Challenging the Ordinality of Police Use-of-Force Policy

Abstract

Most use-of-force policies utilized by U.S. police agencies make fundamental ordinal assumptions about officers’ force responses to subject resistance. These policies consist of varying levels of force and resistance along an ordinally ranked continuum of severity. We empirically tested the ordinal assumptions that are ubiquitous to police use-of-force continua within the United States using 1 year’s use-of-force data from a municipal police department. Applying a quantitative technique known as categorical regression with optimal scaling, we found the assumptions of ordinality within the studied department’s use-of-force continuum (which is similar to many police use-of-force continua within the United States) are not met. Specifying physical force as a “lower” force option than less-lethal tools is associated with increased officer injury and decreased subject injury. Our findings call into question use-of-force continua featuring ordinal rankings for varying categories of less-lethal force.

Defanged

“…While the results indicate no adverse aggregate impact on officer injuries during the studied period, there are undoubtedly situations where a K9 reduces the likelihood of officer injury. Other scholarship has called for rethinking use-of-force continua in policing to balance the risk of injury to police and those they contact (Mourtgos, Adams, & Baty, 2021). Our study supports those calls and suggests a rebalancing of the risk curve, not a flattening of it.…”

“…Another possibility is that alternative police weapons suffice as replacements in situations that might give rise to suspect and officer injury. The vast majority of agencies in the U.S. operate with a use-of-force policy based on a continuum of force in response to resistance levels (Mourtgos, Adams, & Baty, 2021).…”