NCJ Number
141703
Journal
Police Chief Volume: 60 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1993) Pages: 28,31,34,35
Date Published
1993
Length
4 pages
Annotation
The liability associated with restraints, including metallic and non-metallic handcuffs, thumbcuffs, body wraps, waist chains, gang chains, hobbles, seat belts, transport belts, leg braces, single-use disposable restraints, restraint bags, and handcuff blocks can range from civil and criminal liability to administrative consequences, workers' compensation claims, and negative publicity.
Abstract
Officers generally restrain people to gain control and to protect themselves, the restrained person, or third parties. The basic risks associated with using restraints include injury, property damage, and civil or criminal liability. Of course, negative consequences can also arise from a failure to use restraints. Restraints that cause severe injuries in the form of nerve damage can be classified as an officer use of deadly force. If this use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable, the officer has violated the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights. Any use of force by a police officer must meet Federal case and statutory law. While most States follow Federal precedent, there are some exceptions with which officers must be familiar. One important collateral issue examined here is the restraint of confused or mentally disturbed individuals. To reduce or eliminate risks associated with the use of restraints, departments should allow the use of only NIJ-approved handcuffs, prohibit the use of thumbcuffs, discourage hog-tying techniques, direct officers to check restraint tightness and to double-lock metallic restraints, and require restraint decontamination after use. 18 notes