Public Report on Chicago Police Training on the Use of Force

From the introduction; This Report from community representatives of Chicago’s Use of Force Community Working Group offers our feedback on the Chicago Police Department’s (CPD) training on de-escalation and the use of force. The Working Group was first convened in the summer of 2020 in response to the requirements of the federal civil rights Consent Decree designed to bring an end to the CPD’s pattern of police brutality and racial discrimination. Over the course of two years, the Working Group persuaded the CPD to make transformative changes to its policies governing police use of force. 1 Last fall, we issued a Public Report on CPD’s new policies, including areas still in need of change. 2 The new policies, if implemented and enforced on the ground, have the potential to dramatically reduce unnecessary CPD violence and improve public safety.

Second Report of the Community Representatives of Chicago’s Use of Force Working Group. 2023March 2023. 24p.

By : Lex Stevens, Winifred Agnew-Pauley, Matthew Bacon, Helen Glasspoole-Bird, Nadine Hendrie, Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes, Charlie Lloyd, Mark Monaghan, Rivka Smith, Charlie Sutton 

This article explores how discretion is managed and exercised across senior, middle, and street levels of policing. It uses qualitative data from two studies in England. The first, a study across three police force areas, involved interviews and focus groups with 221 people who were designers, deliverers, and recipients of police-led drug diversion. The second study used 354 hours of ethnographic observation and 21 interviews to examine stop-and-search practices in one other police force. Rather than a simply expanding scope of discretion at lower levels of the hierarchy, the findings reveal a multi-level process of cascading constraints and subsidiary discretion. At each level, we observe the exercise of occupational professionalism and autonomous judgement, but higher-level constraints shape how discretion is applied in pursuit of organizational professionalism.

By Alon Steinberg and Amanda Frugoli 

Sudden and unexpected arrest-related deaths are deeply tragic and have generated widespread concern among the public, medical professionals, and law enforcement agencies. One mechanism that has garnered considerable attention is the use of prone restraint, wherein a subject is placed face-down and controlled in this position. The safety and risks of this technique remain subjects of debate within both scientific literature and legal settings. Supporters of prone restraint’s safety frequently cite prospective epidemiologic studies that report no fatalities associated with its use. However, these studies typically involve small cohorts and are conducted over limited timeframes, potentially underestimating rare but serious outcomes. In contrast, retrospective analyses, which assess larger populations over extended periods, have identified multiple cases of fatal outcomes linked to prone restraint. Notably, some of the most comprehensive data on these fatalities come from investigative journalism, which has uncovered patterns and prevalence rates not fully captured in academic or institutional studies. Based on available evidence, we estimate the mortality rate with use of in-custody prone restraint is at approximately 1 per 4.4 million individuals per year, or 0.023 per 100,000 population annually. These findings underscore the need for more rigorous, large-scale, and transparent epidemiological studies to better inform public policy, law enforcement practices, and clinical guidelines. The potential lethality of prone restraint must be recognized, and its use re-evaluated in light of both fatal risk and ethical responsibility.