The dynamic resistance response model: a modern approach to the use of force.

Running late, a high school student speeds through the school zone and is pulled over by local police officers. She refuses to sign the speeding ticket and is verbally abusive. After repeated attempts to have her sign the ticket, the officers decide to arrest her for failing to obey a lawful command. When she refuses to get out of her car, the officers attempt to physically remove her. She thwarts these efforts by tightly holding onto the steering wheel. The officers warn the student that they will use a stun gun if she does not comply. When she fails to obey, the officers use the stun gun. The officers remove the student from her car, but she strikes her head against the car door. She later claims to suffer from headaches and dizziness. Using current accepted use-of-force models, the following issues likely will arise: Was the officers' selection of this force option reasonable? Why did the officers not employ other intermediate levels of force?

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

THE PROBLEM

Law enforcement agencies typically examine traditional use-of-force models for guidance in establishing their policies. Unfortunately, models employed today contain complicated language and distort the state of the law by placing the focus on the officer's actions and minimizing those of the individual initiating the resistance. Such emphasis may mislead citizens and those in the judicial system into analyzing why all possible lesser force options were not used, causing concern for officers, departments, and the public. Citizens should respect the authority and lawful commands of police officers, but, sadly, some choose to resist, forcing contacts to unnecessarily escalate into physical confrontations.

Long before the changes brought about by Tennessee v Garner, which crafted a new constitutional framework for the proper use of force, the U.S. Supreme Court established a history of reasonableness that guided officer conduct and offered an understanding of the difficulties and complications inherent in the profession. (1) Accordingly, the Court has provided the law enforcement community with a wide path to tread while carrying out its mission. Within the constitutional parameters established by the Court, most agencies require officers to adhere to more restrictive use-of-force policies, which, in fact, have not entirely eliminated the controversy surrounding officer-citizen encounters as evidenced by continued allegations of misuse of force. Policies often are created or expanded under intense political and public relations pressures that overwhelm the proper channels of policy formulation.

Many departments have faced civil suits for the alleged misuse of emerging less than lethal equipment, similar to the scenario at the beginning of this article. Others have responded by prohibiting the use of these tools on suspects outside specific age parameters or on those who suffer from particular medical conditions. This places an officer in an untenable position--if he misjudges a suspect's age or fails to accurately determine a medical condition, he may be placed outside of policy, focusing intense scrutiny on him and his department. (2) A common result of overly restrictive policies is an increasing reluctance to use practical law enforcement tools developed specifically to increase the safety of both citizens and officers.

Improper use of force by a few officers should not cause an automatic policy change affecting an entire agency. Before adopting a more restrictive policy, departments should consider possible ramifications of changes, such as the impact on morale, an increased need for training, the effect on future litigation, and possible confusion among officers.

TRADITIONAL MODELS

A ladder model illustrates a traditional use-of-force continuum in which the officer has an escalating series of options available in response to a suspect's behavior. As the suspect becomes increasingly combative, the officer is permitted to climb the ladder and use a force option greater than that of the suspect.

Upon seeing the ladder analogy of use-of-force options, citizens unfamiliar with law enforcement expect an officer to climb the ladder one rung at a time until the suspect complies. It is sometimes difficult to explain to the public the need to advance to the appropriate rung based on the suspect's behavior. Further, people often mistakenly believe that an officer must attempt all other intermediate force options prior to using deadly force.

In an effort to correct these misperceptions, the law enforcement community modified the ladder model into a wheel, which typically depicts the officer in the center of a circle, or wagon wheel, of options. The wheel model allows the officer to select the most appropriate option for the situation, permitting greater flexibility. However, most officers find the wheel confusing and, instead, mentally revert to the ladder model when determining which force option to use. Additionally, jurors may question why an officer selected one force option over another. Traditional use-of-force models fail to properly represent the dynamic encounter between an officer and a resistant suspect. They also exhibit an escalation of force and fail to acknowledge the officer's overriding objective to gain compliance.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A NEW APPROACH

The solution for law enforcement agencies does not involve removing options nor adopting additional policies and restrictions. Rather, a new approach that more accurately reflects the intent of the law and the changing expectations of society can help address these issues.

When officers clearly understand a reasonable use-of-force model and receive adequate dynamic training, they are better prepared to make appropriate use-of-force decisions. Officers faced with potentially life-threatening situations need simple, clear, unambiguous, and consistent guidelines in the use of force. To this end, the dynamic resistance response model (DRRM) combines a use-of-force continuum with an application of four broad categories of suspects.

Dynamic indicates that the model is fluid. Suspects can move rapidly from one level of resistance to the next. The public must realize that situations can quickly and dangerously transition from one category to another. Officers never should assume a suspect currently complying will continue to do so. Also, they always should be prepared for an attack no matter how compliant an individual initially appears.

Resistance demonstrates that the suspect controls the interaction. A major failing among current use-of-force models is the emphasis on the officer and the amount of force used. This places officers in a weak position during accusations of excessive force as the focus is on the officer's actions, rather than on the suspect's. The DRRM emphasizes that the suspect's level of resistance determines the officer's response and delineates suspects into one of four categories: not resistant (compliant), passively resistant, aggressively resistant, and deadly resistant.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Not Resistant

Suspects who do not resist but follow all commands are compliant. Only a law enforcement officer's presence and verbal commands are required when dealing with these individuals; no coercive physical contact is necessary.

Passively Resistant

A passively resistant suspect fails to follow commands and may be verbally abusive. He may attempt to move away from the officer, escape from the officer's grip, or flee. The suspect's actions are neutral or defensive, and the officer does not feel threatened by his actions. Appropriate responses include using a firm grip, control holds, and pressure points to obtain compliance.

Aggressively Resistant

An aggressively resistant suspect takes offensive action by attempting to push, throw, strike, tackle, or physically harm the officer or another person. To defend himself, the officer must respond with appropriate force to stop the attack. The officer feels threatened by the suspect's actions. Justified responses include the use of personal weapons (hands, fists, feet), batons, pepper spray, and a stun gun.

Deadly Resistant

A deadly resistant suspect will seriously injure or kill the officer or another person if immediate action is not taken to stop the threat. The officer is justified in using force, including deadly force, reasonably necessary to overcome the offender and effect custody. For each of the four suspect categories, officers have all of the tools in the preceding categories available. In each instance, officers constantly should give commands to the suspect when doing so does not jeopardize safety. Further, the DRRM is flexible. Departments can apply the four categories of suspects to their current use-of-force continuum and insert the tools available to officers in that particular agency.

APPLICATION

In the DRRM diagram, no resistance (compliance) is in the center of the triangle, emphasizing that as the goal of every encounter. If a suspect's resistance level places him on one of the three corners of the triangle, the officer's response (appropriate use of force) is intended to move the suspect's behavior to the center of the triangle and compliance. If force is used by the officer in response to the suspect's resistance level, the sole purpose of the application of force is to gain compliance.

In the scenario at the beginning of this article, the officers mentally place the driver in one of the four suspect categories. The driver resists by not obeying the instructions to sign the speeding ticket and later refuses to get out of her car. Her conduct does not rise to the level of aggressive resistance because she does not attack the officers and they do not feel threatened. In this situation, the driver is passively resistant. Therefore, based on the DRRM, the officers may use a firm grip, control holds, and pressure points to remove the resistor from her car and arrest her. Any greater use of force is not reasonable. In this example, properly trained officers can remove the resistor from her car using the appropriate force options for a passively resistant suspect.

CONCLUSION

Law enforcement officers are tasked with a difficult responsibility and must make life-or-death decisions at a moment's notice. The intense public scrutiny resulting from alleged misuse of force sometimes results in unnecessary restrictions placed on the use of viable, effective tools in restraining combative suspects. Departments would better serve their officers and citizens by establishing a single use-of-force policy directly related to suspects' behavior and easier to comprehend and apply. Law enforcement agencies will significantly benefit from instituting a legally defensible use-of-force model that protects the rights of the public without decreasing the safety of officers.

Agencies that adopt the dynamic resistance response model can gain several advantages. First, the structure of the model brings every confrontation to a compliant resolution. The DRRM is based upon the obvious presumption that law enforcement officers seek no resistance (compliance) in all cases. Traditional use-of-force models guide officers into a pattern of escalation of force. Second, a resistor's behavior is placed in one of four easily recognized categories, providing more guidance to officers in the selection of the appropriate use of force. Third, the DRRM accurately focuses the initial use-of-force analysis on the resistor and better reflects the actual events that cause a police-citizen confrontation. Most other use-of-force models first direct attention to the acts of the officer and then belatedly explore what initiated the action. Finally, the DRRM simplifies training on use-of-force options as officers can explain any encounter in a resistance--response or action--reaction equation. With appropriate training, officers have a clearer understanding of their force options, enhancing their safety and the effectiveness of the department.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Endnotes

(1) Tennessee v. Garner, et al, No 83-1035, U.S. Supreme Court, 471 U.S. 1; 105 S. Ct. 1694: 85 L. Ed. 2d.

(2) The authors employ masculine pronouns throughout the article for illustrative purposes.

Special Agents Chuck Joyner and Chad Basile created the dynamic resistance response model. Contact them with questions, comments, or suggestions at [e-mail], telephone number 310-629-9662, [e-mail], telephone number 310-345-4312.

By CHARLES JOYNER and CHAD BASILE, J.D.

Special Agent Joyner formerly served as supervisor of the FBI's Los Angeles SWAT team and crisis management and training programs and currently is assigned to the Los Angeles office.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Special Agent Basile heads the Training Unit in the FBI's Los Angeles office.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]