By The U.S. Department of Justice, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

The purpose of this memorandum is to advise the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) of the Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) concerns regarding the BOP’s policies and practices pertaining to the use of restraints on inmates. The OIG identified these concerns in connection with our investigators’ reviews of allegations by multiple BOP inmates at multiple BOP institutions that they were placed in restraints while confined to a bed or chair for extended periods and were assaulted or otherwise mistreated while in restraints. Some of these inmates were placed in fourpoint restraints, which are restraints using four points of contact—both wrists and both ankles—to confine an inmate to a bed, and others were placed in restraints on both wrists and ankles while confined to a chair. Some inmates reportedly suffered long-term injuries after prolonged placement in restraints. For example, one inmate suffered injury requiring the amputation of part of the inmate’s limb after being kept in restraints for over 2 days. We found that shortcomings in BOP’s policies and practices contributed to the concerns we identified and limited the availability of evidence that could either corroborate or refute inmates’ accounts of what happened while they were in restraints, thereby impairing the OIG’s ability to investigate allegations of misconduct by BOP employees. Specifically, we identified the following shortcomings: Lack of clarity in BOP policy as to the meaning of four-point restraints and lack of clear guidance regarding restraint, medical, and psychology checks of inmates in restraints that are not considered four-point restraints; Policies and practices that allow inmates to be kept in restraints for prolonged periods, sometimes leading to long-term injuries, and that require only limited oversight by BOP regional offices while inmates are in restraints; Inadequate guidelines to memorialize what occurred during restraint checks, including the absence of a requirement that BOP staff video and audio record restraint checks; and Inadequate guidelines to document medical checks of inmates in restraints. Clearer and more robust policies would assist the BOP in protecting inmates from abusive treatment, shielding staff from false allegations, deterring misconduct by staff, and holding staff who engage in misconduct accountable. Since the OIG reviewed the allegations that formed the basis of this memorandum, the BOP has made updates to its policies regarding the use of force and application of restraints, including new training guidelines for confrontation avoidance and de-escalation tactics. While these updates are an improvement to the BOP’s policies, additional policy revisions are needed to address the OIG’s concerns. In this memorandum, the OIG makes six recommendations to address the concerns we identified. Separately, the OIG is continuing to conduct an audit related more broadly to the BOP’s oversight of its use of restraints.

Washington, DC: The U.S. Department of Justice, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL2025. 22p.

By Brittany C. Cunningham, Bryce E. Peterson, Daniel S. Lawrence, Michael D. White, James R. Coldren, Jr., Jennifer Lafferty, Keri Richardson

With funding from the National Institute of Justice (2018-75-CX-0019), CNA examined the impact BWCs provided to correctional deputies within the Loudoun County Adult Detention Center (LCADC) in Virginia. The study aimed to contribute to the body of knowledge on the implementation and impact of BWCs in jail settings and to assess the degree to which BWCs affect correctional deputy safety, serious events, resident injuries, and cost effectiveness. The LCADC implemented the Watchguard VISTA BWCs provided by Motorola Solutions. This study is supported by several other publications. First, we conducted an analysis of the changes in deputies' attitudes toward the BWC program over the course of the yearlong study period (November 2020 to October 2021) (Peterson et al., 2023). Second, we investigated the impact of BWCs on the prevalence and dynamics of RTR events, including deputy control methods and resident resistance levels (Lawrence et al., 2023a). Third, we assessed the impact BWCs had on the number of resident injuries and how RTR event characteristics affect the likelihood of an injury occurring (Lawrence et al., 2023b). The final research report of the grant provides a comprehensive summary of the project and its numerous findings (Cunningham et al., 2023) The LCADC, operated by the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, provides jail services to Loudoun County, Virginia, which is the third most populous county in the state, with a population of nearly 421,000 in 2020 (US Census Bureau, 2023). The facility houses maximum-, medium-, and minimum-security level residents and includes work release, workforce, drug treatment, and mental health programs. Most LCADC residents are pretrial detainees, with approximately 20 percent serving sentences for misdemeanor or felony convictions. During the evaluation period, the facility had an average daily population of 222 residents of which 81 percent were male and 51 percent were white, 24 percent were Black, 21 percent were Hispanic, and 3 percent were Asian. During this time, more than 80 percent of residents had a length of stay under two weeks, while only 4 percent of residents had a length of stay over six months. The LCADC is staffed by 124 individuals, including 102 front-line deputies and 22 supervisors, the majority of whom are white and male. Staff supervise eight housing units that have one to four housing pods (20 pods in the entire facility), in addition to four general units that include the medical unit, hallways, intake unit, and transportation between the facility and outside locations (e.g., county courthouse, offsite medical facilities)

Arlington, CA: CNA , 2023. 16p.

By Rashawn Ray, Connor Powelson, Genesis Fuentes, and Long Doan

Black Americans are 3.5 times and Black teenagers are 21 times more likely to be killed by police than their White counterparts. Generally, protective factors such as social class do little to reduce this disparity, as high-income Black Americans are just as likely to be killed by police as low-income Black Americans. Given these outcomes, it is unsurprising that the bulk of sociological research on policing examines disparities in policing outcomes between Black and Brown communities and individuals and their White counterparts. We begin by outlining this important research. In addition to focusing on the consequences of (over)policing, sociologists can make unique contributions to our understanding of the empirical limitations of contemporary policing data and the macro-, meso-, and micro-level mechanisms that contribute to policing inequalities. While we draw upon some research in other disciplines, sociologists can and should do more in these areas. Accordingly, the end of this review focuses on future directions and theoretical possibilities by centering emerging research that pivots sociology to a more direct focus on overcoming the methodological limits of police research and contributing to meaningful behavioral, organizational, and policy changes.

ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY Volume 50, 2024

Edited by Wornie Reed

Despite the national attention police violence gained and the calls for police reform following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, police officers are killing more people each year.1 Police killed at least 1,173 people in 2024.2 Although half of the people shot and killed by police are white, black Americans are shot at a disproportionate rate. Hispanic people are also killed at a disproportionate rate. One reason this assault on citizens continues is that very few roadblocks have been put in the way of excessive violent policing. While any policing reform is beneficial, many reforms being discussed and enacted are unlikely to significantly reduce police use of excessive force. Many critical issues in policing affect African American people. This book addresses several of them. The Black Lives Matter protests in the United States and around the world were primarily about the excessive use of force by police against African American people. This excessive use of force includes homicides. In the U.S., police kill black people at more than twice the rate they kill white people, and black people are 30 percent more likely than white people to be unarmed when killed.3 Of all the police killings documented between 2013 and 2019, one data source, Mapping Police Violence, found only 1 percent of cases led to a conviction of a police officer.4 Many members of the public andsome elected officials have argued that the excessive use of force by the police could be curtailed if more officers were held accountable for their actions, primarily their actions against innocent citizens. The authors of the papers in this series subscribe to that view and discuss some significant reasons why and how police are not held accountable for their excessive use of force. 

Blacksburg, VA, Virginia Tech Publishing, 2025. 98p.

By Ingrid V. Eagly and Joanna C. Schwartz

We are in the midst of a critically important moment in police reform. National and local attention is fixed on how to reduce the number of people killed and injured by the police. One approach—which has been recognized for decades to reduce police killings—is to limit police power to use force. This Article is the first to uncover how an often-overlooked private company, Lexipol LLC, has become one of the most powerful voices pushing against reform of use-of-force standards. Founded in 2003, Lexipol now writes police policies and trainings for over one-fifth of American law enforcement agencies. As this Article documents, Lexipol has refused to incorporate common reform proposals into the policies it writes for its subscribers, including a use-of-force matrix, policies requiring de-escalation, or bright-line rules prohibiting chokeholds and shooting into cars. Lexipol has also taken an active advocacy role in opposition to proposed reforms of police use-of-force standards, pushing, instead, for departments to hew closely to Graham v. Connor’s “objectively reasonable” standard. Finally, when use-of-force reforms have been enacted, Lexipol has attempted to minimize their impact. Local governments, police departments, and insurers have long viewed Lexipol as a critically important partner in keeping policies lawful and up to date. This Article makes clear that they should take a closer look. Lexipol’s aggressive efforts to retain wide officer discretion to use force may ultimately expose officers and agencies to liability instead of shielding them from it. It is time for advocacy groups seeking policing improvements to train their sights on Lexipol. Unless and until Lexipol changes its approach, the company should be viewed as a barrier to reform.
 
Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 97: Iss. 1, Article 1. 2022.

By  Nils Braakmann

This study explores the impact of police use of force on civilian interactions with the police, focussing on neighbourhoods with different ethnic compositions across London. Analysing the effects of three notable police-induced civilian fatalities as well as monthly fluctuations in the Metropolitan Police Service’s use of force, I find a decrease in reported crime and the proportion of crime without a suspect in Black neighbourhoods. These patterns suggest avoidance of police engagement, especially for crimes less likely to be solved. Individual survey data suggests no changes in victimization probabilities for any ethnic group, suggesting that estimates are due to reporting behaviour.

 British Journal of Criminology, 2025, 65, 182–201