Assessing the patterns of citizen resistance during arrests

Whether it entails stopping a speeding car, moving a group of rowdy youths on a street-side, quieting a family dispute, or arresting a dangerous felon, police work frequently involves actual or potential resistance. In seconds, officers interpret the behavior of the individuals they confront and select an appropriate level of force in response. Deciding whether the use of force is objectively reasonable requires careful balancing of the nature of the intrusion on the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against the countervailing interests of the state to maintain order. Noting that no precise definition or mechanical application for this test of reasonableness exists, the U.S. Supreme Court established five important factors to evaluate the facts in alleged cases of excessive force.

1) What is the severity of the crime at issue?

2) Was the suspect an immediate threat to the officers or others?

3) Were the circumstances tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving?

4) Was the suspect attempting to evade arrest by flight?

5) Was the suspect actively resisting arrest?(1)

Recognizing the importance of these factors and using the fifth factor as the basis for research, the author analyzed various types of citizen resistance against officers during common types of arrest circumstances. Officers define resistance as verbal or physical behavior that opposes, hinders, prohibits or diminishes the capacity of the officer to verbally or physically control that individual during a lawful arrest. During an arrest, citizens may manifest a range of overt resistive behaviors, including verbal abuse; hostile and threatening demeanor; passive actions (such as actions taken during a protest); actions that allow the suspect to escape the officer's physical control; and physical actions of assault, including serious bodily injury or death.

Research on the use of force has increased significantly over the last two decades. Past researchers primarily focused their efforts toward deadly force and firearm issues due to their high profile, potential for liability, and more accurate record-keeping capabilities that simplified data collection.(2) In comparison, limited research exists on the nature and extent of less-than-lethal police force.(3) Even less research has been conducted into the dynamics of police-citizen encounters and the types of resistive behavior police officers routinely confront during arrest.(4) Identifying common types of resistance may enhance an officer's ability to better assess an arrest situation and an individual's demeanor in order to determine and justify the appropriate degree of force.

METHODOLOGY

Instrumentation and Data Collection

In order to analyze the variables found in police-citizen encounters, the author designed a subject resistance inventory (SRI). The author used this inventory to collect data on the citizen and the officer and to address three research questions, specifically, during what type of arrest circumstance most officers can expect resistance, what types of resistance officers encounter in these arrest circumstances, and whether the citizen was under the influence or suspected to be under the influence of alcohol or other drugs during the arrest.

The author used six components of subject resistance to identify the types of resistance encountered during arrest. Designed to assist police in assessing citizen resistance during arrest,(5) a force continuum gives officers a clearer picture of the force that they lawfully may use in a given situation, which they cannot glean by reading statutes or case law.(6)

B. K. Siddle designed a resistance continuum using six generic levels of subject resistance. This continuum assists police administrators in designing a use-of-force policy and guides officers in making justifiable decisions regarding appropriate levels of force. The resistance continuum also recommends various types of control measures to employ, ranging from verbal control to lethal force. This study compared the FBI's eight arrest circumstance variables(7) with the following six variables of the SRI:

1) Psychological intimidation - nonverbal cues from citizens that indicate their behavior, appearance, body language, and physical readiness (e.g., stance, arms folded across chest, and clenched fists).

2) Verbal noncompliance - verbal expressions or responses that indicate the suspect's unwillingness to comply with the officer's commands.

3) Passive resistance - physical actions that do not prevent the officer's attempt to control (e.g., sitting in protest and becoming physically limp).

4) Defensive resistance - physical actions that attempt to prevent the officer's control without harming the officer (e.g., pulling away from the officer's grip, twisting away, and running away).

5) Active aggression - physical actions of assault with the intent of harming the officer physically (e.g., assaults using personal weapons).

6) Aggravated active aggression - actions intended to cause serious bodily harm or death to the officer (e.g., attacks usually involving a weapon).

The police departments participating in this study used this resistance continuum as a matter of practice and policy to help officers select a level of force in either an arrest or confrontation. All patrol officers and their supervisors received at least 4 hours of annual training by certified instructors in the force continuum for 2 years prior to the study. Officers completed a use-of-force form when they employed force during an arrest. These forms listed the six levels of resistance from the resistance continuum, and reporting officers checked the appropriate level of resistance on the form, as well as provided a narrative description of the force incident.

The SRI used these six types of resistance to identify types of citizen resistance. A supervisor from each department transferred the information from the use-of-force report to the database. This information included citizen and officer characteristics, all types of resistance encountered by the officer, the circumstances under which the arrest occurred, and whether the citizen appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

The reporting officers, due to their perceptions, may have reported some arrests in a biased manner. Additionally, for similar reasons, the individuals entering the information could have coded it in a biased manner. Therefore, the findings reflect reported arrest or resistance situations based on the officer's perception of the incident, the reporting accuracy of the arresting officer(s), and the level of accuracy ensured by the individual entering the information. At the end of the study, the author analyzed all of the submissions from each of the departments.

Other Variables

In 1995, the FBI reported eight common types of circumstances in which officers are assaulted.(8) The author used these eight arrest circumstances as the variables in which the six types of resistance were examined. The FBI's eight circumstances include arrest situations (i.e., both misdemeanor and felony arrests); disturbance calls; traffic stops; suspicious person calls; calls involving individuals who are mentally unstable; prisoner handling, transport, and custody of prisoners; ambush situations; and civil disorders. The author also analyzed the variable of chemical influence (i.e., under the influence or presumed to be under the influence of alcohol or other drugs) to determine its relationship between the type of arrest circumstance and the type of resistance.

Sample

Fifty police departments use Siddle's resistance continuum as a matter of policy. The author selected a random sample of 25 of these agencies to participate in the study and sent a letter to each department explaining the nature of the research and requesting their voluntary participation. Seventeen of the agencies agreed to participate, including 12 municipalities, 4 county sheriffs offices, and 1 state police agency. Geographically dispersed, these agencies employ from 100 to 1,000 sworn patrol officers with a majority of the departments employing an average of 326 officers.

FINDINGS Characteristics of Patrol Officers

Analysis revealed that white officers who are male and have served an average of 7.6 years as police officers remain more likely to experience resistance as compared to other officers. Additionally, white officers accounted for approximately 76 percent of the incidents reported, compared to 22 percent involving black officers and 2 percent involving Hispanic officers. In approximately 68 percent of the incidents, one officer encountered one citizen; in 24 percent of the incidents, two officers encountered one citizen; and in 8 percent of the incidents, three or more officers encountered one citizen.

Characteristics of Citizens

Analysis showed that patrol officers encountered resistance predominately from male citizens approximately 22 years old. In approximately 89 percent of the incidents, the officer encountered citizens under the influence, or suspected to be under the influence, of alcohol or other drugs. Fifty-one percent of the resisting suspects were white, 43 percent were black, and 6 percent were Hispanic. One officer encountered more than one individual in fewer than 10 percent of the incidents.

The study found that officers experienced defensive resistance more than any other type. Resistance during handcuffing and active aggression, where citizens made physical contact with the officer, accounted for other significant types of resistance. The most common form of active aggression toward the officer was a punch, followed by a push and a kick. In approximately 46 percent of the incidents, the subject confronted the officer with verbal noncompliance to the arrest orders.

The data indicated that during an arrest, an officer may experience more than one type of resistance with no order or pattern. At any time during the arrest, the officer may confront resistance, and depending on the dynamics of the arrest, the resistance may escalate in severity or de-escalate into complete cooperation.

Resistance and Arrest Associations

The author also analyzed the relationships between the arrest circumstance, the six types of resistance, and the influence of alcohol or other drugs. The results show that five of the resistance types are associated with six of the eight arrest circumstances. In 27 percent of the arrest circumstances, misdemeanor arrests (e.g., disorderly persons and moving violations) remained the most common types of arrest circumstances in which patrol officers encountered resistance. The study revealed that the second most common type of arrest circumstances were disturbance calls (24 percent), which can involve bar fights, domestic disputes, person with a gun, and the like, followed by traffic stops (15 percent) and felony arrests (14 percent). These four arrest circumstances accounted for 80 percent of citizen resistance.

The author excluded resistance in the form of psychological intimidation from the analysis because it was reported in only eight of the incidents. Disturbance calls proved the strongest correlation with verbal resistance, defensive resistance, and active aggression. This combination suggests that officers will encounter an escalation from verbal statements to higher forms of physical resistance when responding to these calls. The research also revealed strong associations between defensive resistance and verbal noncompliance and misdemeanor arrests, disturbance calls, and traffic stops. A moderate association existed between these types of behavior and felony arrests.

The study found that people who are mentally ill frequently do not resist verbally but exhibit higher levels of physical resistance. This type of arrest circumstance involved defensive resistance, active aggression, and aggravated active aggression and revealed a moderate association with alcohol or other drug influence. Felony arrests showed higher levels of physical resistance, including active aggression and aggravated active aggression.

The influence of alcohol or other drugs affects the nature of citizen resistance during arrest. Disturbance calls and traffic stops represent two of the most common types of arrest circumstances associated with alcohol or other drugs and resistance. Investigating suspicious persons or circumstances also may be associated with subjects under the influence, particularly when the subject exhibits defensive resistance and active aggression. While alcohol and other drugs showed a significant relationship with several types of resistance and arrest circumstances, these findings were based on the perception of the reporting officer. Officers seldom administered a blood or chemical test to measure the actual amount of substance in the body.

DISCUSSION

The influence, or suspicion of influence, of either alcohol or other drugs was strongly associated with citizen resistance. This factor becomes important because in 68 percent of the incidents of resistance, one patrol officer encountered one suspect, and the likelihood of potential resistance increases. Strong relationships existed between responding to disturbance calls, conducting traffic stops, and investigating suspicious persons or circumstances and the citizen's being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. These three arrest circumstances accounted for 47 percent of the arrest situations where severe forms of resistance (defensive resistance and active aggression) occurred.

Not only can these types of arrest situations produce higher levels of physical resistance, but they also can necessitate higher forms of control measures than other arrest circumstances. Therefore, patrol officers should remain aware of the arrest environment and citizen behaviors under these circumstances, cuing in on the demeanor of the suspect.

Resistance also may occur when officers confront a sober person. On many occasions, sober individuals offer resistance, and officers must remain cognizant of their demeanor, stance, and proximity, as well.

This research has found that the types of resistance police commonly encounter occur in combinations or patterns, although not in any sequential order. The most common pattern of resistance involves verbal noncompliance, escalating to defensive resistance, and proceeding to active aggression. This behavior pattern occurred in approximately two-thirds of the arrest circumstances. The influence of alcohol or other drugs increases the possibility that a citizen will resist physically, challenge verbally, or use profanity against the officer prior to, during, or after the officer makes the arrest. Combining these four factors (i.e., verbal noncompliance, defensive hostility, active aggression, and intoxication) in an arrest circumstance will require that the officer escalate the amount of force needed to control the resistant individual. However, not every arrest circumstance will progress in this fashion. Officers may encounter active aggression or other forms of resistance in any manner as different variables enter the arrest circumstance. Officers must realize that the nature of resistance is dynamic and rapidly evolving and involves various combinations of resistance in a significant percentage of incidents. Therefore, justifying the most appropriate course of action must start with the nature of the arrest, the actions of the suspect, the perception of threat by the officer, and the resources available to the officer to make the arrest. Principles of escalation and de-escalation of force - including verbal diffusion and restraint techniques and the use of proper equipment - remain instrumental to the officer in controlling various forms of resistance.

Types of Resistance and Forms of Active Aggression

Resistance Type                    Percentage of Incidents (N = 567)

Psychological intimidation                        1.4 (8)

Verbal noncompliance                             46.2 (262)

Passive resistance                               19.6 (111)

Defensive resistance                             65.3 (370)

Active aggression                                47.6 (270)

Punch                                            28.1 (76)
Push                                             24.4 (66)
Kick                                             21.5 (58)
Slap                                             17.0 (46)
Head butt                                         6.3 (17)
Attempt to disarm                                 2.6 (7)

Aggravated active aggression                      8.6 (49)

(The percentages do not total 100 because one incident could involve
different types of resistance.)

Interestingly, veteran officers may be more likely to encounter resistance from a citizen under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It appears that over time, some veteran officers have become somewhat lax in recognizing and remaining alert to certain body language manifested by suspects prior to physical resistance. In slightly fewer than 50 percent of the incidents, subjects physically attacked officers prior to arrest. Patrol officers who encountered resistance predominately worked alone and may have deviated from established patrol and arrest procedures, which could increase the vulnerability of the officer in the mind of the resisting individual. Citizen resistance and officer seniority also may reflect different patrol assignments and may result from an officer's ability or inability to defuse a potentially resistant encounter.(9) Although incidents of handling a suspect with a mental illness accounted for 12 percent of the resisting circumstances, officers more likely encountered more severe physical resistance - such as defensive resistance, active aggression, and aggravated active aggression - with such suspects. Alcohol or toher drugs can have a significant influence in these encounters, as well. Patrol officers working alone who respond to calls of this nature must remain alert to the behavioral cues of the person and request backup when practical. These types of arrest situations remain unpredictable due to the emotional state of the individual, the potential for higher levels of physical resistance, and the presence of alcohol or other drugs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Upon initial contact, officers should keep a safe distance between themselves and the suspect in order to determine the behavior of the individual and to decide a proper course of action if the suspect suddenly attacks them. Due to the unpredictable nature of suspects under the influence and the likelihood that resistance may occur, paying attention to the behavior of the suspect and the dynamics of the arrest circumstance becomes paramount for officer safety.

The development or revision of use-of-force policies remains a significant concern for the police administrators. They should develop policies that direct officers to use reasonable force based on the resistant behavior of citizens. Police administrators can redesign their current use-of-force policy by integrating a resistance continuum into the policy. A written policy cannot cover every situation an officer may face, but this study revealed that officers will encounter combinations of resistance patterns in varying arrest circumstances. By integrating a resistance continuum into a force policy, officers can recognize types of resistance that will guide them toward the appropriate force response in an arrest situation. This type of policy also can assist in setting the standard for administrators to use in evaluating proper decision making when officers decide to use force.

Beyond policy implications, study findings demonstrate that veteran officers should receive refresher training in departmental force policy that emphasizes resistance, threat recognition, and appropriate force methods for controlling resistance. Administrators, as a matter of policy, should conduct annual or biannual training for all veteran officers (in a resistance continuum) that will enhance officers' perceptions of resistance and, in turn, direct them toward appropriate force decision making. Police trainers should design classroom training based on prior arrest reports or actual videotaped confrontations, using this material to evaluate and recognize various types of arrest resistance patterns. Trainers, at a minimum, should structure sate role-playing exercises around resistance encountered during traffic stops, disturbances, and misdemeanor or felony arrests. This type of realistic training will enhance officers' abilities when responding to resistance situations, allowing them to apply objective, reasonable force measures based on the situation. Instructors should videotape the training for later evaluation and discussion in the classroom.

CONCLUSION

The use of force by the police remains a critical issue for both the police and the public. Inappropriate responses by the police to perceived resistance have led to deaths, citizen and officer injuries, riots, a widening gap of distrust between communities and police agencies, and an increase in criminal and civil liability. Officers must base their use of physical force response on verbal threats and physical behaviors demonstrated by the suspects they encounter.

By implementing a force policy that integrates a resistance continuum and by providing regular training for their officers, departments provide guidance to officers. This two-pronged approach can enhance law enforcement officers' abilities to identify types of citizen resistance and determine appropriate force options. By developing applicable policies and training programs, departments demonstrate their concern for their officers' safety while preparing them to make the best choices possible.

Endnotes

1 Graham v. Conner, 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989).

2 A. Binder and L.A. Fridell, "Lethal Force as a Police Response." Criminal Justice Abstracts 16 (1984): 250-280: A. Binder and P. Scharf, "The Violent Police Citizen Encounter," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 452 (1980): 111-121; J.J. Fyfe, "Shots Fired: An Examination of New York City Police Firearms Discharges," (Ph.D. diss., State University of New York, 1978); J.J. Fyfe, "Administrative Interventions on Police Shooting Discretion," Journal of Criminal Justice 7 (1979): 309-323; J.J. Fyfe, "Police Use of Deadly Force: Research and Reform," Justice Quarterly 5 (1988): 165-205; W.A. Geller, "Deadly Force: What We Know," Journal of Police Science and Administration 10 (1982): 151-177; W.A. Geller, "Officer Restraint in the Use of Deadly Force: The Next Frontier in Police Shooting Research," Journal of Police Science and Administration 13 (2) (1985): 152-171; D. Jacobs and D. Britt, "Inequality and Police Use of Deadly Force: An Empirical Assessment of a Conflict Hypothesis," Social Problems 26 (1978): 401-411; and K. Matulia, "A Balance of Forces," (Alexandria. VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1982).

3 E.B. Croft, "Police Use of Force: An Empirical Analysis," (Ph.D. diss., State University of New York, 1985), abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International 46 (1985): no. 2449A, University Microfilms No DA8-519744; D.H. Bayley and J. Garofalo, "The Management of Violence by Police Patrol Officers." Criminology 27 (1989): 1-27; R.J. Friedrich, "Police Use of Force: Individuals, Situations, and Organizations," Annals of the American of Political and Social Science 452 (1980): 82-97; J. Garner, et al., "Understanding the Use of Force By and Against the Police," Research Brief (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 1996); R.E. Worden, "The Causes of Police Brutality: Theory and Evidence on Police Use of Force," in And Justice For All: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force, ed. W.A. Geller and H. Toch (Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1995).

4 D.H. Bayley and J. Garofalo, "Patrol Officer Effectiveness in Managing Conflict During Police-Citizen Encounters," in the Report to the New York State Commission on Criminal Justice and the Use of Force. New York State Commission on Criminal Justice. 1987, 3. B1-88; R.G. Greenleaf and L. Lanza-Kaduce, "Sophistication, Organization, and Authority-Subject Conflict: Rediscovering and Unraveling Turk's Theory of Norm Resistance," Criminology 33, no. 4 (1995): 565-585; J.D. Hirschel, et al., "The Relative Contribution of Domestic Violence to Assault and Injury to Police Officers," Justice Quarterly 11 (1994): 99-117; V. McLauglin, Police and the Use of Force: The Savannah Study (Westport. CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992): A. Reiss, Jr., The Police and the Public (New Haven. CT: Yale University Press, 1971).

5 G. Connor, "Use of Force Continuum," Law and Order, March 1991, 30-32: J.C. Desmedt, "Use of Force Paradigm," Journal of Police Science and Administration 12, no. 2 (1984): 170-176; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, 1990 Use of Force Model: Orientation Booklet. (Glynco, GA: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, 1990); K. Parsons, The Confrontational Continuum (Appleton, WI: Kevin Parsons and Associates. 1980): R. L. Parsons, "Police Use of Force Matrix," (Lansing. MI: Michigan Law Enforcement Officer Training Council, 1984); B.K. Siddle, Defensive Tactics Instructor Manual (Millstadt, IL: PPCT Publications, 1984).

6 V. McLaughlin, Police and the Use of Force: The Savannah Study (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992).

7 U.S Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (Washington, DC, 1995).

8 Ibid.

9 M. Blumberg, "The Use of Firearms by Officers: The Impact of Individuals, Communities, and Race," (Ph. D. diss., State University of New York, 1983); and V. McLaughlin, Police and the Use of Force: The Savannah Study (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992).

Dr. Darrell L. Ross is an associate professor in the criminal justice program at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina.

COPYRIGHT 1999 Federal Bureau of Investigation
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group