Should ER Docs Be Required To Report Suspected Cases Of Police Brutality? Controversy Flares Over What’s Needed

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A resounding clash between researchers has erupted over the question of whether emergency room doctors should report suspected cases of excessive force by LEOs.

On one hand are American researchers—MDs and PhDs—who argue that in the interest of “violence prevention” ER physicians should notify Internal Affairs investigators whenever they see a patient whose injuries may be the result of “police abuse.”

One of several physicians challenging the basis for recommending such a policy is Dr. Christine Hall, a practicing ER doc and clinical assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Hall is well-known in LE circles for her landmark research into excited delirium, in-custody death, and conducted energy weapons.

She maintains that ER physicians are ill-equipped to “determine the appropriateness of police use of force” and that the American study that originally suggested that excessive use of force is a common problem encountered by emergency physicians was flawed and misleading because of “significant scientific shortcomings.”

NOTE: To express YOUR VIEWS on the controversy, you can email us at: editor@forcescience.org.)


The timeline of the controversy includes these milestones:

  • In 2009, 5 emergency care experts reported results of a survey of more than 300 ER physicians, in which virtually all said they “believed excessive use of force [by police] actually occurs” and roughly 98% said they had “managed patients with suspected excessive use of force.” Their study was reported fully in the Emergency Medical Journal and was synopsized by Force Science News. (The study’s methods and conclusions were strongly criticized at that time by Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute. Click here to read the FS News article.)
  • Last October, 2 physicians from this research team (Dr. H. Range Hutson of Harvard and Dr. Jared Strote of the University of Washington) joined 2 PhDs from the criminology department of the University of South Carolina (Hayden Smith and Geoffrey Alpert) in publishing an editorial in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. This piece reprised the findings of the original study and urged that ER physicians report their “concerns” about “police abuse” to police department Internal Affairs offices and make note of them in separate reports “not included in the case notes.”

“Although physicians are required to report child abuse, gunshot wounds, and stab wounds, there are no guidelines for them to report alternative expressions of violence, such as the perceived use of excessive force by police officers,” the editorial lamented.

  • Christine Hall responded with a letter to the Annals editor last May, criticizing the original study and the supportive editorial as reflecting “a complete breakdown of the scientific process.” Among other things, she pointed out that ER personnel are not in position to “determine the appropriateness of police use of force” and urged medical researchers to present “facts over fiction.”

In the original article, the authors themselves reported that one of the study limitations was that the doctors surveyed were asked “to make a subjective judgment, most often without objective evidence,” reflecting their “perception of the events rather than what actually happened.”

  • Last month [July 2011], the Canadian newspaper National Post reported on the conflict (click here to read the article), quoting Strote as asserting that police officers need to be “monitored extremely closely, because of the potential for abuse.” Hall, in turn, discussed some findings from a new study that suggest that the widespread concern about force by cops is much overblown.


Hall’s criticism of the work of the U.S. researchers centers on what she believes was “poor” research methodology and therefore an inappropriate recommendation. While Hall believes that the issue of excessive force deserves attention, recommendations about reporting should not come from a study that claims it is widespread while relying on “physician omnipotence” to gain those findings, she says.

She argues that it is critical to understand that ER docs generally don’t have the necessary context for judging whether the injuries they see were caused by force that was in fact excessive.

“They are not trained to identify excessive force,” she told Force Science News. “While physicians are great at identifying injuries, they were not present to see the circumstances when force was applied to assess whether it was justified. They have no training in and therefore do not understand the police challenges of handling resistant individuals, nor the rules and realities of applying force.

“Most, for example, don’t know that officers are justified in using force that’s superior to the level of force presented by the suspect. Many believe that appropriate use of force is a linear process that starts at a low level and gradually progresses upward in a toe-to-toe fashion with the suspect. That misconception would prompt an inappropriate assessment of many use-of-force events as excessive.

“Injury alone does not signify excess. What does a fractured arm tell you, in and of itself? Outcome cannot determine the appropriateness of the force used.”

In other words, subjects surveyed in the original study—academic physicians randomly drawn from faculties of emergency medicine residency programs in teaching hospitals—were a questionable pool in terms of producing meaningful results. “They have relatively little contact with or understanding of use of force but still felt comfortable commenting on it,” she says.

Furthermore, Hall claims, they were asked to specifically recall situations such as handcuffs that were too tight, with the implication that these could be indicators of unwarranted force. “They were prompted to remember something as being excessive which they might not otherwise have considered excessive,” she says. She characterizes this as “measurement bias” on the part of the researchers.

Particularly disturbing, she says, was this obvious flaw: An unknown portion of the many doctors who said they had encountered “suspicious” cases based their conclusions on the fact that suspects themselves said they had been subjected to excessive force by the police! One study cited in the Annals editorial found (not surprisingly) that about three-fourths of the subjects against whom force was used claimed it was excessive. “How can this be a credible means of identifying excessive force?” Hall wonders.

“No one would be naïve enough to argue that excessive force never happens, and we don’t want to ignore it,” she continues. “But researchers should not bypass the requirements of sound scientific methodology in an effort to document it and the reporting of ‘suspicious’ cases should not be mandated on the basis of speculation in notes that are not part of the patient’s case record.

“My biggest concern with the original article is that it gives medical readers the idea that there is hard evidence that police excessive use of force is widespread and represents a large medical issue.”

In her letter to Annals, Hall stated: “Significant harm is done when data are presented out of context; that harm is magnified when the quality of the data is seriously flawed.”


FSN invited Dr. Strote, the designated spokesman for the researchers, to respond. He sent the following email:

“No one thinks that an emergency physician should decide whether a crime has occurred —and that goes for child abuse, domestic violence, elder abuse, excessive use of force by law enforcement, or any form of assault.

“Our responsibility is to our patients, however; and if they raise a question of having been assaulted, I believe it is our duty to 1) take them seriously; 2) offer them resources to seek help; and 3) provide proper documentation of their medical visit in a way that gathers all the objective information necessary to protect (in the case of law enforcement use of force) both the officer and the patient.

“As for mandatory reporting, the issues are complex, as they are with other forms of assault. For example, some states require mandatory physician reporting of domestic violence, other don’t. Understand that the argument for any type of mandatory assault reporting is to protect a group of people (like children) who cannot safely or effectively file a complaint themselves.

“This may with some frequency apply to incarcerated patients. One clear benefit would be that we would gather a tremendous amount of data about law enforcement use of force and excessive use of force that, I believe, would show how infrequently excessive use of force actually occurs.

“As we say in the editorial, law enforcement excessive use of force is a very serious event that requires investigation and accountability. When physicians do not take such complaints seriously and refuse to document the objective findings clearly and completely, we have done a disservice to our patients and to society.

“Dr. Hall’s comments are simply off base. No one has said that physicians should judge guilt. The purpose of the study was to assess whether excessive use of force was an issue that emergency physicians had to deal with, which it clearly is…. [C]learly excessive force does occur and cannot be tolerated. That such events may occur infrequently doesn’t mean that we should ignore complaints from patients about excessive force or that we should not take them seriously….”


Hall recently began analyzing a mountain of new data on the incidence and nature of force events involving Canadian LEOs, which she believes is largely reflective in spirit of the U.S. experience as well. This study has been described as “unprecedented and provocative.” She’s guarded in revealing details, pending publication in a professional journal, but she believes some findings will surprise civilians, including, perhaps, ER personnel.

“There is a huge public misconception that every time a police officer is in a room with someone, someone is getting wounded,” Hall told the National Post. “I think harm is done when the public is exposed to the notion that use of force is rampant and it always turns out negatively.”

In fact, use of force is a miniscule part of police work. In Canada, only one-tenth of 1% (0.10%) out of some 1.6 million officer-public contacts involved use of force, her new work is documenting. “That means that 99.9% of the time, police are not using force,” she told FSN.

In studying 1,200 instances in which force was used, Hall’s preliminary results indicate that more than 60% of the suspects involved were “violent or extremely violent at the time.” And 86%—“the vast majority”—were “drunk, high, emotionally distressed, or some combination thereof.”

That context is important, she says, in assessing injuries that may result from applications of force as officers exert necessary control over difficult individuals. “Obviously, that context becomes even more important when allegations of excess are considered,” she says.

So far as in-custody deaths are concerned, Hall says, the “core cause may not be Tasers or other police tools, but a pattern of behavior on the part of the victim that seems to be repeated over and over again in such cases. They tend to be violently agitated, sweaty, exhibit seemingly superhuman strength, are impervious to pain, are incoherent, and are oblivious to the police presence.”

Hall believes knowledge of such factors “would change most physicians’ assessments of police use of force and would alter the public’s impression.”

These findings, she says, are “only a small part” of a “large volume of data” from her study, which was funded by the Canadian Police Research Centre and which she hopes to publish months from now. FSN will be reporting on it.


Meanwhile, Dr. Strote on behalf of the U.S. researchers continues to advocate reporting by ER docs of cases they deem suspicious. He acknowledged in the National Post article that “the use of force is rare and excessive force very rare,” although in their Annals editorial, he and his colleagues pointedly cited a source indicating that excessive force “is often underreported.” Whatever the numbers, it is crucial to keep an eye on those cases and find out why they occur, he believes.

“There may very well be ways the police can decrease” the risk of their force interactions, he said. ” Considering the extent to which police brutality “polarize[s] the community,” he and his colleagues wrote, “criminology would benefit from efficacious partnerships with public health.”

[Our thanks to Chris Lawrence, an instructor with the Ontario Police College and a member of the faculty for Force Science Analysis certification, for his assistance in facilitating this report.]

Leave a Reply


  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.


We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.