,
206-219.
Alpert, G. P., & Dunham, R. G. (1997). The force factor: Measuring police use of force relative
to suspect resistance. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Alpert, G. P., & Dunham, R. G. (2004). Understanding police use of force: Officers, suspects,
and reciprocity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Alpert, G. P., & Dunham R. G. (2010). Policy and training recommendations related to police
use of CEDs: Overview of findings from a comprehensive national study. Police Quarterly,
13, 235-259.
Aveni, T. J. (2003). Force continuum conundrum. Law and Order, 51(12), 74-77.
Bazley, T. D., Lersch, K. M., & Mieczkowski, T. (2007). Officer force versus suspect resis-
tance: A gendered analysis of patrol officers in an urban police department. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 35, 183-192.
Bertomen, L. (2003). Less-lethal toolbox: Law enforcement officers test the products on the
use-of-force continuum. Law Enforcement Technology, 30, 64-69.
Connor, G. (1991). Use of force continuum: Phase II. Law and Order, 39, 30-32.
Crawford, C., & Burns, R. (1998). Predictors of the police use of force: The application of a
continuum perspective in Phoenix. Police Quarterly, 1, 41-63.
Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Fridell, L. A. (2005). Improving use-of-force policy, policy enforcement, and training. In
J. A. Ederheimer & L. A. Fridell (Eds.), Chief concerns: Exploring the challenges of police
use of force (pp. 21-56). Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Fyfe, J. J. (1988). Police use of deadly force: Research and reform. Justice Quarterly, 5, 164-205.
Garner, J. H., Schade, T., Hepburn, J., & Buchanan, J. (1995). Measuring the continuum of
force used by and against the police. Criminal Justice Review, 20, 146-168.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Terrill and Paoline 27
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
Hickman, M., & Reaves, B. (2003). Law enforcement management and administrative statis-
tics: Local police departments 2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hoffman, R., Lawrence, C., & Brown, G. (2004). Canada’s national use-of-force framework for
police officers. The Police Chief, 71, 10.
Hough, R. M., & Tatum, K. M. (2012). An examination of Florida policies on force continuums.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 35, 39-54.
Kaminski, R. K., Edwards, S. M., & Johnson, J. W. (1999). Assessing the incapacitative effects
of pepper spray during resistive encounters with the police. Policing: An International Jour-
nal of Police Strategies and Management, 22, 7-29.
Klinger, D. A. (1997). The micro-structure of nonlethal force: Baseline data from and observa-
tional study. Criminal Justice Review, 20, 169-186.
Maguire, E. R. (2002). Multiwave establishment surveys of police organizations. Justice
Research and Policy, 4, 39-59.
McEwen, T. (1997). Policies on less-than-lethal force in law enforcement agencies. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management, 20, 39-59.
Pate, A. M., & Fridell, L. A. (1993). Police use of force: Official reports, citizen complaints, and
legal consequences (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Pate, A. M., & Fridell, L. A. (1995). Toward the uniform reporting of police use of force:
Results from a national study. Criminal Justice Review, 20, 123-145.
Peters, J., & Brave, M. (2006). Force continuums: Are they still needed. Police and Security
News, 22, 1-5.
Petrowski, T. D. (2002). Use-of-force polices and training: A reasoned approach. The FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 71(10), 25-32.
Smith, M. R., Kaminski, R. J., Alpert, G. P., Fridell, L. A, MacDonald, J., & Kubu, B. (2010).
A multi-method evaluation of police use of force outcomes. Washington, DC: Final Report
to the National Institute of Justice.
Smith, M. R., Kaminski, R. J., Rojek, J., Alpert, G. P., & Mathis, J. (2007). The impact of con-
ducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 423-446.
Strom, K. J., Ropero-Miller, J., Jones, S., Sikes, N., Pope, M., & Horstmann, N. (2009). Final
report: The 2007 survey of law enforcement forensic evidence processing. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
Taylor, B., & Woods, T. J. (2010). Injuries to officers and suspects in police use-of-force cases:
A quasi-experimental evaluation. Police Quarterly, 13, 260-289.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).
Terrill, W. (2001). Police coercion: Application of the force continuum. New York, NY: LFB
Scholarly Publishing.
Terrill, W. (2005). Police use of force: A transactional approach. Justice Quarterly, 22, 107-138.
Terrill, W., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2002). Situational and officer based determinants of police
coercion. Justice Quarterly, 19, 101-134.
Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. A. (2006, November). Police use of force policy types: Results from a
national agency survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of
Criminology, Los Angeles, CA.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
28 Police Quarterly XX(X)
Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. A. (2012). Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) and citizen injuries:
The shocking empirical reality. Justice Quarterly, 29, 153-182.
Thomas, K. J., Collins, P. A., & Lovrich, N. P. (2010). Conducted energy device use in munici-
pal policing: Results of a national survey of policy and effectiveness assessments. Police
Quarterly, 13, 290-315.
Thomas, K. J., Collins, P. A., & Lovrich, N. P. (2011). An analysis of written conducted energy
device policies: Are municipal policing agencies meeting PERF recommendations. Crimi-
nal Justice Policy Review, first published online July 6, 2011.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Taser weapons: Use of Tasers by selected
law enforcement agencies (Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security,
Emerging Threats and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House
of Representatives). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Walker, S. (1993). Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminal justice, 1950-1990.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Walker, S. (2007). Police accountability: Current issues and research needs. Paper presented at
the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Policing Research Workshop: Planning for the Future
(2006, November 28-29). Washington, DC.
Weisburd, D., Greenspan, R., Hamilton, E. E., Williams, H., & Bryant, K. A. (2000). Police
attitudes toward abuse of authority: Findings from a national study. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
White, M. D., & Ready, J. (2007). The Taser as a less lethal force alternative. Police Quarterly,
10, 170-191.
Williams, G. T. (2002). Force continuums: A liability to law enforcement? The FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 71(6), 14-19.
Worrall, J. L. (2002). If you build it, they will come: Consequences of improved citizen com-
plaint review procedures. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 355-379.
Bios
William Terrill is an associate professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State
University. His research centers on police behavior, with an emphasis on police use-of-force policies
and practices. He has published numerous scholarly articles, chapters, and reports, as well as a book
entitled Police Coercion: Application of the Force Continuum (2001, LFB Scholarly Publishing).
He recently completed a National Institute of Justice grant geared toward examining the variation
in American less lethal use-of-force policies and the various outcomes associated with the differ-
ent policies, as well as a private foundation grant involving an observational study of the police.
He earned his PhD in 2000 from the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, Newark.
Eugene A. Paoline, III, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the
University of Central Florida. He holds a PhD in criminal justice from the University at Albany,
State University of New York. His research interests include police culture, police use of force,
and occupational attitudes of criminal justice practitioners. He is the author of Rethinking
Police Culture (2001, LFB Scholarly Publishing), and recently completed a National Institute
of Justice grant geared toward examining the variation in American less lethal use-of-force
policies and the various outcomes associated with the different policies.
at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on October 3, 2012pqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
