Batons and Other Impact Weapons

The baton, alternatively known as a club, billy club or night stick, is a deceptively simple weapon employed by police officers primarily as a means to enforce compliance or defend against aggression.^[1] This instrument, heralded as the “oldest and most fundamental law enforcement tool,”^[2] is valued within police ranks for its versatility and effectiveness in both defensive and counteractive scenarios.^[3]

However, the image of the baton has been indelibly marked by its frequent appearance in some of the most resonant accounts and depictions of police using force since the dawn of the civil rights movement. The late Congressman John Lewis, a prominent civil rights leader, was participating in the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march when he sustained a fractured skull at the hands of police officers wielding clubs. The event, infamously known as “Bloody Sunday,” is encapsulated in numerous images of Alabama state troopers and sheriffs brandishing and using batons against peaceful protestors attempting to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, including a visibly bloodied 25-year-old Lewis. Nearly 26 years later, the baton once again took center stage as news stations aired footage of Los Angeles Police Department officers striking Rodney King a shocking 56 times with a club.

These disturbing instances, Bloody Sunday and the beating of Rodney King, spurred significant societal change—the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 1992 Los Angeles uprising, a series of riots and civil unrest ensuing after the acquittal of the four officers charged with using excessive force against King.

Following the beating of King, police departments across the country “looked critically and comprehensively at the use of force and its justifications, levels, and methods.”^[4] Closer examinations of force practices, including the use of batons, led to a “wave of reforms—some of which are still works in progress.”^[5] It became clear that the methods and tools of enforcement, often seen as merely tactical considerations, could, in fact, have profound societal impacts and implications for civil liberties.

The conversation around baton use has grown to encompass a range of pressing issues: the dangerous—and sometimes lethal—nature of batons and other impact weapons, the importance of officer training, the potential for batons to be used as instruments of intimidation, the challenges presented by the use of improvised impact weapons, and the necessity of special considerations for vulnerable populations and restrained individuals. These drive this module of the Model Policy, which is designed to balance the demands of officer safety with a firm commitment to the preservation of human life.

Regulating the dangerous—and sometimes lethal—nature of batons and other impact weapons

Research shows that individuals are at a higher risk of injury when officers use batons or other impact weapons than incapacitating devices like Tasers or pepper spray. While batons are considered less lethal weapons than firearms, these impact weapons can inflict serious harm and, when used improperly, have the capacity to result in death.^[6] The inherently dangerous nature of the weapons demands that policies governing batons acknowledge this reality and set appropriate restrictions on their use.

Clearly communicating these risks to law enforcement officers through thoughtful policies is an essential step in mitigating the potential for misuse and unintended injury. The U.S. Department of Justice has asserted that any “adequate” use of force policy would “state clearly that a baton is capable of inflicting lethal injuries but may also be considered a lower level of force, depending on how it is used and the body part attacked.”^[7]

Research by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights recommends that officers should “understand that strikes to vulnerable body parts are considered lethal force because of their high risk of serious injury and death.”^[8] While many police departments allow the use of batons as a lethal weapon when circumstances justify deadly force, these researchers propose an absolute prohibition on striking the head or other vulnerable body parts such as the neck, chest, spine, groin, or kidneys.^[9]

The Model Policy seeks to strike a balance between a range of varying perspectives. While explicitly noting the weapon’s lethal nature, the policy acknowledges that officers may be confronted with extreme circumstances justifying the use of deadly force, in which case a baton could be the best option available. An absolute prohibition on the use of batons as a lethal weapon might also, inadvertently, encourage officers to more frequently resort to their firearms—a more lethal force option.

Key Force Regulations in Policies of 100 Largest U.S. Cities

Baton Regulations in Policies of 100 Largest U.S. Cities

Importance of training on baton use and techniques

A 1967 Federal Bureau of Investigation manual for police officers on the “Technique and Use of the Police Baton” notes that “The officer who carries a baton as part of [their] equipment must be trained to use it properly,” (underlined in original).^[10] Despite this decades-old admonition and the lethal risks posed by batons, some police departments do not require training on the weapons. Insufficient training on batons and impact weapons not only exposes a community to unnecessary risks, such as excessive force or unintended injuries, but it also exposes police departments and local governments to potential litigation stemming from misconduct claims. A clear understanding of when and how to appropriately use batons can significantly reduce these risks while simultaneously preserving officer and public safety.

Federal police monitors have also recognized the role training can play in reducing excessive force, injuries, and liability. When the U.S. Department of Justice found that the Baltimore Police Department was engaging in unconstitutional and discriminatory policing in 2016, the city negotiated a court-approved consent decree requiring the department to enact comprehensive policing reforms—including to its use of force policies and practices. This decree expressly stated, “Officers will be trained and certified for department-approved batons and espantoons (collectively “Impact Weapons”) before being authorized to carry Impact Weapons.”^[11]

This module of the Model Policy adopts the Department of Justice’s approach and requires baton training for officers. However, the module goes beyond the Baltimore consent decree provision by mandating not just initial but annual baton training for officers. This requirement acknowledges the insights from further research and evidence, which underscore the importance of regular practice in reinforcing crucial techniques, as well as refreshing officers’ understandings of key rules and policies.

When police use batons to intimidate they are using force

Policing scholars and policymakers have debated whether particular uses of a baton, such as pounding it on the hood of a person’s car, are uses of force or, instead, should be considered an exertion of power, authority, or persuasion. These discussions overlook the strong potential for batons to be perceived by community members as symbols of intimidation. From a community member’s standpoint, the presence of a baton, even if not actively used against a person, can signal an implicit threat, and represent an intimidating show of potential violence.

The history of baton use in law enforcement is, in certain respects, interwoven with incidents of police brutality, as instances of misuse and excessive force—like the King beating—have served to create a societal association between these tools and undue violence. Conventional conceptions of police brutality include, among others, “threats to use force if not obeyed” and “prodding with a nightstick.” [12] ^{Such displays, far from being passive, actually constitute a form of force. This module considers the use of a baton for intimidation to be a use of force and, therefore, subject to the Policy’s limitations on the use of force.}

Should the use of improvised impact weapons be permitted?

Decisions about whether officers should be permitted to use improvised impact weapons, such as flashlights, require a challenging balancing of public safety and community interests. These objects, by their very nature, are not designed to be used as weapons^[13] and officers typically receive no formal training on wielding them, thereby introducing a set of unpredictable risks. However, most officers and use of force trainers can conceive of circumstances where using this type of weapon to defend themselves or a bystander from attack might be necessary. And, at its core, the Model Policy seeks to discourage the use of firearms and more lethal forms of force unless they are absolutely necessary. Like a baton, an improvised impact weapon presents a less-lethal force option for an officer that finds themself in a dangerous situation.

Most police department policies reviewed by our research team tend to generally prohibit the use of improvised impact weapons. But these policies also typically authorize officers to use these weapons in exigent circumstances.^[14] This module of the Model Policy includes an exception that permits the use of an improvised impact weapon in the rare and exigent circumstances where it is necessary and an officer is already authorized under the policy to use a baton or other conventional impact weapon.

Restricting the use of batons against vulnerable community members and restrained persons

It is important for use of force regulations to address the harms batons could inflict on vulnerable community members or individuals in defenseless positions. The implications of baton use against certain populations, such as the young and elderly, are particularly concerning given these individuals' heightened risk of serious injury. Furthermore, the use of batons against individuals who are already detained and restrained not only poses substantial injury risks, but also has the potential to significantly erode public trust.

Considering these issues, policies that merely state an officer may use a baton when a person is resisting—without accounting for variables such as age or vulnerability—can foster ambiguous interpretations. This can lead to an officer mistakenly believing they are authorized to strike an elderly person or a minor with the same force applied to a stronger, potentially more threatening, individual.^[15]

Public trust in law enforcement—indispensable for maintaining law and order—relies heavily on the perceived legitimacy of police authority. And research supports the premise that the public is more likely to obey the law when they perceive those enforcing it as having legitimate authority.^[16] This legitimacy is cultivated through treating individuals with dignity and respect, allowing individuals a voice during encounters, maintaining neutrality and transparency in decision-making, and conveying trustworthy motives.^[17] Misuse of physical control equipment, such as batons, especially against vulnerable populations, can significantly undermine this trust, potentially leading to the public delegitimizing police departments’ authority to enforce laws.^[18]

Reviewing more than 100 use of force policies from departments across the U.S., the Model Policy’s researchers found that only around a dozen policies discussed the considerations of using batons against vulnerable populations. Policies that fail to distinguish between vulnerable and non-vulnerable individuals may cause confusion for officers trying to determine when the use of a baton is “reasonable.” For instance, using a baton against a 75-year-old protester exhibiting active aggression may not be reasonable while the weapon’s use against a more imposing individual, like the 6-foot-6 former Olympic athlete who resisted police officers’ efforts to remove him from the U.S. Capitol Rotunda during the January 6th riot, might meet a reasonableness standard if he was exhibiting the same behaviors.^[19]

Many use of force policies are also silent on the use, or prohibition, of batons on handcuffed individuals. This use of force poses tremendous risks to a person as well as the police department because it is widely understood to be excessive. The Model Policy safeguards against these risks by prohibiting the use of batons on restrained individuals, even if they fail to comply with an officers’ commands.^[20] Only in a rare and exceptional situation, where a handcuffed person continues to present an imminent threat to the safety of the officer or another person, is the use of a baton permitted.