Application of Force Statistics

POLICE TRANSPARENCY:
2024 APPLICATION OF FORCE REPORT

This analysis will look at how and where force has been utilized as it relates to interactions with subjects by different Police Division units across the County. In this analysis the response to resistance, or use of force, was attributed to the unit that initiated the interaction or had the primary interaction that resulted in the application of force to better identify any trends within a particular unit.

Additional Data & Resources

Part I Crime
Traffic Data
Demographics Data
Response to Resistance Policy
Vehicular Pursuit Report
Crime Alerts
Public Data
Personnel Demographics

Policy

Per Henrico Police policy, officers are directed to use only the force necessary to achieve the lawful objectives of the Division. An officer’s response to resistance should be objectively reasonable and he or she should consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of each incident, to include the severity of the crime, whether the suspect is posing an immediate threat or danger to himself or others, and whether the suspect is resisting arrest or attempting to evade.

Henrico Police develops and implements policies to govern the use of less-lethal weapons and ballistic shields use of force, the use of lethal force, and response to resistance, or, application of force. Every year Henrico Police conducts an analysis of use of force incidents, policies and reporting procedures.

Reporting Procedures

The review and analysis of all response to resistance/use of force reports falls under the purview of the Professional Standards Section. Documentation associated with each response to resistance instance are collected and forwarded to the Commander, Quality Assurance for review. The Commander, Quality Assurance reviews submitted reports, memorandums, photographs and body worn video footage for entry into its data tracking system. If the submitted incident complies with the Division’s policies and procedures, the packet is forwarded to the Commanding Officer, Professional Standards for review. If compliance with policy and procedures is questioned, the incident is forwarded to the Commander, Internal Affairs, after being entered into its data tracking system. Once the matter is examined by the Commander, Internal Affairs, it is forwarded to the Commanding Officer, Professional Standards for review. The Commanding Officer, Professional Standards forwards all completed packets to the affected member’s Deputy Chief for review. Once the Deputy Chief completes a review of the incident, it is sent back to the Commanding Officer, Professional Standards for retention as set forth by the Library of Virginia.

2024 Statistics

There were ten (10) fewer responses to resistance during 2024 than the previous year, a 14.9% decrease, correlated to 10,180 fewer service calls and markouts. The prior three-year average is 98 responses to resistance. There was a 41.8% reduction in responses from this average during 2024.

The Henrico County Police Division experienced a repeated decrease in the number of response to resistance incidents in 2024 from the prior two years.

[Download: 2024 Application of Force Data]

Incident Occurrence

The 59 subjects involved in the response to resistance incidents varied in age from 10 to 67 years old, with an average age of 32.2 years old. Officers reported that male subjects were primarily involved in response to resistance instances, accounting for 79.66%, compared to 18.64% of female subjects requiring similar responses. One individual avoided apprehension and has not been subsequently identified. Subjects who identified as Black were involved in 64.41% of the response to resistance incidents, those who identified as white represented 30.51% of the involved subjects, subjects who identified as Hispanic consisted of 1.69% of the reported incidents, and subjects who identified as Asian consisted of 1.69% of the incidents.

Location and Police Sections

Patrol Bureau, West Station accounted for 32.43% of response to resistance incidents, with Patrol Bureau, Central Station reporting 14.86% of incidents, and Patrol Bureau, South Station responding to 27.03% of the incidents. The response to resistance incidents by members of the School Services Unit was 9.46% of encounters. The Special Operations Group, consisting of the Emergency Services Unit (Emergency Response Team, Canine Unit, EOD, and Civil Disturbance Team) and the Traffic Enforcement Unit, accounted for 12.16% of response incidents. Tactical munitions were deployed by seven officers during six incidents. Community Policing Unit members were involved in 2.70% of encounters and Organized Crime Section members were involved in 1.35%.   For comparison, West Station officers responded to 47.86% (60,037) of the calls for service received for the Police Division, Central Station 25.16% (31,566) of the calls for service, and the remaining 26.98% (33,840) of the calls for service were assigned to the South Station.

Subject Demographics

The 59 subjects involved in the response to resistance incidents varied in age from 10 to 67 years old, with an average age of 32.2 years old. Officers reported that male subjects were primarily involved in response to resistance instances, accounting for 79.66%, compared to 18.64% of female subjects requiring similar responses. One individual avoided apprehension and has not been subsequently identified. Subjects who identified as Black were involved in 64.41% of the response to resistance incidents, those who identified as white represented 30.51% of the involved subjects, subjects who identified as Hispanic consisted of 1.69% of the reported incidents, and subjects who identified as Asian consisted of 1.69% of the incidents.

Force Used & Injuries

Officers applied force as a response to resistance seventy-four (74) times during 2024. Officers utilized reactionary force in the following percentages for response to resistance incidents: Physical Force 63.51%; CEW (Taser) 14.86%; OC Fogger 0.00%; Vehicular Precision Immobilization Technique (PIT) 4.05%; OC Spray 8.11%; Canine 0.00%; Baton 0.00%; and Tactical Devices 9.46%. There were no vehicle containment actions. There were no utilizations of a firearm to neutralize armed encounters.   Response to resistance applications in 2024 resulted in documented injuries to involved subjects at a rate of 54.24%. One individual evaded apprehension, so no injury data is available. Officers reported being injured at a rate of 24.32% during force applications. Injuries are defined for reporting purposes as pain/soreness, bruising/swelling, abrasions/lacerations, exposure to chemical agents or CEW barbs, fractures, stabbing/gunshot/puncture wounds, or other injuries not experienced prior to the encounter. Police Division policy strictly dictates appropriate medical intervention for injured persons, including for perceived minor injuries. Medical clearance may be granted at the injury scene or from a medical facility.

Reasons for Resistance & Application of Force

Reasons individuals involved in these incidents provided for their resistance to the officers included being wanted (32.76%), intoxicated / drugs (25.86%), involved in a mental health crisis (15.52%), and being scared (3.45%). Individuals provided no reason for resisting in 17.24% of the incidents and various other reasons were provided in 5.17% of incidents. The primary reason officers reported for the application of force during 2024 was the subject involved providing active resistance, 52.56%. Subjects exhibiting assaultive behavior were the second most reported at 26.92%. Officers being confronted with serious bodily-injury or a life-threatening assault occurred in 2.56% of encounters. Passive resistance was experienced in 11.54% of encounters. Other types of incidents requiring a response, such as multiple individuals fighting or a need for tactical deployments, were presented in 6.41% of encounters.