Exploring Physical Force and Subject Resistance in Police Encounters with People with Behavioral Health Issues

ABSTRACT

The interaction between police use of force and subject resistance or noncompliance is particularly complex in cases involving people with behavioral health issues (PBHI). Using three years of incident reports (2014–2016) and an officer survey from a midsize suburban police department, the authors explore this interaction and officers’ experiences and perceptions of encounters with PBHI. They find that police are less likely to use physical force in cases involving PBHI, even in the face of more, and more severe, resistance. However, officers believe they use force more frequently and are unsatisfied with the options available to them to address behavioral health challenges. The authors conclude with recommendations for police training and practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Policing
• use of force
• resistance
• mental health

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Stuart Lewis for his contributions to this project, particularly his advice on the survey design and inclusion of the TEQ items, and to Natalie Hipple and Julie Wartell for their advice and support. The authors also thank the Chief and personnel of the police department in which this research is set, Melissa Morabito for her editorial support, and the anonymous peer reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Symptoms of BHI may be associated with a diagnosed disorder or an acute crisis (e.g., a traumatic experience). In this article we define BHIs broadly to reflect the variety of behavioral features police may experience in their interactions with citizens, including individuals experiencing a mental health crisis, people with a substance use, mood, or other mental health disorder; and individuals with a developmental disability such as autism. Our description of these various behavioral health conditions is guided by terminology used by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (https://www.mentalhealth.gov/what-to-look-for, accessed April 4, 2018) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/facts.html, accessed April 4, 2018).

2. The department’s use of force policy mandates the reporting and investigation of any case involving deadly force or physical force by an officer. Physical force is defined as hitting with hands or an object, kicking, use of a CEW or chemical agent (e.g., pepper spray or tear gas), any force applied to the subject’s neck, and any other actions that result in actual or alleged injury to the subject.

3. Officers filled out an additional paper mental health incident form when they responded to calls involving suspected BHIs. However, these forms were not computerized or linked in any way to the electronic incident reports, and we did not have the resources to review them.

4. We recognize that prior research on police use of force that incorporates an inclusive definition of coercive behavior (including standard practices such as routine handcuffing) has been criticized for inflating the prevalence of force (e.g., Lersch, Bazley, Mieczkowski, & Childs, 2008). However, we think it is particularly important to examine a broad range of police behavior in the unique context of PBHI who may not respond as expected.

5. While we used the term force in the survey question, we did not define it to encourage officers to think broadly and not limit themselves to reportable use of force events.

6. Email addresses were provided to us by the department with the permission of the chief of police. Survey responses were not linked to officers’ contact information, although we did collect identifiers separately to conduct a future follow-up survey.

7. We did not have identifiable data to assess repeat callers; however, we did receive the specific address of each call, allowing us to use location as a proxy measure.

8. r = .27; p < .001.

9. t = −5.88; p < .0001.

10. There were only 104 suicide attempt calls for service, but 106 incident reports. Some incidents are reclassified between the initial call to dispatch and the officer arriving on scene, which may explain this discrepancy. This also suggests that police almost always wrote a report when the call was related to a suicide attempt.

11. Ten behavioral health–related incidents were dropped because the narrative was missing or we were otherwise unable to code details about the encounter.

12. This does not necessarily mean that the entire encounter was free of force or resistance. For example, in one case the subject’s behavior escalated very late in the encounter. We did not code this as initial resistance because the subject was initially compliant with the officer’s requests and lower-level physical contact.

13. This officer worked patrol but had been in the department for less than a year.

14. One of the 25 respondents did not answer the follow-up questions.

15. In 2016, there were only four formal reports of any kind. Given the large discrepancy between this number and the 27 total reported in the previous two years, we are investigating whether this is accurate or a data error. All seven cases involving a PBHI in 2014 and 2015 were found to be within department policy.

16. We are grateful to an anonymous peer reviewer for suggesting this approach.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance under Award Number 2015-WY-BX-0005. The opinions, recommendations, and conclusions herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Justice.