White Paper Cites Dangerous Myths Of Restrictive Use of Force Policies

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A major new white paper from a leading risk-management organization vigorously rebuts reform advocates who are pushing for tighter restrictions on police use of force than the standard required by the US Supreme Court.

The 22-page paper, issued by the California-based group Lexipol, warns that some key arguments in favor of stricter force policies are, in fact, “myths” that can entangle officers and their agencies in unnecessary legal problems and safety risks .

“[N]o one disputes the need to continuously improve use-of-force policies,” the document states. But a policy more restrictive than the “reasonableness” guidelines established by the landmark Graham v. Connor decision of nearly 30 years ago “can easily confuse [juries] and lead to an incorrect standard being applied to [an] officer’s actions…. [A] policy that boxes officers in is likely to create—not solve—legal issues….”

Properly worded directives, on the other hand, “can support the dual goals of reducing risk and reducing unnecessary use of force,” the paper states.
Lexipol currently provides customized policies and related training, designed to minimize risk and avoid litigation, to more than 3,000 public safety agencies in 35 states.

Authors of the white paper are four attorneys with law enforcement backgrounds who are affiliated with Lexipol: Laura Scarry, a Force Science instructor who specializes in police litigation defense; Ken Wallentine, director of the Utah Attorney General Training Center and an Advanced Force Science Specialist; Mike Ranalli, former chief of the Glenville (NY) PD and also an Advanced Force Science Specialist; and Bruce Praet, co-founder of the Lexipol organization and a practicing attorney with 32 years’ experience representing officers and law enforcement agencies.
The white paper, titled “Use of Force Policies: Dispelling the Myths,” can be accessed in full, free of charge, by clicking here.

CONTROVERSY & CONFUSION

The stricter-policy controversy ignited months ago when the Police Executive Research Forum issued a position paper on 30 “Guiding Principles” for law enforcement. Among several controversial elements, PERF included a core recommendation that agencies nationwide adopt policies to hold officers to a more stringent standard for using force than the “objective reasonableness” test of Graham.

Supporters of this position push fundamental policy revisions to emphasize primary de-escalation, “proportional” use of force, a standard of minimum “necessary” force, directives that state what an officer “shall” do rather than “should” do, step-by-step progression along a force continuum, and so on.

Currently, “confusion swirls around law enforcement use-of-force policies,” the Lexipol paper says. Stoking the uncertainty, “After every high-profile officer-involved shooting, the media and members of the public are quick to critique the officer’s actions and the agency’s policies. Many large agencies have hastily made changes in their policies…as a result of such pressure.”
Unwittingly, by doing so they may have set themselves up for “becoming victim to some of the myths that surround these [stricter] policies,” says the white paper.

The authors cite three common mistaken beliefs that can prove to be treacherous pitfalls.

MYTH #1

Additional Force Restrictions in Policy Provide Legal Protection.
“On the surface, posing additional force restrictions in policy might seem to make a lot of sense,” the authors concede. Stringent policies can “appease advocacy groups” and potentially “encourage officers to employ tactics that can prevent the need for force.” But on the dark side, such policies can create “a slippery slope” legally.

The authors cite cases where well-intentioned but ill-conceived policies have tripped up agencies in court. One egregious example: a policy requiring that “all other means” shall be attempted—and fail—“before resorting to the use of a firearm.”

“[M]any departments…use similar language in their use-of-force policies,” the paper claims, exposing themselves to the risk of “extensive litigation.”
Additionally, stipulating that the use of deadly force must be “necessary” to prevent death or serious injury can boomerang legally if an officer, for example, shoots a suspect who turns out to be unarmed or holding an innocuous item mistaken as a weapon, the authors contend.

Also, they suggest, “consider the effect a policy that prohibits officers from shooting at moving vehicles could have on an incident where a vehicle is used as a weapon of mass destruction.”

For legal protection, the writers urge, “Agencies are much better off keeping their use of force policies aligned with the objective reasonableness standard outlined in Graham v. Connor.”

This standard recognizes that “officers need to make split-second, life-or-death decisions that are not capable of precise definition or mechanical application…. [They] must make the best call they can with whatever information is available to them, and sometimes that call will turn out to be wrong.”

In crafting policy, “use the ‘reasonably believes’ and ‘reasonably appears necessary’ language throughout,” the authors advise. “Such an approach allows you to stress the need for de-escalation and cautious use of force through training, while maintaining a legally defensible policy that will not be misinterpreted by officers or courts.”

MYTH #2

Additional Force Restrictions in Policy Change Officer Behavior.
Practically speaking, overly restrictive policy language is not likely to change the nature or frequency of force incidents, the authors claim.
“Well-meaning police executives may feel they can restrict officer use of force by listing situations where force should be prohibited,” they write. But in the time-pressured, real-world stress of a life-threatening confrontation, an officer “will unlikely be able to retrieve that list from memory and make the appropriate decision in the fraction of a second available. And the effects of environmental stress can prohibit an officer from processing clues that force may not be needed.”

That an officer’s decisions can have life-or-death consequences does not change the fact that immutable “basic principles of human perception and reaction time” can play a critical role beyond an officer’s voluntary control or the influence of policy, the authors explain.

Among the factors that can impact an officer’s decision-making and performance, the paper discusses several familiar to Force Science followers: action vs. reaction…inattentional blindness…cognitive overload…auditory exclusion…selective attention…loss of gross motor skills…the physiological effects of adrenaline and cortisol.

“In the bright light of hindsight, it’s easy for force to appear excessive,” the paper states. “But such discussions fail to acknowledge that police officers are human beings”—and thus subject to certain limitations of human psychology and physiology.

Thus “public discussion around use of force” is likely to continue to “focus on factors such as the number of shots fired, whether the suspect was turned toward or away from the officers, and whether the suspect was attempting to indicate surrender.”

The way to get officers more familiar with performance issues and how to better deal with them, as well as how to avoid force confrontations altogether where possible, is through scenario-based training, not through more restrictive policy, the authors argue.

MYTH #3

Use-of-Force Policies Should Require the Use of De-Escalation Tactics.
The public and advocacy groups, and some law enforcement organizations, “have latched onto the concept of de-escalation” in light of high-profile police shootings in recent years, the white paper notes. PERF, for example, recommends the adoption of de-escalation “as a formal policy,” clearly identifying it as “the preferred approach in many situations.”

This “sounds reasonable,” the authors write. Indeed, most police officers already “use de-de-escalation tactics—whether or not they realize it—almost daily”: slowing situations down, using distance and cover, speaking slowly and trying to negotiate, and responding proportionally from a range of options.

However, the paper states, “requiring the use of de-escalation techniques in policy is another thing altogether.” In reality, an over-emphasis or mandating of de-escalation constitutes “an area of high risk for law enforcement agencies,” potentially compromising officer safety and inadvertently creating problems in court.

Uncertainty about what “de-escalation” means and in what situations it applies is a “primary issue,” the authors say. “We do not want our officers to hesitate when facing a threat because they are not sure what is expected of them.”

The paper points out that case law from US courts rejects the notion of requiring de-escalation efforts in force encounters. Several major federal decisions are quoted, including one from the 9th Circuit (Scott v. Henrich) that says that the appropriate question when judging uses of force “is whether officers acted reasonably, not whether they had less intrusive alternatives available to them….

“Officers thus need not avail themselves of the least intrusive means of responding to an exigent situation; they need only act within that range of conduct we identify as reasonable.”

The white paper “absolutely” supports thoroughly addressing de-escalation techniques in training. And on the street, it favors de-escalation efforts “when feasible,” particularly when dealing with people in crisis. But it cautions: “We must be careful [to] remind ourselves, the media, and the public that de-escalation isn’t always possible” in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving calls for service.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Summarizing the thrust of the white paper, the authors offer these “key takeaways”:

  •  Ensure that your use-of-force policy “aligns with the Graham v. Connor standards [and] avoid additional standards.”
  •  “Don’t require officers to move along any kind of use-of-force continuum.”
  •  “Choose ‘shall’ and ‘should’ carefully throughout policies that govern use of force or address crisis intervention. ‘Should’ doesn’t mean that an officer can ignore the policy. But it provides room for those dynamic, unforeseeable situations officers may encounter.”
  •  “Craft policy carefully to ensure you’re not boxing officers in. Recognize what belongs in policy, and what’s a better fit for procedure or training.”
  •  “Provide realistic training that is consistent with and reinforces your policy content.”

In conclusion, the authors note: “Law enforcement leaders often face enormous pressure when it comes to use-of-force policies. By all means, agencies should make community engagement a cornerstone of their operations, seeking to incorporate the viewpoints of community members, advocacy groups, and elected officials.

“But they must be equally careful not to fall prey to the common myths surrounding use of force policies” as they work to craft “legally defensible, consistent, effective policy that supports constitutionally sound policing.”

Our thanks to Shannon Pieper, Lexipol’s director of marketing communications, for her help in facilitating this report. For more information on Lexipol’s services, see: www.lexipol.com.

Leave a Reply

GDPR

  • 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.

Analytics

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