Examining Excessive Force training in the Baltimore Police Department

by

[]

MS, [], 2011

BS,], 2008

Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of

Philosophy

University

-1-
 Abstract

Police use of excessive force in Baltimore is commonplace, especially when arresting

and detaining suspects of criminal offenses. The problem has resulted in growing conflict

between the police and the public manifested through civil disorder, riots, damage of property

and gradually reducing public trust in the police force. This research aims to investigate the

meaning of excessive force, factors that contribute to its use, and its social impact Baltimore.

To address these objectives, the study adopts a qualitative approach with a case study design

on Baltimore Police Training Department. The study data will be collected with thorough

semi-structured interviews. In addition to interviews, a review of the Department's policy and

training documents used since 2014 will be conducted. Records on incidences of police use

of excessive force and investigative files on civilian complaints since 2014 will also be

reviewed. These sources of data will help in making informed assertions on the study

questions and objectives. A thematic analysis will be adopted to analyze the data. The

position of the study is that the problem of police use of excessive force results from a poor

understanding of what constitutes a reasonable force required to manage social order. It is

implied that the proper use of police force correlates with effective police training.

-2-
-3-
 Table of Contents

Abstract..........................................................................................................................2
Table of Contents...........................................................................................................4
Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................6
Background of the Study................................................................................................7
Problem Statement.........................................................................................................9
Purpose of the Study....................................................................................................10
Research Questions......................................................................................................10
Theoretical Foundation................................................................................................11
Nature of the Study......................................................................................................12
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................12
Assumptions.................................................................................................................13
Scope and Delimitations..............................................................................................13
Limitations...................................................................................................................13
Significance of the Study.............................................................................................14
Significance to Practice................................................................................................14
Summary......................................................................................................................15
Chapter 2: Review of Literature..........................................................…………. 16
Introduction..................................................................................................................16
BPD’s Use-of-Force Policies and Definition of Excessive Force...............................16
Training Procedures and the Use of Police Force........................................................19
Police Department and Poor Training (figure 1)..........................................................20
Incidences of Police use of Excessive Force in Baltimore..........................................24
Institutional “Zero Tolerance” Street Enforcement Culture........................................26
BDP Deficient Policing, Training, and Oversight.......................................................27
Job related stressors......................................................................................................27
Discrimination and Prejudices.....................................................................................28
Social Impacts of Excessive Force...............................................................................28
Community Policing....................................................................................................30
How case law is poorly suited for police training ……………………...……………31

A Forensic Science Perspective on Police Perception when using Force…………...35

-4-
 Summary and Conclusions...........................................................................................36
Chapter 3: Methodology..............................................................................................37
Research Design and Rationale....................................................................................37
Role of the Researcher.................................................................................................38
Participant Selection.....................................................................................................39
Instrumentation............................................................................................................39
Procedures for Recruitment..........................................................................................40
Data Collection and Analysis.......................................................................................40
Data Analysis Plan.......................................................................................................41
Research Credibility.....................................................................................................41
Transferability..............................................................................................................42
Dependability...............................................................................................................42
Confirmability..............................................................................................................42
Ethical Procedures........................................................................................................43
Summary......................................................................................................................43
Appendices...................................................................................................................44
Appendix A: Invitation Letter......................................................................................44
Appendix B: Consent Form.........................................................................................45
Appendix C: Interview Questions................................................................................46
References....................................................................................................................47

-5-
 Chapter 1: Introduction

When contemporary societies increasingly advocate for limited powers of the

executives, it has always been expected that the power of the police would be limited as well

(Cordner, 2016, p. 3). According to Gerber and Jackson (2017), however, across world

democracies such as the US, and Baltimore in particular, the police have been granted power

and the privilege to use "non-negotiable coercive force" to manage civic behavior and order

(p.79). Unfortunately, there have been observed incidences of corrupted use of these

privileges to the detriment of suspects of criminal offenses (Gerber and Jackson, 2017, 79).

Consequently, the public-police relationship is one that is an ever-growing "balanced

tension." According to Ariel et al. (2016), this tension often results in public rage, civil

disorder, riots, damage of property, or civil liability (p.747). These outcomes have, over the

years, negatively tainted the public's perception of the police, contrasting civility and liberty

(Gaub et al., 2016, p. 276).

It is not surprising, thus, that the problem of police use of excessive force, in

whichever way perceived by the society, has recently received significant attention both in

the social and academic discourse in Baltimore. The questions presently asked to include

what constitutes excessive force, police training in the use of force, the circumstances that

cause the police use of excessive and its social impacts. Despite these concerns, research-

based evidence on what constitutes excessive force and various aspects of police training is

scarce. It is against the backdrop of these concerns that this study seeks to explore the

meaning of excessive force and the related inconsistency in the system of criminal justice

within the Baltimore Police Department.

The Baltimore Police Department is one of the largest municipal police departments

in the United States. The Department trains and recruits nearly 3,000 officers under the

leadership of a Police Commissioner. The Mayor of the City appoints the Commissioner,

-6-
who is then approved by the City’s Council. The officers work either under the Criminal

Investigations Division or the Patrol Division Department headed by a chief (US Department

of Justice, 2017, p. 12). Patrol officers are distributed geographically into nine police districts

with local police stationhouses. Every district is under a captain and a major who supervise

officers and direct police enforcement activities.

BPD’s Criminal Investigation Division and Operational Investigation Division have

individual units, including the Homicide Section and the Special Investigation Section, which

arrest, detain, and investigate gangs, violent offenders, and gun crimes. Under such

operations, the division use weapons of force, which may be reasonable or unreasonable

depending on different judgmental criteria. The Department also assigns officers to its

Community Collaboration Division to build the relationship between the police and the

public within the City (US Department of Justice, 2017, p. 15).

Section III (C) of the Department's Policy outlines processes of accountability, which

allows the district supervisors to resolve complaints of officer misconduct that is considered

less serious. Cases involving excessive use of force are reported to the Internal Investigation

Division. Moreover, the Department has a Civilian Review Board that advocates for the

public's rights through the BPD's accountability process; especially cases involving the use of

excessive force. Despite these establishments, the US Department of Justice (2017) observes

that the role of the Board has never been effective due to limited investigative resources as

well as inconsistent complaint referrals from BPD (p.16).

Background of the Study

Recent surveys focusing on police use of excessive force report a myriad of

incidences of assault, criminal behavior, and abuse of civilian rights; which sometimes end in

death (Gaub et al., 2016, p. 277). It is no doubt these incidences have increasingly covered

-7-
media headlines for the past decades. The question of what constitutes excessive force and

circumstances that may warrant its application continues to attract countless controversies

(Jennings and Rubado, 2017, p. 219). A survey by Bor et al. (2018) on police violence

reported that excessive force takes two forms: physical brutality or nonphysical brutality.

Physical brutality involves bodily harm through physical assault whereas nonphysical assault

may involve verbal abuse (p. 307). Ariel et al. (2016) further observe that excessive force

refers to any form of police cruelty or action that degrades the status of a suspected victim of

an offense (p.749). With increasing debates and diverging opinions on the meaning of

excessive force, scholars and human right activists such as Baker and Bacharach (2017) and

Dobrott (2018) take the view that the term refers to the public judgment of the police

behavior in relation to whether citizens are treated with human dignity in a democratic

society (p. 683; p. 5). According to Alang et al. (2017), the police force becomes excessive

when its use is unnecessary (p. 663). Besides, its prevalence depends on police training and

departmental cultures.

Incidences of excessive force in Baltimore continue to draw public attention; some of

which include beating and making unjustified shootings along busy streets. Shooting and

killing of unarmed individuals have also been reported (Osse and Cano, 2017, p. 630). The

US Department of Justice (2017) observes that Baltimore Police Department officers are

actively involved in a pattern of misconduct and use of excessive force in making

unconstitutional and sometimes racial based discriminative arrests of African Americans (p.

21).

Despite the above observations and the presently widely available theories and efforts

towards controlling and minimizing police use of excessive force, there is scarce case study

based research focusing on how BPD defines the excessive force and the extent to which the

training procedures may escalate or minimize its occurrences. A survey by Smith and Holmes

-8-
(2014) focuses on the occurrences and the extents of public complaints of police use of

excessive force, especially among the minority communities, but without explicitly making

inquiry in to the meaning of excessive force as defined by the Baltimore and how training of

their police officers contributes to its use (p. 84). More recently, Fryer (2016) conducted a

multivariate analysis of how the police use of excessive force can be controlled, but which

again failed to explore the legal definition of the problem (p.28). Accordingly, it is justified to

inquire and analyze the present desperate views of excessive force both from the social and

legal perspective of the Baltimore Police Department and make helpful recommendations that

will help reform the enforcement activities.

Problem Statement

There is a problem in Baltimore, Maryland, where police use excessive force when

arresting and detaining suspects of criminal offenses (US Department of Justice, 2017, p. 21).

This has resulted in growing conflict between the police, and the public manifested through

civil disorder, riots, damage of property, political danger, loss of jobs (for offending law

officers), and gradually reducing public trust in the police force as an institution which should

not only operate within the limits of the law, but also be an exemplar of good service to the

citizenry (Smith and Holmes, 2014, p. 85). Currently, theories and efforts have been put

forward to control and minimize the police use of excessive force (Crank, 2014, p. 7).

Available studies have focused on the occurrences and the extent of public complaints

of police use of excessive force. This problem impacts suspected victims of criminal offenses

negatively because it leads to abuse of human rights, physical harm, and sometimes

unjustified loss of lives. There are many possible factors contributing to this problem, among

which are the inadequate police training on the reasonable use of police force, inadequate

training on how to handle mentally ill people, inadequate follow-ups on public complaints,

and inadequate accountability demonstrated by the supervisory officials.

-9-
 Whereas there is an abundance of literature revolving around the subject matter, that

is, police use of excessive force, there is inadequate research between the police use of

excessive force and the consequence of insufficient training.

None of the literature reviewed examined the gap between police use of excessive

force and being a consequence of insufficient training. This study will fill this gap by

contributing to the body of knowledge needed to address this problem by providing data to

public policy decision-makers to redesign police training manuals ensuring high tensed

scenarios are not resolved by the use of excessive police force. In this regard, the study seeks

to build on from the literature on the factors around the use of excessive force by the police in

Baltimore where inadequate training, as a causative factor, is interrogated to offer a path to

the reduction of the use of excessive police force.

Purpose of the Study

Police use of excessive force occurs across global democracies and remains a

significant concern among societies and police institutions (Worden, 2015, p. 149). This

study aims to investigate the meaning of excessive force, its social impact in Baltimore City,

and the extent to which inadequate police training is a causative agent to the use of excessive

force by the police. The study objective is to provide the police institution with relevant

information on the meaning of excessive force to avoid incidences of brutalities and related

consequences. A definition would then inform the police training academies on how best to

design the training programs to ensure that the police do not use excessive force when

discharging their duties. The study will contribute to the present literature on the police use of

excessive force by offering insight into the meaning of the problem and how it can be

controlled and mitigated through police training.

-10-
Research Questions

In order to address the research problem and objectives, this study will answer the

following questions:

1. How does Baltimore Police Department Policy define what is or what is not

excessive force?

2. What extent is inadequate police training responsible for the use of excessive

force by the police?

3. How does the Baltimore Police Department Train their police officers on the use

of excessive force?

Theoretical Foundation

To appreciate the need to understand the meaning of excessive force and police

training requires a good understanding of how the knowledge correlates to the management

of Baltimore Police. Available literature demonstrates that the police use of excessive force is

likely to result from three primary factors: attitudes or personality traits of the officers

involved "bad apple," police training and incentive structure, or the class racial related bias of

officers involved (Worden, 2015, p. 150).

This study applies a supplemental theoretical viewpoint that explains the dynamic

patterns of rising, spread, and decay of excessive force from the daily interactions among

civilians and officers, according to Worden (2015) (p. 153). The theory suggests that the rise

and spread of excessive force result from a self-reinforcing arms race between police officers

and civilians. As the police increase the use of excessive force overtime, civilians become

less disrespectful, rebellious, and more resistant. In response, officers apply more excessive

force to handle them. The second viewpoint of the theory is that the spread of excessive force

among officers within the same network is contagious. Ariel et al. (2017) argue that officers

-11-
learn from each other how and when to use excessive force against defiant civilians (p. 297).

Accordingly, any police force department is likely to experience increased incidences in the

use of excessive force.

The second theoretical perspective considered in this study to explain the rise and

spread of excessive force is based on stress related violence suggested by the strain theory.

From a general viewpoint, the theory suggests that affective reaction to strain by individuals

encourages deviant behavior, such as the use of excessive force (Neely and Cleveland, 2012,

p. 63). Strain theorists argue that when an individual is exposed to strain or stressors, they

develop hostile adaptations that cause negative feelings and frustrations. Police officers are

likely to face difficult criminals and long working hours with minimal resting, which subject

them to strain hence the high risk of applying excessive force during arrests, disputes, or in

other contexts that subject officers to stress (Neely and Cleveland, 2012, p. 67).

Nature of the Study

The present study is primarily explorative of what constitutes an excessive force in

Baltimore and its correlation to police training policy. Through structured interviews with the

Baltimore Police Training Department, Civilian Review Board, Lawyers, and Psychologist,

the study seeks to explore the meaning of the police use of excessive force to establish gaps

in the police training policy that may significantly contribute the current mismatch in the

goals and objectives of the judicial system and the observed incidences of police abuse of

power.

Definition of Terms

Community policing: assigning police officers to a particular region to familiarize

themselves with the locals (US Department of Justice, 2017, p. 158);

-12-
 Excessive Force: any form of police action that degrades the status of a suspected

victim of an offense, denies him or her human rights or freedom,

whether physical or verbal (US Department of Justice, 2017, p. 88);

Police Force: an organized institution of police officers responsible for maintaining

law and order within a given jurisdiction (Osse and Cano, 2017, p.

629).

Assumptions

The position of the study is that the problem of police use of excessive force results

from a poor understanding of what constitutes a reasonable force required to manage social

order. It is implied that the proper use of police force correlates with police training (Silver

and Pickett, 2015, p. 651; Silver, 2017, p. 23). To address this position, it is assumed that the

research participants will be exceptionally knowledgeable and experienced in modern

policing and the use of police force. Out of these assumptions, participants will be able to

respond effectively to the study questions.

Scope and Delimitations

The present study covers the Baltimore Police Department's system of justice, reasonable use

of force, training of officers, why officers use excessive use of force. The study also seeks to

provide recommendations as well as measures that can address the problem of excessive

force in the City. A case study on the Baltimore Police Department will be conducted

through structured interviews with the Baltimore Police Training Department, Civilian

Review Board, Lawyers, and Psychologist to address the study objectives.

The research will not involve or reflect the observations of police officers despite

their engagement in practical situations that requires their decisions on the use of force.

Despite this limitation, the study remains valid since it is not observational. Observational

-13-
studies will have to focus on different study questions compared to the study design approach

involved here.

Limitations

The study's objective is to explore the meaning of excessive force and its contributing

factors. The focus of the study questions determines its limitations. Responses from interview

questions are likely to be subjective as they will depend on individual judgment on the

different situations in which violent use of police force is likely justified or unjustified.

Observations have been made over the past that circumstances leading to police use of force

are judged differently, even by different officers regardless of the established regulations of

police conduct (Wolfe and Nix, 2016, p. 1). Though the element of subjectivity associated

with this study will be addressed through thematic analysis of police behavior, it poses a

significant challenge to the overall outcome of the study.

Moreover, the study questions do not focus on the varying perspectives of police use

of force that may include their analytical skills, physiological, situational, and psychological

factors that may influence human behavior. These considerations are significant, thus remain

as excellent follow-up topics for future inquiry.

Significance of the Study

The research will contribute significantly to the present literature on police use of

excessive force and also provide research based evidence of Baltimore training and its

influence on police use of excessive force or abuse of power. Besides, the research findings

and recommendations are expected to raise awareness on divided opinions on the meaning

and police use of excessive force; which will enhance control and restraint. Besides, the study

will help in improving policymaking and police training in their use of force to maintain law

and social order. Lastly, these benefits will bridge the gap between the public and the police.

-14-
Significance to Practice

The broad understanding of the police use of excessive force and its adverse impact

on social justice are the first steps to advocating for police professionalism. According to

Weitzer (2015), the professional and bureaucratic models are the two main frameworks for

controlling the police incidences of excessive use of police force (p. 475). The adoption of

the professional model will ensure that the police discharge their mandate based on their

training and in the most honest manner expected of a system of justice. Accordingly, the

study will demonstrate that only well-trained officers should be recruited to serve the public

as law enforcing agents. The bureaucratic model will ensure that the proper understanding of

the police use of excessive improves close supervision of the activities of the police officers.

Summary

The police forces and their use of excessive force have elicited debates and potential

topics of public interests, scrutiny, challenges, and controversies. It is not surprising that

police brutality has been experienced across global democracies for their negative social

impact. Observations and the opinions of the majority point to the idea that some of the

incidences of excessive use of force related to the ideals of situational control and training

gaps in managing the potential social disorder. It is against this backdrop that this study

explores the meaning of excessive force

This Chapter has provided the research background and other important features

through research objectives, questions, and frameworks. The next Chapter 2 presents the

present studies that have attempted to address the police use of excessive force and the extent

to which it may be considered excessive or not. The review provides the informational

background required to establish the study design and methodology that will be outlined in

Chapter 3.

-15-
 Chapter 2: Review of Literature

Introduction

According to the US National Police Misconduct Statistics Report, nearly 1,575

officers were accused of using excessive force. The data represented 23.8% of all reported

cases of police misconduct (US Department of Justice, 2017, p. 3). The cases involved

included physical assaults, baton strikes, fist strikes, or chokeholds. Unreasonable use of

firearm-related as well as police dogs and chemical weapons were also reported, sometimes

leading to deaths of suspects (US Department of Justice, 2017, p. 4).

Studies focusing on the police use of have significantly increased in quality over the

past two decades. Despite these developments, few studies have particularly examined the

extent to which police officers may use force in arresting and detaining suspects of crime

(Worden, 2015, p. 153). To date, more interests continue to grow in an attempt to define and

differentiate reasonable police force and excessive use of force. Based on the review of the

literature in this chapter, the study will get thumbnail sketches related to what constitutes

excessive force, factors leading to the use of excessive force, and the social impacts of

excessive force.

BPD’s Use-of-Force Policies and Definition of Excessive Force

Although scholars hardly agree on a standard definition of excessive force, in a more

legal sense, the term refers to the use of police force that exceeds the reasonable force

required to stop, search, arrest, and detain a suspect (U.S. Justice Department, 2007, p. 88).

Other scholars have also defined the term differently. According to Sekhon (2019), excessive

force as non-negotiable coercion that does not meet democratic expectations (p. 61).

Williams (2015) further observes that police use of excessive force is synonymous with

police violence, which implies any unnecessary police use of force that results in harm or

injury of a suspect (p. 3).

-16-
 Though the distinction between reasonable and excessive force appears to be straight

forward on the surface, when examined through legal and social perspectives, the collective

agreement becomes vague, especially when higher levels of coercion is involved. While

persons of interest in this phenomenon contend that excessive force is harmful and

unnecessary, they hardly agree that unnecessary is likewise excessive (Hirschfield, 2015, p.

1109). This ambiguity begs the question: to what extent is force excessive?

Previous studies categorized police force into different categories that include:

physical vs. non-physical, deadly vs. non-deadly, extra-legal vs. unnecessary, and reasonable

vs. excessive (Hirschfield, 2015, 1111). The deadly force was considered capable of causing

physical harm or death. In contrast, the non-deadly force was considered unlikely to cause

death or serious physical harm. Whereas physical force refers to the beating of prodding a

suspect to comply with police demands, nonphysical force refers to verbal abuse or threats

(Gross, 2015, p. 155). Hirschfield (2015) further observes that force is reasonable in so far as

its application is for self-defense or the defense of others (p. 1115).

Every state in the U.S defines and interprets excessive force differently, which

explains the ambiguity of the term among the American courts and the public at large, of

what constitutes “reasonable" or the "necessary level of force. Despite divergent definitions,

in most cases, the minimum amount of police force needed to attain a harmless and effective

outcome is recommended.

Under the Policy 1115 of the Baltimore Police Department, excessive force is hardly

defined. Instead, the policy outlines the use of force to be objectively reasonable, necessary,

and proportional in resolving an incident to attain security or protection of lives. The Policy

considers a force objectively reasonable depending on the context of its application at the

time of use (p. 4). The reasonableness is determined from the perspective of a reasonable

-17-
officer on the scene of incidence. The use of force is considered necessary when no

reasonably effective alternative is at the officer’s disposal to affect a lawful end. Besides, the

level of applied force must be in proportion to reflect the totality of the situation involved,

including the presence of imminent danger to the officers or the public. The police

application of excessive force is not condoned under any circumstances.

Though the term excessive force is not used under the policy, terms such as Deadly

Force or Lethal Force have been legally defined to refer to any force likely to result in death

or serious physical injury. The Policy 1115, for instance, considers the discharge of a firearm

at a suspect or an individual a deadly use of force, which, as discussed in this study, is

excessive use of force (p. 5). The policy also defines excessive force as the intentional use of

an impact weapon such as a baton to the suspect’s neck, spine, head, groin, sternum, or

kidneys.

The extent of use of deadly force can be examined or recorded based on policy

restrictions that include: no use of deadly force to subdue individuals whose actions only

threatens a property; no use of deadly force against individuals whose conduct only threatens

themselves; no use of chokeholds unless authorized; and no firing any weapon from or at a

vehicle, except under cases required to counter an imminent threat of death or serious

physical injury to the member or another person. These restrictions help in defining the use of

excessive force further. Under the provisions of de-escalation, officers are justified in using

force at one moment, but not justified in using the force several seconds later due to the

changing dynamics of the situation (p. 4). It is observable that the extent of use of force is

hardly quantified under these provisions.

From a policy standpoint, BPD considers the use of deadly or lethal force a serious

concern in violation of human rights. BPD ensures that officers adhere to federal and state

-18-
laws. The use of excessive force is, however, justified when all lesser means of the police

force are exhausted or could not be employed reasonably. When officers encounter life-

threatening situations, they sometimes employ deadly force for self-defense and the defense

of the public. Baltimore Police Department removes an officer accused of employing deadly

force from the street duty while the incident undergoes unbiased review. The BPD Attorney’s

office reviews all cases of deadly use of force for criminal charges (Policy 1115, p. 7).

Training Procedures and the Use of Police Force

The Baltimore Police Training Department offers various training procedures

involving the use of firearms as well as other use of force including pepper spray, expandable

baton, and teaser. It is expected that the training procedure is consistent with and aims at

reinforcing the Departmental Policy. Tactical training, proper use of firearms, and

certification are done in the police academy. Annual firearm police training while on the

force is also offered. The training primarily involves decision-making instances and mostly

reinforces the position that police-public interaction is non-violent. The objectives of the

training are to equip officers with the knowledge required to make effective decisions under

stressful and rapidly evolving situations. De-escalation techniques and tactical maneuvers are

taught to minimize chances that may call for the use of excessive force.

The training mainly focuses on stops, searches, and arrests that involve the use of

force. The training program addresses the culture of the Department through updates in

policy issues, including role-playing scenarios and interactive activities that reveal proper

decision making in the use of force. Members are trained to assess circumstances and how to

respond using appropriate force. Baltimore Police Officers trained on how to recognize

incidences involving mentally ill persons, cases of post-traumatic stress disorder, drug

addiction, and how substance abuse may make individuals behave erratically require proper

-19-
use of force. Members are trained to de-escalate all these situations to avoid using excessive

force (Policy, 1115).

Police Departments and Poor Training

It is important to emphasize the need for police training on hands-on skills that can be

used as an alternative to the use of excessive force that often involves the use of lethal tools

such as batons and guns. Toby (2018) observed that the lack of adequate training is but one

reason that can be used to explain the use of excessive force by the police. The police often

rely on tools at their disposal as opposed to hands-on skills.

Whereas police departments have incorporated some aspects of training on the use of

force, such a curriculum is inadequate as the curriculum is based on what the State perceives

as an excessive force instead of a universally applied curriculum based on a universally

accepted definition of excessive force. In this regard, the duration, quality, and content of

training differ from one police department to the next, consequently leading to several

emerging issues: inadequate training, low quality training, and omission of certain aspects of

training (Phillips, 2015). Consequently, such inadequate training results in the police officer

consider any form of noncompliance by a suspect as a grounds for the use of excessive force;

the outcome is the police use force for offensive purposes as opposed to defensive one

(Gross, 2016).

Cases of inadequate training resulting in the use of excessive force are prevalent in

Police Department across the nation. A US Department of Justice (US DoJ) report revealed

that the poorly trained Philadelphia police feared for their lives resulting in the discharge of

their weapons resulting in 394 shootings between 2007 and 2013 (Fachner & Carter, 2015).

Moreover, in 49% of the cases, the suspects gunned down did not have a firearm but was a

case of the police officer misidentifying a non-threatening object. It is such incidences that

-20-
revealed the Philadelphia police did not receive adequate consistent and regular training on

the use of deadly force (Fachner & Carter, 2015). Consequently, the US DoJ report

recommended that Philadelphia police undergo extensive reality-based training, including

that of de-escalating scenarios.

Police officers in various departments around the country repeatedly come under

scrutiny, and under pressure, for allegations and cases of excessive use of force and brutality.

Baltimore Maryland, for instance, is no exception. Given the rampant cases of the police use

of force, questions have been raised as to whether they are bad cops or simply instances of

poor training. The lack of proper and complete national database containing incidents on the

use of lethal force worsens the situation; for instance, the government lacks a system to track

police shootings (Klein & Wallentine, 2014). Although the FBI has one, the database is

inconsistent, and numerous incidents/cases are underreported. Several studies attribute the

use of force to inadequate training, which culminates on the police’s poor decision-making to

use force.

Poor training among the police is evidenced by their perceptions when handling tense

situations. Weir (2016) argues that the research on the use of force by the police shows mixed

conclusions. Inadequate training fails to factor in the ability to make decisions when there are

numerous cognitive factors at play. For instance, poor training results in the police use of

excessive force as they are not able to perceive the situation correctly, as well as how to

determine the complexity of the situation (Klein & Wallentine, 2014), the eventual

consequences, time constraints (Weir, 2016), and the emotional state of the police officer.

There is also inadequate training programs, as is the case with the Minnesota police

department. The inadequacy of these training programs equips police officers with few

methods of de-escalation, which often result in the use of excessive force. According to Klein

-21-
& Wallentine (2014), Minnesota only has two training programs, which is through the

association (the Minnesota Crisis Intervention Tea, Officer’s Association), and another based

on the Mental Health Crises Response Institute. As much as the two training programs focus

specifically on different techniques for de-escalation, they are inadequate when responding to

situations or scenarios of mental health crises. Even with the requirement that Minnesota

police officers undergo four-hour sessions, the training on different de-escalation techniques,

the training has been inadequate as cases of using excessive force is still rampant in the

region (Klein & Wallentine, 2014), as was the case in 2016 when a de-escalation scenario

ended in the shooting of a mentally ill patient who engaged in an altercation with another

junior police officer.

There is also a contradiction among the police departments conducting police training.

For instance, while police departments are training police officers on methods, techniques,

and approaches of diffusing a tense situation without using force, the existence of a policy on

the need for using force in some situations complicates objectivity and critical decision-

making ability from the police officers. For instance, Weir (2016) identifies the use of force

training and policy as having an objective for teaching officers the use of force, but only

when necessary (at the right time), for the right reasons, and in the right measure. However,

the training fails to describe and explain the specific scenarios to use force clearly, and when

not to do so. Therefore, inadequate training is primarily attributed to the police using

excessive force. Klein & Wallentine (2014) adds that police officers are not provided with a

decision base; there is no graphic depiction, which is consistent with policy, law, and

acceptable police practices.

Suffice to say that cases of inadequate training could be in the form of a training

program that fails to outline how police can interact with diverse people in different kinds of

scenarios. For example, police training programs ought to showcase how police can deal with

-22-
persons suffering from one form of mental illness or another (Sereni-Massinger & Wood,

2016). Unfortunately, various police training programs fail to factor in certain instances; for

example, debunking different training implicit bias found among police officers around the

world. Even with adequate training, implicit biases are not known to individuals, and they

cannot be controlled.

According to Weir (2016), poor training of police officers is characterized by the

activation by priming individual police officers with certain stereotypes of certain people or

groups. Failure to debunk these implicit biases during training would result in some police

officers being at risk for the development of implicit racial biases (Klein & Wallentine,

2014), especially when they are constantly in contact with minority groups involved with

criminal activities. Additionally, it is not clear to what extent the police undergo training on

implicit bias. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that approximately 96% of

training academies trained police officers in human relations and cultural diversity (Gross,

2016), but there is no data on training on implicit racial bias.

Lastly, poor training among the police is evident in the manner in which the public

perceives them. According to Gross (2016), it is expected that procedural justice advances

fairness in the manner in which the police treat the public, thus fostering legitimacy. How the

police handle the citizens show inadequate training, especially when the citizens consider

them as being unfair and illegitimate, which means they are more likely to revolt or resist.

Klein & Wallentine (2014) add that the public refuses to comply with the police; for example,

by following orders or being cooperative, it means that the police were poorly trained on how

to win the public trust; thus they end up using excessive force.

Notably, various police departments have been served with legal suits for using

excessive use of force by the Department of Justice. These police departments include the

-23-
Cincinnati Police Department (Gross, 2016), Pittsburg Police Department, the Los Angeles

Police Department, the Buffalo Police Department, the Seattle Police Department, New

Orleans Police Department, the New Jersey State Police Department (Gross, 2016), and the

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.

Figure1.

Police Departments Reasons for Poor Training

Baltimore Police Department Excessive use of force
Minnesota Police Department Baton and excessive force
Philadelphia Police Department The Fourth Amendment
Chicago Police Department Excessive use of force
New York Police Department Shooting
Compton Police Department Excessive use of force

Incidences of Police use of Excessive Force in Baltimore

Despite the above definition of excessive force and the training procedures in the

proper use of force, cases of police abuse of power are not new in Baltimore (The President’s

Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967). A practice called the

“third degree” was common in the 1930s, which encouraged police officers or prosecuting

attorneys to obtain confessions from suspects by inflicting physical or mental pain. Present

examples of excessive force in Baltimore have been observed to include beating and

handcuffing juveniles and making unjustified shootings along busy streets; which results in

physical harm or sometimes death (Osse and Cano, 2017, p. 633). Some of the incidences

have been reported to involve killing unarmed people that already in the police (US

Department of Justice, 2017, p. 89).

By conducting interview with City leaders including the BPD Commissioner and the

former officers throughout the BPD command structure, the Baltimore community, advocacy

groups, and community support organizations, US Department of Justice (2017) observed

-24-
that BPD officers have been involved in a pattern of misconduct that infringes the

constitutional provisions of the United States, which has raised serious concerns in the past

(p. 98). The US Department of Justice also reviewed hundreds of documents and other

relevant Department’s policy and training materials since 2010; the database of BPD internal

affairs files since January 2010 to May 2015, and records on incidences of police use of

deadly force since 2010; investigative files on civilian complaints since 2013 and reported

reasonable bases to affirm that BPD officers are involved in patterns and practices that

contravene the federal law and in contravention with the Fourth Amendment. The alleged

pattern of practice included the police making unconstitutional and racially and

discriminative arrests of African Americans, suppressing individuals involved in the

constitutionally protected expression, and applying excessive force to subdue subjects. Right

groups and other stakeholders have made observations on incidences related to BPD’s

policing strategy (Hirschfield, 2015). There were instances when City officials admitted the

need to establish reforms that address aggressive policing (US Department of Justice, 2017,

p. 3).

Moreover, the use of excessive force was reported to violate Title II of the Americans

with Disabilities Act, which is equally against the federal law. The provisions in the Fourth

Amendment guarantee the right of protection and freedom from unreasonable seizures (U.S.

CONST. amend. IV). Under the Amendment, careful balancing of the nature of police

infringement of an individual’s rights is required to determine whether the force applied to

effect a given arrest and detention is “reasonable” or not (Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386,

396; 1989). The determination of reasonability of the use of force is made in the perspective

of (1) “the severity of the crime at issue;” (2) “the extent to which the suspect poses an

immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others;” and (3) “whether [the suspect] is

actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight” (4th Cir. 2016). Besides, the

-25-
determination of the reasonableness of police use of force is to be based on the perspective of

the context and proportionality of the force applied to the prevailing circumstances. The

Baltimore Police Department holds that officers using unnecessary and disproportionate force

to arrests and secure an unarmed citizen do not operate in an objectively reasonable manner

(Meyers v. Baltimore County, 713 F.3d 723, 734; 4th Cir. 2013).

In an interview with individuals who had the first hand encounter with police, BPD’s

officers, command staff, and supervisors, the US Department of Justice (2017) observed that

the officers use excessive force while undertaking their duties, as they approach incidences in

a confrontational manner without involving conflict resolution skills. As a result, mistrust and

conflict emerge between the public and the police. The research also indicated that BPD

officer training aims at producing aggressive individuals with an adversarial mindset. Some

of these training components include pointing a weapon to unarmed individuals. Such tactics

pointlessly and unreasonably escalate suspect-police tensions and consequently use of

excessive forces.

Institutional “Zero Tolerance” Street Enforcement Culture

Incidences of excessive force have been attributed to the BPD's historical reliance on

aggressive street law enforcement attitude, which encourages the police to make non-

negotiable searches, arrests, and detention (US Department of Justice, 2017, p. 40). Though

the approach requires robust policies and officer-training, available reports demonstrate that

the Department hardly provides officers with satisfactory guidance, scarcely collects and

analyzes data related to actions of officers, and also fails to hold the police accountable for

their actions. The Department has also been observed to fail in equipping officers with

adequate resources they require to constitutionally, safely, and effectively discharge their

duties. These deficiencies have been suggested to actively promote excessive use of force in

-26-
Baltimore through the "none zero tolerance" culture. Strong assertions can be made by

conducting a case study of the training department, which is the study design in this case.

Lee and Vaughn (2010) observe that some departments of law enforcement advocate

for the use of violent behavior against suspects; which increases incidences of excessive force

(p. 193). The authors recommended adherence to stipulated measures to provide proper

directives to the police officers and ensure that punitive action is taken to officers that incite

or encourage the use of unnecessary force. Institutional “Zero Tolerance” as a culture reflects

what BPD believes. It informs the Department’s policies, procedures, selection, recruitment,

and the entire development and training of officers consistent with Prenzler et al. (2013)

views (p. 343). The present concern is whether the culture is professional in the use of police

force.

BDP Deficient Policing, Training, and Oversight

Observations made through research and case studies by the US Department of Justice

(2017) demonstrate that occurrences of unreasonable use of force among officers result from

systematic deficiencies in BDP's policies, training, supervision, and structures required

achieving accountability. According to Hirschfield (2015), the BPD Policies and Training

Materials hardly equip officers effectively and constitutionally (p. 1113). Most of the

materials used either vaguely define excessive force or misstate the law, thus failing as useful

guidance and effective operational standards. The recently established order titled "Quality of

Life Offenses-Core Legal Elements," for example, hardly outlines and explains requirements

for effecting loitering arrests. Even though a section of the order outlines individual aspects

of considerations for prohibiting loitering, it fails to specify prohibited conduct and warning

of a possible violation of the law. The general observation is that most of the Department's

policies are inadequately specific in outlining and providing adequate guidance to officers'

use of force (Cohen and Sabel, 2017, p. 157).

-27-
 Besides, some law enforcers have not yet mastered the art of de-escalating a situation

that often spurs a shootout with the suspects. This places the general public in danger, and as

a result, stray bullets could end up hitting the civilians and bystanders. To counter the

problem, law enforcement should undergo proper training, and the recruitment process

should be strict about filtering people who want to join the force (Miller, 2015, p. 97). This

will enable such situations to be minimal as proper incident handling will take place.

Inadequacy of police training has also been observed with several police encounters

with mentally ill individuals. The common-law principles give the police the power and

authority to protect the safety of the mentally ill. Although BPD trains officers on how to

handle mentally ill individuals, they hardly demonstrate the skills in real life scenarios

(Gross, 2015, p. 47). Besides, Gross (2015) further observes that training should be support

by sufficient deployment of crisis teams that can handle specific situations (p. 59).

In addition, Coyle and Fair (2018), observe that BPD operates on inadequate

oversight and accountability structures (p. 4). There are reported incidences of failed use of

effective measures to review unreasonable use of force in stops, searches, arrests, and

detention of suspects. Additionally, BPD mostly depends on its complaint system to review

police misconduct and reported cases of excessive force. These approaches are less sufficient

to track and ensure constitutional policing.

Job related stressors

Though previously neglected in policing literature, the causal relation between job-

related stressors and incidences of unreasonable use of force has presently drawn attention in

academia. Manzoni and Eisner (2006) proposed the stress-strain theory to explain the relation

(p. 494). Although the survey of the two researchers did not conclusively relate stress to

police use of excessive force, the present literature strongly suggests that the influence of

-28-
stress is a significant factor in the police use of excessive force. Neely and Cleveland (2012),

examined individual differences and job-related stressors and how they related to the

excessive use of force (p. 71).

By examining the Baltimore Police Department, the US Department of Justice (2017)

reported stress related challenges that police face associated with the prevalence of excessive

force (p. 157). In everyday duties, officers risk their lives while enforcing laws. Under

various circumstances, officers confront intricate social problems related to deficient

education, poverty, and racial segregation. Moreover, BPD officers put more effort to

maintain order and other related services in the community. These challenges are likely to

escalate improper use of force and can be addressed through training.

Discrimination and Prejudices

Sadly, excessive force has become a routine by the law enforcers as all possible

suspects are regarded as dangerous even when they are not causing harm to the police

officers (Atherley and Hickman, 2014, p. 123). As a result of prejudice and discrimination,

the officers end up escalating situation ending up using excessive force or justify the use of it

against civilians, especially the Black-Americans living in Baltimore (Atherley and Hickman,

2014, p. 125). In some instances, the officer ends up hitting an already subdued person due to

verbal resistance or at times, shows off to illustrate power. These observations can be

addressed by studying the training program of BPD.

Social Impacts of Excessive Force

As researchers, legal practitioners, and the general public remain divided on what

constitutes police use of excessive force; its social impact appears clear. Desmond and

Papachristos (2016) survey demonstrate that excessive police force negatively impacts public

trust as well as confidence in the police force (p. 857). A commitment to constitutional

-29-
policing builds trust that enhances crime fighting efforts and officer safety. The problem also

creates civil disorder, riots, damage to property.

Conversely, frayed community relationships inhibit effective policing by denying

officers essential sources of information and placing them more frequently in dangerous,

adversarial encounters (Palmiotto, 2012, p. 1). Police-public tension disadvantages the

effectiveness of law enforcement. US Department of Justice (2017) emphatically observes

that excessive use of force among Black Americans has been responsible for reported cases

of racial discrimination and other related tensions and mistrust in the BPD. White

neighborhoods reported that officers tend to be respectful and responsive to their needs, while

many individuals living in the City's mostly African-American communities reported

disrespectful police attitude, which subjects them to unjustified arrests, and excessive force.

These challenges amplify the importance of using policing methods that build community

partnerships and ensure fair and effective enforcement without regard for affluence or race

(Janne et al., 2016, p. 275).

Community Policing

The legal authorities that govern the search, arrest, and detention of citizens are

justified based on cultural legitimacy (Wolfe and Nix, 2016, p. 1), which should be a factor of

concern in community policing. Legitimacy refers to the quality of law that makes the public

feel obligated to comply with its directives willingly (Weitzer, 2015, p. 477). Community

policing refers to actions taken by the police department to familiarize themselves with the

culture of a people and their expectations of the police force. The success of community

policing depends on building a productive relationship with the community that a police

department serves. It helps in joining efforts to solve insecurity threats to achieve public

safety. Police officers can easily earn legitimacy through active community policing (Gill et

al., 2014, p. 399; Cohen and Sabel, 2017, p. 157).

-30-
 US Department of Justice (2017) reported BPD’s failure to implement effective

community policing principles, which has resulted in distrust between the public and the

police (p. 157). The report also indicated that the leadership of BPD could hardly define or

describe the departments’ community policy strategy, as some district commanders have

never considered enlisting the community to help them in fighting crimes. The report also

indicated that none of the majors of the BPD had established positive relationships with the

community groups to control and mitigate violence. As such, the department officers lack

community-oriented problem-solving. The interaction with the civilians is little and

ineffective. US Department of Justice (2017) suggested that BPD should get proactive in

knowing communities of Baltimore more deeply to earn legitimacy, build trust, and solve

security problems together.

İşleyen, B. (2018) observes that the use of excessive force is a highly inefficient

approach to achieving compliance (p. 321). The quality of use of force has been observed to

correlate to the efficient police force. A survey by Ho and Cho (2017) on public satisfaction

with police activities demonstrated that citizens have a very low tolerance for police

misconduct or actions involving excessive force (p. 228).

How case law is poorly suited for police training.

Police use-of-force is a contentious matter among civil rights activists, scholars, and

policed administrators. A Tennessee policy has a provision of police officer using the

necessary means incase an intent of arrest is made and t suspect forcibly resists or flees. This

is a statutory recognized by the Supreme Court that grants the police a mandate to use the

necessary force in protection of citizens and enforcement of peace in the society. However,

the policy is not beyond criticism primarily when police actions blatantly disregard the police

duties to serve and protect. A conundrum for police administration was established under this

-31-
statutory authority in the Tennessee v. Garner case to determine an individual’s constitutional

rights. Despite the statutory right for police officers to use force, the level force applied

should be proportional to the response to the degree of threat. For instance, the compliance to

the United States Constitution on use of excessive force should not be used after the restraint

of a suspect since the threat is de-escalated (Gross, 2016). Incase of violation, a civil rights

complaint directed to the Department of Justice is issued under the U.S Code-Section 1983

for monetary or injunctive relief.

The Tennessee v. Garner case provided restrictions to circumstances for use of deadly

force in arrest of suspects by police officers. In the assessment of reasonableness of excessive

force per the Fourth Amendment, a ruling that police intrusion weighed against risks and the

determination that the common law any-fleeing-felon laws ware constitutional was made by

the court (Gross, 2016). Analysis under the Fourth Amendment on the excessive use of force

claims against the police should be done and reasonableness of search and seizure must be

taken in to account during the analysis. Although law enforcement officers are protected by

the law to use force, police officers are sued and charged under the state tort law. However,

sovereign immunity for police officers prevents suits against police intrusion from being

filed, thus law enforcement officers are rarely charged by juries and prosecutors.

Based on the existing laws, the legal framework holding police officers responsible

for use of force was formulated following the Monell v. Department of Social Services case in

1978. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that responsibility for police actions must be

assumed by the municipalities especially when plaintiffs, victims of police intrusion,

demonstrate that their actions were caused by official policy, culture, and police department

practices. In determination of use of excessive force, the court also reviews how an

objectively reasonable a different police officer would have acted in a similar situation.

-32-
 The United States law on holding a police officer responsible for the violation of

rights states proof of three elements; the plaintiff is protected under the law; the defendant

must act under the law; and, the use of force must cause extensive violation to standing

constitutional rights. This means that victims of the excessive force from law enforcement

officers must demonstrate that the police officers in question deliberately acted with

indifference, which, compared to negligence is a higher legal basis ( US Department of

Justice, 2017). This prompted the Supreme Court to make key decisions in relation to

situations when force by police officers is excessive. In regard to the Tennessee v. Garner

case, the court ruled that use of excessive force violates the Fourth Amendment since it is

illegal search and seizure (Marcus 2016). Additionally, Marcus (2016) states that the

Supreme Court balances interests of the public and government when determining police

liability.

In the Graham v. Connor case, the Supreme Court established a less complex case

law standard for the use of excessive force on suspects. The legal framework established in

this case allows the charging of the police criminally, civilly, and through the state law upon

the use of excessive force. Police reforms advocates who hope to rein in excessive police

violence simultaneously criticize the vagueness of the Graham case in embrace of the Garner

case. For instance, in interpretation of Garner, lethal police force in an attempt to stop a high-

speed hazardous car chase is allowed although the Scott v. Harris case court’s decision

illustrates that neither Graham v. Connor nor Harris overruled or abrogated Garner’s

prohibition against law enforcement officers shooting at unarmed fleeing suspects. There is

little resemblance to the facts involved in shooting unarmed suspects especially those fleeing

by foot. Based on the existing legal frameworks on excessive use of force, it is difficult to

win excessive use of force cases while putting into consideration the criminal liability and

nature of state tort cases.

-33-
 According to Marcus (2016), responses to police shootings of unarmed individuals

lacks decency and morality (anathema) and it is against legal and constitutional limitations as

demonstrated in the Graham v. Connor ruling. Existing case laws, laws, and issues related to

law on excessive use of force face opposition and scrutiny. In the Connor ruling, the court

established that use of excessive force is legally and constitutionally unreasonable primarily

when preventing fleeing felony suspects irrespective of the circumstances. The ruling further

indicated that the use of excessive force is not justified where a suspect does not pose

immediate threat to the police or other civilians. Both cases, Scott v. Harris and Graham v.

Connor, clearly show prohibition of lethal forces when unarmed suspects are escaping on foot

rather than in a car. However, Scott v. Harris support the proposition of not prohibiting police

officers from shooting at suspects in moving vehicles thus setting a floor the use of excessive

force protocols enforced by law compliance agencies. Police departments, PDs, adopt

policies of prohibition of police officers from shooting at moving cars and several PDs

including Baltimore PD have exactly done that. Ideally, PDs that curtail lethal use of force

emphasize on the clear constitutional prohibition of Garner on the use of excessive use of

force on non-dangerous escaping suspects while safeguarding and limiting on the use of

force.

Law enforcement officers have the policy and commitment to protect citizens.

Recently, most police officers use the 21-foot rule in justification of use of excessive force in

cases where a suspect is unarmed. Techniques that do not consequently cause injury like

escort techniques that is, wrist, shoulder, or elbow grips; displaying and use of Tasers; and,

forcible takedowns that do not result in an injury are allowed for use (US Department of

Justice, 2017). Use of deadly force is applied during extreme circumstances and when non-

harmful and lesser means fail. When a police officer uses deadly force, they are removed

from street patrols duty until the circumstances of the excessive use of force are conclusively

-34-
evaluated. PDs should establish trainings, policies, and practices that surpass minimum

stipulations on excessive use of force by police officers.

A Forensic Science Perspective on Police Perception when using Force

Following the OIS (officer-involved shooting), questions have been raised arising

from the reasons for police officers using force by shooting. Questioning as to why law

enforcement officers fire many rounds, reasons for the shooting of suspects after they are

already down, and why police officers shoot suspects on the back are raised (Helfer, 2018).

Various real-life instances and factors come into play. The perception of a person depends on

the quality and direction of the perceiver’s senses, which varies based on the officer’s

experience and training, fatigue, and interests of the observer (Helfer, 2018). For instance, a

law enforcement officer working over eight hours a day tends to be under pressure from

handling numerous calls; thus, they struggle with processing and handling multiple stimuli

compared to another police officer who is not stressed or fatigued (Helfer, 2018). Therefore,

from a forensic science perspective, perception is significantly impacted by how good a

police officer handles multiple stimuli and on the account of their training.

Additionally, perception-reaction time –is critical as the police are required to

translate their views and perception that the potential threat has been mitigated (Helfer,

2018). In this case, some police officers have shorter perception-reaction time and are likely

to use lethal force through shooting compared to those with longer perception-reaction time.

Lastly, the article concludes that a police officer must be better placed to translate their

perception of a possible threat to the immediate reaction to be able to mitigate the situation

through action (Helfer, 2018). Therefore, reasons for police shooting are based on how police

react to multiple stimuli, as well as how they respond to threats based on their perception-

reaction time. Training of police officers based on the different perspectives enables

-35-
preparedness to police officers in the field and their response to stimuli. Regular trainings in

PDs should be reinforced to equip the police in performing their mandate of serving and

protecting citizens.

Summary and Conclusions

The extensive overview presented in this section has mainly focused on the meaning

of what constitutes police use of excessive force and what, in the perspective of the society, it

is not. Though study reports examined demonstrated lack of consensus among researchers of

what may constitute excessive force, the majority tend to observe that excessive force refers

to unreasonable use of force that may result in physical or emotional harm, and which may

sometimes lead to death. These perspectives are pertinent as they have presented several

domains relevant to this study. The legitimacy of any law or conduct of police officers is a

matter of significant concern in community policing, which can equally help in understanding

the meaning of police use of public force. Some of the issues presently raised to cause

excessive force include inadequate officer training to handle mentally ill people, inadequate

follow-ups on public complaints, offensive use of K-9 dogs, and inadequate supervisory

activities (Jennings and Rubado, 2017, p. 217). The social impact of the problem includes

physical harm, deaths, and mistrust in the police force. Pronounced cases of the social impact

of excessive have been presently identified to include mistrust between the police and the

public, racial discrimination, and waning police legitimacy. Recent studies suggest proper

vetting, training, and tracking of police conduct as some of the ways of mitigating cases of

excessive force (Miller, 2015, p. 101).

The following chapter presents the methodology that the study will employ to address

the inconsistencies in the categorization of what constitutes police use of excessive force.

-36-
 Chapter 3: Methodology

This study is designed to explore and examine what constitutes police use of

excessive force and what it is not, both in the public and legal perspective. The study findings

are intended to be relevant in guiding community policing and the management of the police

force. The main objective is to gain a greater depth of understanding of police use of

excessive force and its social impact Baltimore City.

In this regard, this chapter describes the research design and rationale, the role of the

researcher, methodology, demographics, participant selection logic, instrumentation,

procedures for recruitment, participation, data collection, data analysis plan, issues of

trustworthiness, research setting.

Research Design and Rationale

Three research questions have been developed to address the study objectives:

1. How does Baltimore Police Department Policy define what is or what is not

excessive force?

2. What extent is inadequate police training responsible for the use of excessive

force by the police?

3. How does Baltimore Police Department Train their police officers on the

excessive force?

The research method is qualitative in approach with a case study design on Baltimore

Police Training Departments. A qualitative approach has been observed to allow researchers

to address people's experiences and judgments over a phenomenon, as befits the present

study. This allows the researcher to analyze subject materials with greater details (Brewer, et

al. 2016, p. 7). A case study design equally involves an up-close, exhaustive, and detailed

exploration of a study subject in its contextual setting.

-37-
Role of the Researcher

The researcher will recruit the study participants whose ideas and positions within the police

force are of interest. The researcher will then conduct semi-structured interviews with the

participants from which data will be collected using an audio recording. During the interview,

the researcher will read the prepared questions to the participants. The critical role of the

researcher is to guide the interviews while addressing the research questions. The researcher

has no direct supervisory or professional connections with the participants.

In order to conduct the interviews, the researcher’s role will be to appear in a face-to-

face semi-structured conversation with the participants. Before the interview, the researcher

will obtain signed consent forms from the participants containing privacy, anonymity, and

confidentiality.

Participant Selection

The sampling approach is purposive and guided by the participants' convenience. The

participants are drawn from the population of serving members at the Baltimore Police

Training Department, Civilian Review Board. Lawyers and Psychologists will also be

involved. A liaison person will be identified from the agencies to connect with identified

participants. Potential participants will be contacted in person to ascertain their consent to

participate, from which they will be requested to sign a Consent Form.

Instrumentation

The study will use a structured interview protocol, observation notes, audiotape

devices, and legal documents. Individual interviews will be audio recorded with the consent

of the participants. Transcripts will be generated from the audio recordings with different

interviewees, which will be used during coding and analysis. Moreover, observation notes

will be taken during the interviews based on pertinent points that will supplement the audio

-38-
data. The transcripts will be made immediately after every session of the interview through a

transcribing service.

Procedures for Recruitment

The participants will be considered experienced in the general police duties and

related use of force and supervision in those specific roles. The recruitment will be based on

purposive sampling. The distribution of participants across the identified agencies will help in

achieving a mixed distribution of police duty assignments, varying need for the application of

police force, broad meanings of the meaning of police force, and the excessive force therein.

A total of 12 participants will be recruited for interviewed, three from each of the four

categories: Baltimore Police Training Department, Civilian Review Board, Lawyers, and

Psychologists. The researcher will take notes during the interview process.

It can be noted that the study sample is a scant representation of the police force,

which may result in bias observation of the entire police force. To avoid possible bias, the

recruitment process will ensure that the participants will be more informed on issues

concerning the police use of force. Accordingly, the potential participants will be those

individuals who shall serve or engaged in the issues of excessive police force for an average

duration of not less than eight years.

Data Collection and Analysis

The researcher will collect data through semi structured interviews with the

participants at the Baltimore Police Training Department. Other participants will be met at

their setting of convenience. Transcripts will be generated from the audio recordings with

different interviewees, which will be used during coding and analysis. Moreover, observation

notes will be taken during the interviews based on pertinent points that will supplement the

-39-
audio data. The transcripts will be made immediately after every session of the interview

through a transcribing service.

Interview sessions will take about approximately 90 minutes, depending on the

amount of information the participants will be willing to give and the convenience of time.

The duration will be sufficient for constructive interaction with the participants. The

frequency of data collection sessions will be weekly but also depending on the availability of

the participants. Once the interviews are conducted, participants will be requested to expect

follow-up interviews in case clarifications will be needed.

Data Analysis Plan

Content, also referred to as thematic analysis, will be adopted to explore the data for

particularly repeated themes in the definition of excessive force, its causes within the police

force, and its social impact. The analysis will be conducted using the coding approach in

which the researcher assigns a short phrase or a word to a particular meaning to a given

portion of the data. The data will be grouped based on the research questions for analysis. A

particularly recurring theme or themes will be considered as the answers to the research

questions.

Research Credibility

In qualitative research, credibility refers to the extent to which study findings link to

reality (Cope, 2014, p. 3). The study will adopt triangulation to ensure its credulity. It will

involve using multiple data sources that will include the Baltimore Police Training

Department, Civilian Review Board, Lawyers, and Psychologists addressing the same set of

questions. The approach will help in gaining a broad and robust understanding of the police

use of excessive force and the related study objectives. It will help in ensuring that the

findings are comprehensive, robust, and well concluded.

-40-
Transferability

The extent to which study results can be generalized to other contexts defines its

transferability, also referred to as external validity (Cope, 2014, p. 2). In this study, the

findings will be transferable to the general American population based on the study assumes

that the participants will be experienced and knowledgeable, implying that they will give the

most relevant information while addressing the study questions.

Dependability

In qualitative research, dependability refers to the extent to which the research

account for the possibility of ever changing context within the research may occur (Cope,

2014, p. 2). This study remains dependable as it can be addressed using different methods

such as observational approaches, descriptive, or through systematic literature review.

Conformability

Conformability is the extent to which study findings are consistent with other research

findings (Cope, 2014, p. 3). The conformability of this study is enhanced by confirming

interview data with the reviewed studies in Chapter 2. As such, possible contradictions can be

noted and extensively addressed during the data collection process.

Ethical Procedures

Concerns of any social inquiry are important concerning the wellbeing of participants

during and after the study. The study will follow the National Council on Ethics in Human

Research (NCEHR) standards and Walden University’s Individual Review Board provisions

on ethical concerns. Ethical procedures concern the rights and welfare of the participant.

Protecting these concerns is vital for achieving the integrity of the research.

Moreover, the researcher will first seek university permission for the collection of

primary data. When permission is offered, the researcher shall seek the consent of the

-41-
respondents before the collection of their responses. A consent shall first be in the form

invitation letter where the participants are taken through the research objectives and purpose

and the role they should play. The participants will be requested to sign a consent form to

show their acceptance to allow audio recording of the interviews before commencing the

actual interview.

The privacy of the respondents shall be assured forthwith from the Consent Form with

clear guidelines on the handling of the personal details outlined. In this regard, all data

collected shall be anonymous in that no personal details of the respondents shall be captured

other than their occupation. Key to note here is that no mention of the place of work or

workplace designation shall be captured when the respondent's occupation is recorded. At no

point in time shall the researcher disclose the identity of the respondents to third parties

without the explicit consent from the respondent. Lastly, the data collected shall be strictly

used for the incumbent research and as such, shall not be shared with third parties for

whatever reason.

Cognizant of the fact that the research entails aspects of audio transcription, any third

party involved in the same shall be required to sign confidential non-disclosure agreements;

the researcher purposes.

Upon the successful completion of the study, the outcome of the research shall be

shared with the research participants and community stakeholders through email. Participants

who opted out from research outcomes shall not receive the same. In other words, the

researcher is willing to provide a Letter of Cooperation and Data Use Agreement granting

permission for all relevant data access, access to participants, facility use, and use of

personnel time for research purposes.

-42-
 Respondents who participate in the data collection are free from any liabilities that

might result from the research. This implies that the researcher shall shield the respondents

from any political, legal, and economic liabilities that might be a consequence of the research

finds. As such, where the researcher is called to substantiate the research, no attempt at

revealing the respondent's personal details or place of work shall be entertained. The

researcher bears all the socioeconomic consequences of this research.

Lastly, all conflicts of interest shall be spelled out to ensure that the respondents are

fully aware of potential bias from the researcher. Moreover, the researcher shall be

supervised, thus providing increased transparency in the data collection and analysis

processes.

Summary

This chapter has outlined the study design and the general research plan. The

research approach is qualitative with a case study on Baltimore Police Training Department,

Civilian Review Board. Data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with

Lawyers, Psychologists, and other senior officers from the Baltimore Police Training

Department. A thematic analysis will be adopted to analyze the data. The research plan is

highly believed, capable of addressing the research questions and objectives.

-43-
 Appendices

Appendix A: Invitation Letter

Dear ______________,

I hope this finds you well.

You are invited to participate in a research study designed to understand the use of excessive
force and how the phenomenon impacts training in the Baltimore Police Department.

I am a Doctoral student in the Criminal Justice, Homeland Security Public Policy Program at
Walden University.

I am especially interested in talking with you about my topic. I believe that your insight will
be invaluable to the purpose of this study because of the integral role you play in the
community.

As a requirement for the fulfillment of my dissertation, I am required to conduct a qualitative

research project.

As part of the research, should you consent to this invitation, you will be required to complete
the informed consent statement. Once you provide your consent, I will email you a list of
questions. It will take you approximately 90 minutes to answer the questions. Kindly let me
know if you are interested in participating in the study.

Kindly review the above request alongside the Consent Form and return the form to me as
soon as possible.

You can email me at (christopher.wilson4@waldenu.edu) if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Christopher Wilson

Doctoral Student

Email: Christopher.wilson4@waldenu.edu

Phone Number: 931-449-0849

-44-
 Appendix B: Consent Form

Dear________
You are hereby invited to participate in an interview as part of my research project for my
doctoral program. The interview aims to collect data and refine my interviewing skills.
Interview Procedures:
I would like to request your permission to audio record the interview for approximately 90
minutes. I will analyze the interview transcription for my dissertation project. You can access
the interview recordings and transcripts any time you would like to.
Participants’ Selection
Participants will be drawn from the population of serving members at the Baltimore Police
Training Department, Civilian Review Board. Lawyers and Psychologists.
Voluntary Nature of the Interview:
Participation in the interview is voluntary and you can withdraw at any stage during the
interview.
Data Collection Procedure
Data shall be collected through semi structured interviews with the participants. Transcripts
will be generated from the audio recordings with different interviewees, which will be used
during coding and analysis. Moreover, observation notes will be taken during the interviews
based on pertinent points that will supplement the audio data. Audio transcription shall be
done by a third party that has signed a Confidential Non-Disclosure Agreement.
Risks and Benefits of Being Interviewed:
There are no direct benefits that accrue from taking part in the interview and no potential
risks associated with the interview process.
Privacy:
inadequate personal details shall NOT be required at any point in the interview process save
for your occupation. Personal details such as your name, email including any
correspondences shall be maintained in utmost secrecy with the researcher and shall NOT be
shared by any unauthorized party for whatever reason.
You can access the interview transcripts and recordings at any time upon your request. The
transcripts and analysis will be submitted to my university
You are required to retain a printed/ copy of this Consent Form.
Contacts and Questions:
The participants had an opportunity to talk about their rights before taking part in the study.

-45-
Appendix C: Interview Questions
1. What is your understanding of the phrase “excessive force”?

2. What is considered reasonable or unreasonable when police officer use excessive

force?

3. How have complaints increased or decreased from 2015-2019 as a result of reforms in

police training?

4. What types of training helped in reducing the number of complaints if there was a

decrease? What did not work?

5. How many hours of training for the area of excessive force do police officers

undergo?

6. What types of training does Baltimore police get in the use of excessive force?

7. How does police training need to be reformed concerning the area of excessive force?

8. What mechanism is in place to identify at-risk police officers who may pose a risk of

using excessive force?

9. What would you suggest as an alternative to the use of excessive force by police

officers?

10. How come some, but not all police academies and training departments spend more

hours on firearm training than other areas?

11. Should police officers undergo further federal training on restraining from the use of

excessive force?

12. To what extent do police academies impart cadets with defensive non-lethal hands-on

tactics/ skills?

13. Do you think that the use of hands-on skills such as Brazilian jiu-jitsu and martial arts

by police officers can reduce the use of excessive force by the police?

-46-
 References

Allen, S., McAlpine, D., McCreedy, E., & Hardeman, R. (2017). Police brutality and black

health: setting the agenda for public health scholars. American journal of public

health, 107(5), 662-665.

Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., & Henderson, R.

(2016). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce

police use of force: Results from a global multi-site experiment. European journal of

criminology, 13(6), 744-755.

Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., ...& Henderson, R.

(2017). “Contagious accountability” a global multisite randomized controlled trial on

the effect of police body-worn cameras on citizens’ complaints against the police.

Criminal justice and behavior, 44(2), 293-316.

Atherley, L. T., & Hickman, M. J. (2014).Controlling the use of force: Identifying police use

of excessive force through analysis of administrative records. Policing: A Journal of

Policy and Practice, 8(2), 123-134

Baker, M. A., & Bacharach, V. R. (2017). Police officer-civilian confrontations caught on

camera: the influence of contextual frames on judgements of excessive force.

American journal of criminal justice, 42(4), 683-697.

Bor, J., Venkataramani, A. S., Williams, D. R., & Tsai, A. C. (2018).Police killings and their

spillover effects on the mental health of black Americans: a population-based, quasi-

experimental study. The Lancet, 392(10144), 302-310.

Brewer, J. D., Wilford, R., Guelke, A., Hume, I., &Moxon-Browne, E. (2016).The police,

public order and the state: policing in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Irish

Republic, the USA, Israel, South Africa and China. Springer.

-47-
Cohen, J., &Sabel, C. F. (2017).Sovereignty and Solidarity: EU and US. In Public

governance in the age of globalization (pp. 157-175).Routledge.

Cope, D. G. (2014, January). Methods and meanings: credibility and trustworthiness of

qualitative research. In Oncology nursing forum (Vol. 41, No. 1).

Cordner, G. W. (2016). Police administration. Routledge.

Coyle, A., & Fair, H. (2018).A human rights approach to prison management: Handbook for

prison staff. Institute for Criminal Policy Research Birkbeck, University of London.

Crank, J. P. (2014). Understanding police culture. Routledge.

Desmond, M., Papachristos, A. V., & Kirk, D. S. (2016).Police violence and citizen crime

reporting in the black community. American Sociological Review, 81(5), 857-876.

Dobrott, N. (2018). Excessive Force, Police Dogs, and the Fourth Amendment in the Ninth

Circuit: The Use of Summary Judgement in Lowry v. City of San Diego. BCL Rev.,

59, 1.

Fachner, G., & Carter, S. (2015). Collaborative Reform Initiative: An Assessment of Deadly

Force in the Philadelphia Police Department. Retrieved from U.S. Department of

Justice & website: https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0753-pub.pdf

Fryer Jr, R. G. (2016).An empirical analysis of racial differences in police use of force (No.

w22399). National Bureau of Economic Research. 13 (3), 27-30.

Gaub, J. E., Choate, D. E., Todak, N., Katz, C. M., & White, M. D. (2016).Officer

perceptions of body-worn cameras before and after deployment: A study of three

departments. Police quarterly, 19(3), 275-302.

Gerber, M. M., & Jackson, J. (2017).Justifying violence: legitimacy, ideology, and public

support for police use of force. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(1), 79-95.

-48-
Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vitter, Z., & Bennett, T. (2014). Community-oriented

policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy

among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of experimental criminology, 10(4),

399-428.

Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 396; 1989

Gross, J. (2016). Judge, Jury, and Executioner: The Excessive Use of Deadly Force by Police

Officers. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 21(2), 155–181.

Helfer, J. (2018). Why so many shots fired? Understanding police officer reaction time to

stop shooting. Retrived from https://www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/understanding-

police-officer-reaction-time-to-stop-shooting/

Hirschfield, P. J. (2015, December). Lethal policing: Making sense of American

exceptionalism. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 1109-1117).

Ho, A. T. K., & Cho, W. (2017). Government communication effectiveness and satisfaction

with police performance: a large‐scale survey study. Public Administration Review,

77(2), 228-239.

İşleyen, B. (2018). Building capacities, exerting power: The European Union police mission

in the Palestinian authority. Mediterranean Politics, 23(3), 321-339.

Janne E Gaub, David E Choate, Natalie Todak, Charles M Katz, Michael D White Police

quarterly 19 (3), 275-302, 2016

Jennings, J. T., & Rubado, M. E. (2017).Preventing the use of deadly force: The relationship

between police agency policies and rates of officer‐involved gun deaths. Public

Administration Review, 77(2), 217-226.

-49-
Klein, J. & Wallentine, K. (2014). A Rational Foundation for Use of Force Policy, Training

and Assessment. AELE, 1-10.

Lee, H., & Vaughn, M. S. (2010). Organizational factors that contribute to police deadly

force liability. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(2), 193-206.

Marcus, C. N. (2016). From Edward to Eric Garner and Beyond: The Importance of

Constitutional Limitations on Lethal Use of Force in Police Reform. Duke Journal of

Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 12(1), 53-106.

Manzoni, P. & Eisner, M. (2006). Violence between the police and the public: Influences of

work-related stress. Journal of Research in Personality. Volume 43, Issue 3, June

2009, Pages 494-497.

Meyers v. Baltimore County, 713 F.3d 723, 734; 4th Cir. 2013

Miller, L. (2015). Why cops kill: The psychology of police deadly force encounters.

Aggression and violent behavior, 22, 97-111.

Neely, P., & Cleveland, C. S. (2012).The impact of job-related stressors on incidents of

excessive force by police officers. American Journal of Health Sciences (AJHS), 3(1),

63-74.

Osse, A., & Cano, I. (2017).Police deadly use of firearms: an international comparison. The

international journal of human rights, 21(5), 629-649.

Palmiotto, M. J. (2012). Criminal investigation. CRC Press.

Phillips, S. (2015). Police recruit attitudes toward the use of unnecessary force. Police

Practice & Research, 16(1), 51–64.

https://doi.org/doi:10.1080/15614263.2013.845942

-50-
Prenzler, T., Porter, L., & Alpert, G. P. (2013).Reducing police use of force: case studies and

prospects. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(2), 343-356.

Sekhon, N. (2019). Police and the Limit of Law. Columbia Law Review, forthcoming.

Sereni-Massinger, C., & Wood, N. (2016). Improving Law Enforcement Cross Cultural

Competencies through Continued Education. Journal of Education and

Learning, 5(2), 258–264. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n2p258

Silver, A. (2017). The demand for order in civil society: A review of some themes in the

history of urban crime, police, and riot. In Theories and Origins of the Modern Police

(pp. 23-46). Routledge.

Silver, J. R., & Pickett, J. T. (2015).Toward a better understanding of politicized policing

attitudes: Conflicted conservatism and support for police use of force. Criminology,

53(4), 650-676.

Smith, B. W., & Holmes, M. D. (2014).Police use of excessive force in minority

communities: A test of the minority threat, place, and community accountability

hypotheses. Social Problems, 61(1), 83-104.

Toby, T. (2018, April 12). Police Brutality Doesn’t Happen Because Of Racist Cops, It

Happens Because Of A Lack Of Efficient Training. Retrieved September 30, 2019,

from The Odyssey Online website: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/excessive-

police-force-america

US Department of Justice.(2017). INVESTIGATION OF THE BALTIMORE CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT. LULU COM.

Weir, K. (2016). Policing in black & white: Police departments are eager for ways to reduce

racial disparities—and psychological research is beginning to find answers.

Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/12/cover-policing

-51-
Weitzer, R. (2015). American policing under fire: Misconduct and reform. Society, 52(5),

475-480.

Williams, K. (2015). Our enemies in blue: Police and power in America. AK Press.

Wolfe, S. E., & Nix, J. (2016).The alleged “Ferguson Effect” and police willingness to

engage in community partnership. Law and human behavior, 40(1), 1.

Wolfe, S. E., & Nix, J. (2016).The alleged “Ferguson Effect” and police willingness to

engage in community partnership. Law and human behavior, 40(1), 1.

Worden, R. E. (2015). The ‘causes’ of police brutality: theory and evidence on police use of

force. ER Maguire, & DE Duffee, Criminal Justice Theory: Explaining The Nature

and Behavior of Criminal Justice, 2, 149-204.

Zahar, C. (2017, October 13). Retired Police Officer and BJJ Brown Belt: Officers Use

Excessive Force Due To Lack Of Training. Retrieved September 30, 2019, from Jiu-

Jitsu Times website: https://www.jiujitsutimes.com/retired-police-officer-bjj-brown-

belt-officers-use-excessive-force-due-lack-training/

-52-