Duties to Intervene, Provide Medical Aid, and Safely Transport

While situations involving non-compliant people present officers with choices about using force, they often present officers with another set of inflection points where the consequences of the decisions facing the police can be so significant that the decision-making should not be left to an individual officer’s discretion. These decision points include whether an officer who witnesses their colleagues use excessive force, or commit another type of misconduct, should intervene to end the inappropriate—and likely unlawful—behavior. Once force has been used, an officer can be confronted with the question of whether they should step in and assist a person that, perhaps seconds before, had been combative and unwilling to comply with their orders. Police departments have recognized the challenges posed by these circumstances and have increasingly required their officers to act in a manner that protects community members and strengthens perceptions of the police’s legitimacy.

A review of more than 100 police department policies from agencies across the U.S. reveals that most agencies now require their officers to intervene in misconduct and provide medical aid. It is promising that, in recent years, many departments have added written policies reaffirming these duties for their officers. The Model Policy builds upon this progress and recommends specific and robust policies that: eliminate ambiguities, help officers understand what is expected of them when confronted with these situations, and formalize the expectation that misconduct and deviation from a department’s policies will not be tolerated.

The critical role officers play in holding—or not holding—their fellow officers accountable

Police officers play a critical role in holding—or not holding—their fellow officers accountable for excessive uses of force. Incidents across the U.S. illustrate how police that observe other officers crossing the line and choose to intervene are protecting community members from harm, and even saving lives, by stepping in before situations escalate further. On the other hand, officers that do not respond to their colleagues’ unlawful uses of force are contributing to the harm created by their fellow officers and, in some cases, the deaths of people at the hands of police.

In 2015, a McKinney, Texas police officer, Corporal Eric Casebolt, responded to a reported disturbance at a community pool.^[1] Video from the incident shows Casebolt yelling and chasing youths, shoving one boy to the ground, before dragging Dajerria Becton, a 15-year-old Black girl, across the ground while fellow officers stood nearby. When two unarmed Black teens attempted to come to Becton’s aid, Casebolt unholstered his firearm and drew it towards the two teens. Upon seeing Casebolt draw his gun, two fellow officers rushed to his side, intervening as the teens fled, and Casebolt returned his weapon to his holster. Had those two officers not stepped in—albeit after observing their colleague’s escalating behavior—the two teen boys might have been shot and killed by Casebolt.

Officers in Baltimore and Memphis did not intervene as their colleagues violated department policies and used excessive force against Freddie Gray, Jr. and Tyre Nichols, killing both Black men. Gray died a week after four Baltimore Police Department officers did not act when he screamed in pain as two of their fellow officers held him face-down on the sidewalk with his legs bent “‘like he was a crab or a piece of origami.’”^[2] After arresting Gray, one of the officers transported him to a local trauma care facility, but not without knowingly neglecting to secure Gray with a seatbelt and purposefully driving erratically to further injure him.^[3] Gray arrived at the local trauma care facility unresponsive and later died there after sustaining injuries to his voice box, three fractured vertebrae, and a spinal injury severing 80% of his neck.^[4]

As Memphis Police Department officers kicked, punched, and pepper sprayed Tyre Nichols, several of their colleagues stood nearby and did not move to stop the officers using unnecessary force. Then, after handcuffing one of Nichols’ wrists, an officer struck him with a baton multiple times, again triggering no intervention from the several officers that were surrounding Nichols. Once Nichols was subdued, officers with medical training waited 16 minutes to provide him with aid. Like Gray, days later Nichols died of his injuries.

In the New York City borough of Staten Island, nearly a dozen officers of the New York Police Department were on scene as Officer Daniel Pantaleo violated their department’s ban on chokeholds in restraining Eric Garner, who repeatedly pleaded for his life muttering, “I can’t breathe.”^[5] Garner’s plea was unsuccessful in eliciting an intervention from the NYPD officers and continued to be unsuccessful six years after his death when George Floyd uttered “I can’t breathe,” multiple times as three Minneapolis Police Department officers did not act as one of their colleagues, Derek Chauvin, held Floyd to the ground with a knee to his throat for nearly nine minutes.^[6]

The deaths of these Black men—Freddie Gray, Tyre Nichols, Eric Garner, and George Floyd—did not have to occur and could have been avoided if the officers on-scene had intervened to stop the excessive force, provide needed medical aid, and, in the case of Gray, safely transport a detainee. Ending these types of incidents that threaten and take human life should be sufficient motivation for police departments and cities across the U.S. to evaluate and improve their policies. But the failure of an officer to intervene when witnessing excessive force can also be grounds for an officer, the department, and the city to be held liable under federal civil rights law 42 U.S.C. § 1983.^[7]

Requiring officers to intervene and stop misconduct

Though officers arguably have a legal duty to intervene in cases of excessive force, regardless of whether a department adopts a specific policy requiring intervention, there are several ways departments can enact clear policies that benefit their officers and they communities they serve. The Model Policy recommends an approach that, instead of limiting the explanation of the duty to a sentence or paragraph, provides a more thorough description that helps clarify expectations of police officers and eliminate ambiguity to the extent possible.^[8]

At its core, the policy establishes the duty for an officer who witnesses another officer engage in misconduct, or who has reason to believe that another officer is engaged in or about to engage in misconduct, to intervene to end or prevent the misconduct. This duty should apply to every officer, regardless of rank, seniority, or title. It should also continue until the misconduct ends.

A robust duty to intervene policy should define at least two crucial terms: (1) intervention and (2) misconduct. “Intervention” should include both verbal and physical measures and the policy should explain that the duty may be triggered prior to officers witnessing misconduct. Even when an officer only has reason to believe that another officer is about to engage in misconduct (e.g., witnessing another officer become agitated with respect to a person, or hearing from an officer that a third officer is becoming “heated” with respect to a person), the duty should be triggered.

In defining “misconduct” the policy should take a broad view of the types of actions that trigger the duty. Specifically, the policy should not limit the duty to situations involving excessive force, but should instead cover any violation by an officer of the department’s policies, of state and/or federal criminal law, or of the state’s constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Such a policy would still require officers to intervene to prevent or stop the use of excessive force, but would also require intervention to prevent or stop, for example, instances of misrepresentation, evidence planting or tampering, bias-based profiling, harassment, or the use of racial epithets or slurs.

To help officers grasp and visualize an effective intervention, the Model Policy recommends explaining and providing examples of both verbal and physical interventions, as well as highlighting when the two types of intervention would be most appropriate.^[9] A policy should explain that verbal interventions are usually preventative measures used when an officer suspects another officer is on the path toward engaging in misconduct, and should caution that verbal interventions may be insufficient to satisfy an officer’s duty to intervene when actual misconduct is occurring. Conversely, the policy should explain that physical interventions should be used when verbal interventions have not worked or seem unlikely to work, and explicitly note that physical interventions include both putting one’s body between an officer and the victim of misconduct, as well as forcibly restraining or removing an officer committing or attempting to commit misconduct.

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

Intervention and Aid Regulations in Policies of 100 Largest U.S. Cities

Disciplining officers that do not fulfill their duties

When officers do not fulfill their duty to intervene, they jeopardize the safety of community members and threaten the community’s trust in the police. For these reasons, there must be consequences for officers that observe misconduct and do not act to end it.^[10] The Model Policy includes a provision specifying that the failure either to intervene to prevent/stop misconduct, or to report such misconduct, will be grounds for disciplinary action at the same level of severity as the original act of misconduct.^[11]

Prohibiting retaliation against intervening officers

A duty to intervene will not be effective unless it protects officers who comply with the duty from retaliation.^[12] The Model Policy suggests specifying that officers are immune from retaliation, reassignment, or any other disciplinary action as a result of preventing, stopping, or reporting the misconduct or attempted misconduct of another officer. To reinforce the requirement that the duty to intervene applies even where the intervening officer is outranked by the offending officer, the anti-retaliation clause also should specify that intervening and reporting cannot be a basis for any disciplinary action for insubordination.

Requiring officers to provide and obtain medical aid

When police use force against a person, they increase the likelihood the person will be injured and need medical care. Officers on scene are the first responders following a use of force and, as first responders, they are the best positioned to provide prompt medical aid until emergency medical services (“EMS”) arrive. Because the Model Policy prioritizes the sanctity of life, it imposes a duty for officers to immediately provide medical aid, to the best of their skill and ability, until EMS personnel are on scene.

Despite a growing consensus on requiring officers to provide medical aid following the use of force, many police departments have come under scrutiny for officers’ failure to administer aid in such circumstances, even when officers summoned EMS. In Rochester, New York in 2020, officers restrained Daniel Prude by placing a spit hood on his head and forcibly pushing his face into the asphalt.^[13] While restraining Prude, the officers noticed him vomiting. Rather than provide medical assistance, the officers continued to restrain him for three minutes and ten seconds before EMS arrived to perform chest compressions on an unresponsive Prude. Prude was taken to a hospital, where he was declared brain dead and subsequently died a week later as a result of complications of asphyxia.

There are troubling examples of delayed or withheld medical aid involving departments around the U.S. In Tulsa, Oklahoma in 2016, officers waited over two minutes to begin first aid on Terence Crutcher, whom they had shot, and he later died from his wounds.^[14] In Charlotte, North Carolina in 2019, officers shot Danquirs Franklin and then did not attempt to provide first aid. Four minutes passed before EMS arrived to treat Mr. Franklin, who died of his injuries.^[15]

Medical professionals have found that delaying care, even for minutes, substantially increases the risk of death or severe disability following a traumatic event.^[16] Even though EMS may arrive on the scene within minutes, the delay may have a profound impact on an individual’s prognosis. Nonetheless, police officers have no common law duty to provide medical aid.^[17] Departments must use their administrative policies to establish this duty and, in doing so, should consider several key policy areas.

Defining “medical aid” is critical and departments have adopted different views of the concept. Some department policies simply state that medical aid must be given but do not offer more specific instructions. Many departments consider the duty to render aid fulfilled when officers call for EMS, but do not require officers to give first aid themselves. Other departments require, or explicitly permit, officers to provide aid in addition to calling for EMS. Finally, some departments go one step further and detail instances where EMS must be called regardless of an individual’s apparent injury. These include when certain weapons, such as pepper spray, are used; when the individual at issue falls into certain categories such as pregnant or elderly; or when someone has been struck in the head. Additionally, departments differ on whether they require the immediate provision of aid, with some departments not mentioning a timeframe at all.^[18]

As the cases from Rochester, Tulsa, and Charlotte suggest, waiting to provide aid, or merely calling for EMS, does not suffice to protect human life or ensure public trust in police. For these reasons, the Model Policy requires that officers immediately call for EMS and immediately administer first aid until EMS arrives following the use of force against any person injured, claiming injury, requesting medical attention, exhibiting physical or mental distress, having difficulty breathing, who was struck in the head, who falls into certain high-risk categories, or when officers use certain weapons.

Additionally, the Model Policy, following many policies across the U.S., requires officers to continuously monitor individuals impacted by the use of force until EMS takes over care. Officers may not immediately perceive a person’s injuries, or the injuries may worsen over time, rendering an initial, point-in-time evaluation inadequate to sufficiently care for the person. Even though officers should not place or restrain an individual in a way that restricts their airway in the first place, officers should continue to check that restrained individuals are able to freely breathe.

The Model Policy prioritizes the preservation of human life, however it will only be successful if officers are equipped to provide life-saving care. Because improper medical care can do more harm than good, police departments must provide officers with proper and ongoing training. But full emergency medical technician training is not required. The skills needed to provide life-saving care while awaiting EMS are not overly complicated to learn or execute.^[19] More police departments around the country now offer the appropriate training and require their officers to complete it.^[20]

Departments should also provide their officers with the necessary tools to administer first aid. This too is becoming more commonplace, with many departments outfitting every police vehicle—and in some departments every officer—with a trauma kit.^[21]

Reporting misconduct and documenting medical aid

It is crucial for officers to promptly report misconduct. The Model Policy creates such a duty and specifies precisely when the intervening officer must report the misconduct, rather than utilizing an open-ended variation of “as soon as practicable” or “with reasonable promptness.”^[22] The reporting requirement should list any mandatory details that must be included in a report, such as the who, what, when, where, and how regarding the misconduct, information about other officers who were present when the misconduct occurred, and any actions other officers took or failed to take in response to the misconduct. Furthermore, the reporting requirement should impose an affirmative duty on supervising officers to both investigate reports of misconduct and pursue disciplinary action against officers found to have committed misconduct.

The Model Policy also requires officers to document any medical aid provided following the use of force, including describing injuries sustained, how those injuries were caused, and the nature of the aid administered—or the individual’s refusal of aid.^[23] This documentation protects police officers and departments, especially in instances where an individual refuses medical care, as is their right. Additionally, a requirement to document reinforces for officers that medical aid is an essential and required part of their job.^[24]

Duty to safely transport

Recognizing the value of human life, the Model Policy includes a duty for officers to safely transport all persons within their care. It outlines the risks associated with certain positions and restraints, particularly the dangers of positional asphyxia, which can result from commonly used techniques such as "hog tie" restraints and "hobble" restraints. To mitigate these risks, the policy expressly prohibits the use of specific restraints and positions, with handcuffs identified as the preferred restraint device for transportation. Officers are mandated to avoid any position that risks positional asphyxia and to ensure that individuals are safely secured in an upright position within the vehicle. Furthermore, additional factors like the person’s mental condition, the potential presence of stimulants, and other physical aspects are considered as contributing elements that officers must be trained to recognize and handle with caution.

The policy also emphasizes the need for extensive training and authorization processes for officers, especially concerning positional asphyxia and the use of specific restraints or techniques. This includes a mandate for certification, compliance with updated training programs, and a requirement that only trained officers are authorized to use particular restraint methods. Moreover, the policy prescribes specific provisions on the use of "hobble" and other leg restraints, emphasizing that their use must be both necessary and proportionate to either the risks to the officer or the need to protect the person from their own actions. Detailed guidance on evaluating mental conditions and potential risk factors, along with policies addressing documentation and reporting measures—like video and audio recordings during transportation—further underscore the comprehensive nature of the Model Policy’s approach.