Explaining Suspect Resistance in Police-Citizen Encounters

Criminal Justice Review
http://cjr.sagepub.com
Explaining Suspect Resistance in Police-Citizen Encounters

Kimberly Belvedere, John L. Worrall and Stephen G. Tibbetts
Criminal Justice Review 2005; 30; 30
DOI: 10.1177/0734016805275675
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/1/30
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Georgia State University, College of Health and Human Sciences
Additional services and information for Criminal Justice Review can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cjr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/30/1/30
Downloaded from http://cjr.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009
Criminal Justice
10.1177/0734016805275675
Belvedere
et al. /Review
Explaining Suspect Resistance
Explaining Suspect Resistance

in Police-Citizen Encounters

Volume 30 Number 1
May 2005 30-44
2005 Georgia State University
Research Foundation, Inc.
10.1177/0734016805275675
http://cjr.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Kimberly Belvedere
Southwestern University School of Law
John L. Worrall
Stephen G. Tibbetts
California State University, San Bernardino
The authors analyzed police records to explore why suspects resist arrest. The analysis was
based on a sample of 400 police reports from a mid-size urban police department in Southern
California. Two hundred cases involved suspects who were charged with resisting arrest. The
remaining 200 cases involved arrested suspects who did not resist. The authors used logistic
regression to explore the association between several demographic factors and a binary outcome
measuring suspect resistance. They found that suspects arrested in police beats characterized by
a disproportionate number of calls for service were more likely to resist. They further found that
Black suspects were more likely to resist relative to their White and Hispanic counterparts. The
authors also explored interaction effects.
Keywords: police; arrest; police-citizen encounters; resist; resisting arrest
t is commonly accepted that police officers have a dangerous occupation. In fact, no other
occupation in the country has a higher death rate by homicide (Lester, 1982). In addition,
approximately 60,000 officers are assaulted each year (National Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial Fund, 2001). Although recent trends in the Federal Bureau of Investigations Uniform Crime Reports indicate that fewer police officers are being assaulted or killed today
than in the past, public concern over such incidents still exists (Meyer, Magedanz, Dahlin, &
Chapman, 1981).
Criminal justice researchers have also been drawn to the issue of police injuries and
assaults. Among other pursuits, they have attempted to identify variables linked to both lethal
and nonlethal assaults on police (Brandl, 1996; Fridell & Pate, 2001; Greenan, 1987;
Hirschel, Dean, & Lumb, 1994; Lester, 1982, 1984; Meyer et al., 1981; Meyer, Magedanz,
Dahlin, Chapman, & Swanson, 1982; Uchida, Brooks, & Kopers, 1987). They have also
focused on officers use of force and the effect it can have on suspect compliance. These lines
of research have served an important policy function by informing law enforcement training
programs.
More recently, researchers have turned their attention to suspect resistance and the extent
to which it can lead to injuries (and even killings) of police officers (e.g., Engel, 2003;
Kavanagh, 1997). But only a handful of researchers have tried to predict suspect resistance in
30
Belvedere et al. / Explaining Suspect Resistance
31
an effort to minimize injuries to police officers. Accordingly, we examined a random sample

of police records from a medium-size police department in Southern California. Our intent
was to determine (a) which suspect characteristics were associated with resistance and (b)
whether officer or suspect race (or interactions of both variables) aided in explaining
resistance.
Literature Review
We begin this section by reviewing the limited number of published studies dealing with
predictors of suspect resistance. During the review, we pay special attention to the variables
that researchers have linked to suspect resistance and the reasons they have offered for doing
so. Next, we discuss potential theoretical underpinnings associated with this line of research.
We argue that recent theoretical developments provide a logical framework for examining
resistance in encounters between police officers and suspects.
Previous Studies
To date, it appears that only two studies directly concerned with predictors of suspect
resistance have been published (Engel, 2003; Kavanagh, 1997). As indicated, several
researchers have studied predictors of police assaults (see Garner, Maxwell, and Heraux,
2002, for a recent example), but there have been few answers to the question, Why do suspects resist? Even so, three types of variables most likely to be associated with suspect resistance have been identified: (a) police variables, (b) suspect variables, and (c) situational variables. We look at each of these in the following subsections.
Some of the variables identified were included in our analysis, but others were not, due to
data limitations. We felt it was important to present as thorough a review as possible, even if
we were unable to obtain data on every conceivable variable linked to suspect resistance.
Also, given that only two studies with similar goals to our own have been published, there is
not a wealth of precedent justifying the inclusion of the variables we are about to identify.
Kavanagh (1997) and Engel (2003) have been forced to turn to the police violence and police
assault literature for evidence that police, suspect, and situational characteristics can affect
resistance.
Police officer variables. Researchers have previously linked a number of police officer
characteristics to use of force. These include officer race, age, education, and size (Cascio,
1977; Cohen & Chaiken, 1972; Croft, 1985; Croft & Austin, 1987; Westley, 1970). Drawing
on this knowledge, Kavanagh (1997) included all four variables and found that none were
significantly related to resisting arrest. Similarly, Engel (2003) recently found that police
officer demographic characteristics had virtually no bearing on suspect resistance. But just
because police officer characteristics were not significantly linked to resistance in past studies does not mean they should be ignored; the police violence literature informs us that they
should be included when examining the dynamics of police-citizen encounters.
Police attitudes have also been studied. Researchers have mostly been concerned with the
extent to which suspect behavior influences police attitudes, especially displays of disrespect
by the police (e.g., Mastrofski, Reisig, & McCluskey, 2002). But Kavanagh (1997) nevertheless included several measures of police attitudes as possibly being linked to suspect resis-
32
tance. He surveyed officers and measured their attitudes with respect to their feelings on the
role of force, whether they tolerated revenge, whether they were cynical, and so on. One
would think a bad attitude on the part of the officer could influence resistance, but that is not
what Kavanagh found. Not one of his officer attitude variables was linked to resistance.
Suspect variables. The characteristics of the suspect, by contrast, are very often associated
with the likelihood of assaults on police officers. For example, Kaminski and Sorensen
(1995) found that officers who come in contact with non-White suspects are assaulted at a
higher rate. Research also shows that most assaults on police officers occur by suspects with a
prior criminal history (Fridell & Pate, 2001; Pinizzotto & Davis, 1995). In addition, citizen
demeanor has been used to explain assaults against and killings of police officers (e.g.,
Klinger, 1994). Worden and Shepard (1996) discovered that a hostile citizen demeanor was
correlated with police behavior.
Building on such findings, Kavanagh (1997) included several suspect characteristic variables in his model of resistance. He found that arrestee disrespect was the most powerful of
all the variables that were found to be related to resisting arrest (p. 25). He also explored the
effect of suspect age, height, and race on resistance. He found that such characteristics were
not related to resistance, but Engel (2003) found that non-White suspects were prone to resistance when confronted by White officers. Walker (1999) has explained this by arguing, To
the extent that officers stereotype young African-American males as potential suspects, they
may provoke higher rates of antagonistic behavior that, in turn, results in higher rates of
arrest (pp. 226-227). In a classic study, Piliavin and Briar (1964) put it this way:
The tendency for police to give more severe dispositions to Negroes and to youths whose appearance corresponded to that which police associated with delinquents partly reflected the fact,
observed in this study, that these youths also were much more likely than were other types of boys
to exhibit the sort of recalcitrant demeanor which police construed as a sign of the confirmed
delinquent. (p. 212, italics added)
Another suspect variable of interest to researchers has been offense seriousness. For example, Kavanagh (1997) found that persons arrested for serious crimes (felonies) were more
likely to resist arrest than those arrested for misdemeanors and violations (p. 27). As common sense would have it, he went on to argue that police officers should use special care when
dealing with persons who are suspected of involvement in serious crime. In a similar vein,
Engel (2003) argued not so much that serious criminals are more prone to resistance but that
intoxicated persons and suspects who were fighting with others prior to police arrival on the
scene may be prone to resistance (see also Fagan, 1990; Muir, 1977).
Yet another suspect characteristic potentially linked to resistance is age of the suspect.
Much research shows that juveniles tend to have more negative attitudes toward the police
and, therefore, may be more prone to resistance (e.g., Hurst & Frank, 2000; Jesilow, Meyer,
& Namazzi, 1995). Muir (1977) went so far as to argue that most juveniles are irrational;
that is, they simply foresaw their actions having consequences different from those which
adults anticipated (p. 127).
Situational variables. Situational characteristics may also bear significantly on suspect
resistance. Such characteristics include the time of day and the reason for initiation of contact
33
with the suspect (i.e., whether the suspect requested assistance or the officer initiated the contact). As an example of the latter, Fridell and Pate (2001) found that more than one third of
officers killed between 1983 and 1992 were actually dispatched to the event that turned fatal.
This prompted both Kavanagh (1997) and Engel (2003) to explore whether officers who initiated contacts with citizens were more likely to experience resistance. Inclusion of such a
variable owes to Tylers (1990) findings that citizens were more concerned with procedural
justice and being treated fairly when they were contacted by the police (as opposed to
contacting the police themselves).
Most assaults on police officers were also found to occur between early evening and midnight (Brandl, 1996; Geller, 1982; Kavanagh, 1997; Meyer et al., 1981; Meyer et al., 1982).
And although there has not been much research on geographical characteristics, some studies
have shown that assaults against police officers are more likely to occur in the southern states
(Fridell & Pate, 2001; Lester, 1982, 1984).
Another geographic characteristic that is certainly influential is the crime rate of a particular police beat. Because more crime occurs in such areas, there is bound to be more contact
between police and citizens. The result could be more opportunities for suspects to resist (for
a discussion of the potential consequences of increased contacts between police and citizens,
see Worrall and Marenin, 1998).
Likewise, whether suspects are residents of the area or outsiders could influence resistance. On one hand, outsiders may have little connection to the area and, as such, may be
more prone to resistance. On the other hand, residents may have more familiarity with police
officers in the area and possibly more negative contacts, which could lead them to resist arrest
due to feelings of unfair treatment (e.g., Walker, 1999). Neither suspect residence nor location of arrest were included in Engels (2003) and Kavanaghs (1997) models. We feel,
though, that they merit some attention, so they were included in our models.
Theory
There have been several theoretical frameworks presented to account for the association
between suspects characteristics and the tendency to resist police officers. One traditional
model was presented by Black (1976), who proposed a theory of law that hypothesized that
increased levels of social stratification would result in more use of legal force. This hypothesis has been applied to explain citizen behavior toward officers (Engel, 2003); specifically, it
is believed that greater levels of stratification between police and citizens may lead to more
resistance of authority.
Another theoretical model that has been advanced to explain police-suspect conflict is one
put forth by Sykes and Clark (1975), who proposed the idea that expectations and normative
rules in citizen-police interactions are not symmetrical because the statuses of the parties
involved in the exchange are not equal. Much of their argument was based on differences in
the ethnic nature between the officers and the suspects, which they proposed would inevitably cause a disparate relationship. Therefore, this model implies that the two parties may
readily interpret one as impeding on the other as an overt act of superiority or rebellion.
Tedeschi and Felson (1994) have proposed yet another explanatory model to explain
coerced actions. Using an elaborated version of politeness theory (see Brown & Levinson,
1987), Tedeschi and Felson claim that violation of the normative structure in politeness is
likely to evoke a counterresponse to protect social identities and perceived autonomy. Thus,
34
an order from an officer is often interpreted as a direct challenge or threat due to perceptions
that it is impolite and disrespectful, and such interpretations are more likely to occur among
citizens who do not recognize the authority of the police. In turn, the officers often will perceive impolite responses to their orders as a challenge to their authority, particularly if the
interaction takes place in front of others (Engel, 2003).
Defiance theory offers one of the more plausible explanations for suspect resistance in
police-citizen encounters. The theory was developed by Lawrence Sherman in the early
1990s (Sherman, 1993) and was formulated primarily to explain the differential effects of
formal sanctions, namely why some individuals will be deterred and others will recidivate
more seriously due to sanctions. For example, studies show that most suspects who are
arrested once never get arrested again. On the other hand, some studies show that certain individuals, such as unemployed males, are more likely to recidivate if they are arrested as
opposed to less serious intervention (e.g., Sherman, 1992). Sherman attempted to explain
this discrepancy through the formulation of a new and insightful theory of recidivism, which
emphasized suspects defiance toward the system or society. The primary idea behind this
theory is that certain individuals are predisposed toward reoffending due to their status and
location in society and that they lash out at society when they are put in a situation in which
they are challenged. Ultimately, defiance theory suggests that many suspects violate the law
to overcome either personal perceptions of persecution and feelings of injustice or the feelings of stigmatizing shame that result from such sanctions.
Defiance theory is an integrated theory in the sense that it merges several theories together
to create a better explanation of why individuals offend (or reoffend). Shermans theory specifically suggests that characteristics of individuals, the types of offenses they commit, and
social factors all determine whether legal sanctions deter, escalate, or reduce suspects future
criminality (Marciniak, 1994). Suspects who perceive their treatment by criminal justice professionals as unfair or feel that the legal system is discriminatory tend to attach less credibility to the actions (i.e., sanctions) of that system. Thus, instead of feeling remorse or shame,
such individuals are more likely to feel a sense of defiant pride that may increase future
offending.
Although different forms of defiance theory have emerged in the past 10 years, one of the
primary components in all versions of defiance theory is Tylers (1990) concept of procedural
(in)justice, which is described in detail in his book, Why People Obey the Law. In his book,
Tyler describes the dynamics of how sanctions are imposed. Specifically, sanctions imposed
by criminal justice authorities in a fair and respectful manner that honor the value of subjects
are likely to lead to compliance of rules, whereas those that are imposed in an unfair or disrespectful manner are likely to lead to increase offending.
The merging of three theoretical frameworks can be seen in the conditions that are necessary for defiance to occur (Sherman, 1993; see also Piquero & Bouffard, 2003). The suspect
in question must (a) perceive a sanction as unfair, (b) be poorly bonded to society, (c) interpret the sanction as stigmatizing or internalize the label, and (d) deny the shame that the sanction produces. The first component is clearly influenced by Tylers work, the second and third
propositions are primarily based on Braithwaites reintegrative theory (Braithwaite, 1989),
and the last component is from Scheff and Retzingers (1991) theory of unacknowledged
shame.
Finally, deterrence theory plays a key role in defiance theory in the sense that sanctions are
a necessary part of the criteria for defiance to occur. Although not considered one of the pri-
35
mary frameworks in the original formulation of the theory, deterrence implications are evident in virtually every component of defiance theory. Studies (for a review, see Piquero &
Tibbetts, 2002) have consistently shown that high perceptions of being caught and punished
are consistently related to lower levels of offending. The most relevant findings for purposes
of this study are that certain individuals tend to be more deterred than others, largely due to
their investment in conventional society (i.e., stake in conformity). Studies have also found
that minorities are less likely to be affected by sanctions, likely due to their higher probability
of being poor or due to their higher likelihood of being relatively isolated from mainstream
society. It is this last conclusion that provides a point of departure for this study.
How This Study Improves on Previous Research

This study improves on previous research in five ways. First, it uses an objective measure
of suspect resistance (described below), in contrast to previous studies (e.g., Engel, 2003;
Kavanagh, 1997). Second, we randomly sampled cases for analysis. Randomness is missing
in previous research. Third, we give more attention to the relationship between officer/suspect race and resistance than has been given in the past. We also consider the residence of the
suspect, hypothesizing that those who live outside the community would be less likely to
resist. Finally, in a departure from previous research, we consider the dangerousness of particular locations and its possible relationship to suspect resistance.
Method
Previous research on factors linked to suspect resistance has relied on either survey methods (Kavanagh, 1997) or observational data (Engel, 2003; Piquero & Bouffard, 2003). Survey data are problematic for obvious reasons; asking officers to supply details about altercations with citizens may lead to some validity problems. In addition, the two observational
studies (Engel, 2003; Kavanagh, 1997) on this topic used data from the 1970s, calling into
question the relevance of those findings for policing in the 21st century. It is important that
data from the 1970s require that researchers ignore the effects of various Supreme Court
decisions and police department policy changes that have been enacted in recent decades.
The effects of decisions such as Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989),
which have had important implications for police-citizen encounters, have been ignored in
previous research.
Although we make no effort to assess the importance of Supreme Court decisions and policy changes on police-citizen encounters, we do analyze recent data. In addition, we employ
an objective measure of suspect resistance and randomly sampled cases for analysis. These
improvements alone should add to the scientific knowledge base on suspect resistance in
police-citizen encounters.
Data and Measurement

We randomly sampled 400 police reports from a midsize urban police department in
Southern California. More specifically, we sampled 200 cases where suspects resisted and 200
cases where suspects complied. Our measure of resistance was physical resistance, which
36
was indicated by the presence of a PC 148(a) charge on the official booking form. This is the
California Penal Codes resisting arrest offense. It is important to note that although this
charge may be applied to other subtle forms of resisting arrest (e.g., passive resisters), the
department whose data we collected had a policy of only charging 148(a) if there was an
actual use of force to try to overcome the officer. Thus, ours is a measure of physical resistance and is arguably more objective than measures employed in previous research (e.g.,
Engel, 2003). The reason is that police officers are better trained in detecting violations of the
law than untrained observers, particularly suspect resistance.
We then gathered various data from the police reports. Specifically, we gathered data on
whether the contact was suspect- or officer-initiated. Next, we ascertained the age of the suspect. Then, we noted the suspects and the officers race (i.e., Black, White, or Hispanic). We
also took note of the suspects residence (i.e., whether the suspect resided in the city or outside the city). Finally, we gathered data on the type of charges filed against the suspect (in
conjunction with resisting arrest for those in the resistance sample) and the beat in which the
police-citizen encounter took place. Altogether, we gathered data on seven predictor variables. Although the list is by no means exhaustive, each variable has precedent in the literature. In addition, we calculated some interactions to give special attention to the role of police
and suspect race in resistance.
Variables and Coding

Our dependent variable was dichotomous for suspect resisted/suspect did not resist. We
created a variable called Incident in a similar fashion, with 1 for an officer-initiated contact
and 0 for a suspect-initiated contact. An incident was officer-initiated if the officer was called
to the scene by a dispatcher; otherwise, the contact was considered suspect-initiated. Age
was coded as continuous. We then created six race dummy variables: three for suspect race
and three for officer race. White was coded as 1, and 0 otherwise. A similar coding scheme
was used for Black and Hispanic. Although we created six dummy variables, in no single
model did we include more than four of these. Residence was also coded with 1 for a suspect who was a city resident, and 0 otherwise.
The police department is organized into seven beats. The seven beat lines were drawn
using calls for service as the key criterion for deciding the size of each beat; beats with the
most calls for service are small geographically, whereas those with the smallest number of
calls for service are larger. According to officials in the department, two of the beats are
markedly more dangerous than the others, given the disproportionate number of calls for service they produce. Accordingly, we created a Beat variable that was coded with 1 for the
two dangerous beats, and 0 otherwise. Thus, we relied on the departments assessment of
which areas are most likely to put police officers at risk. We did not have access to data that
would have provided us with a more objective measure of beat dangerousness.
We placed charges into four categories: (a) drugs, (b) crimes against persons, (c) property
crime, and (d) other. However, for purposes of the analysis, we collapsed these categories
into a single Charges variable. Crimes against persons were coded with 1; all others were
coded as 0. This approach is consistent with previous research (e.g., Engel, 2003) and is justified by the assumption that suspects in crimes against persons are more likely to resist than
property offenders.
37
We also created nine race interaction variables: (a) White officer/White suspect; (b) White
officer/Black suspect; (c) White officer/Hispanic suspect; (d) Black officer/White suspect;
(e) Black officer/Black suspect; (f) Black officer/Hispanic suspect; (g) Hispanic officer/
White suspect; (h) Hispanic officer/Black suspect; and (i) Hispanic officer/Hispanic suspect.
We were interested in these interactions for two reasons. First, previous research has only
begun to model interactions between officer/suspect race and their effects on resistance. Second, in virtually all theoretical models of police-citizen encounters (see above), race is a particularly important variable (e.g., Engel, 2003; Piquero & Bouffard, 2003).
Multicollinearity Checks
We checked for multicollinearity between variables with a correlation matrix. Only one
pair of variables included in our models exceeded a correlation of .7, and it appeared in the
interaction models. The interaction term White Ofc./Black Sus. was collinear with the Suspect Race variable (which was, of course, Black in that particular model). The collinearity
could explain the significance Suspect Race achieved in Table 3. This potential problem
aside, we feel comfortable in stating that multicollinearity was not a problem in our analyses.
Estimation Technique
We estimated several logistic regression models (e.g., Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000). This
estimation technique was necessary given the binary nature of our dependent variable. Logistic regression accommodates a combination of categorical and continuous independent variables, as was the case in our analysis. Such a model allowed us to explore how each explanatory variable affected the probability of resistance occurring. Logistic regression is a
nonlinear modeling technique and, as such, is not interpreted in the same way as ordinary
least squares (OLS) regression. OLS coefficients are interpreted as either increasing or
decreasing the dependent variable for every one-unit change in the independent variable of
interestholding all others constant. Because logistic regression is nonlinear, the magnitude
of the change in the outcome probability that is associated with a given change in one of the
independent variables depends on the levels of all of the independent variables.
Results
We present summary statistics in Table 1. As can be seen, all of the variables are roughly
even across categories, with few small cell counts. For instance, the dataset contained a fairly
even mix of residents and nonresidents. Officer and suspect race were also fairly varied
across each category. Note that the officer race category contains only 396 observations. The
reason for this is that the department employs four officers who cannot be classified as White,
Black, or Hispanic. Given the small number, we excluded such officers from the analysis. All
other data were complete.
Table 1 shows that most incidents in our sample were suspect-initiated. In addition, the
mean suspect age was 28.3. Most officers were White, and most suspects were Hispanic. The
mix of city versus noncity residence was almost even. The bulk of the interactions took place
in beats characterized as not dangerous. Finally, relatively few charges filed in police reports
38
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics (N = 400)
Variable
Dependent
Resist
Independent
Incident
Suspect age
Officer race
Suspect race
Residence
Beat
Charges
Category
Coding
Distribution
resistance
no resistance
1
0
200
200
officer-initiated
suspect-initiated
1
0
continuous
1 (0 for Black, Hispanic)
1 (0 for White, Hispanic)
1 (0 for White, Black)
1 (0 for Black, Hispanic)
1 (0 for White, Hispanic)
1 (0 for White, Black)
0
1
1
0
1
0
169
231
Mean = 28.3
264
25
107
118
89
193
211
189
145
255
81
319
White
Black
Hispanic
White
Black Hispanic
Hispanic
city resident
noncity resident
dangerous
not dangerous
crime against person
other crime
Note: No more than four race dummies were included in any single model (for example, see Table 2). Tabulations
for officer race do not add to 400 because 4 officers of other races were excluded from the analysis.
were for crimes against persons; other crimes dominated the sample, which probably helps
explain some findings in the independent effects models reported below.
Independent Effects Models

The results of our first regression analysis are reported in Table 2. It is surprising that very
few of the variables significantly predict resistance. At least one previous study shows, for
instance, that police officer-initiated contacts are more likely to result in suspect resistance
(Kavanagh, 1997). We found no such effect. Suspect age and residence also failed to predict
resistance. It is interesting that the Beat variable was a significant predictor of resistance.
This suggests that resistance is more likely in areas plagued by excessive crime and delinquency, areas that pose significant problems for police departments. Table 2 also shows that
the Black suspects are more likely, relative to White and Hispanic suspects, to resist. This was
not the case for Hispanic suspects, and officer race had no effect on resistance. It is important
that these variables were not interacted in the Table 2 model and should be interpreted as
exerting independent effects on suspect resistance.
The bottom portion of Table 2 reveals that the likelihood ratio statistic for the model is
2
significant (p > = .00001). Also, the goodness-of-fit statistic indicates that the model fits
the data well. That is, the model explains resistance better than no model at all. In short,
although many of the variables in Table 2 are not significantly linked to resistance, the model
itself is adequate in terms of fit. We should note that Table 2 reports both coefficient values
39
Table 2
Independent Effects Models
Independent Variable
Incident
Suspect age
Black officer
Hispanic officer
Black suspect
Hispanic suspect
Residence
Beat
Charges
Constant
Log likelihood
2 ln L 2
2
Prob >
2
Goodness-of-fit
2
Prob >
Logit
Odds
.3165
(.2284)
.0014
(.0115)
.0017
(.4373)
.2659
(.2417)
1.383***
(.3093)
.4748
(.2517)
.3737
(.2159)
.7000**
(.2221)
.0530
(.2783)
.7287
(.1664)
1.001
(.0115)
1.002
(.4380)
1.305
(.3153)
3.987***
(1.233)
1.608
(.4047)
.6882
(.1486)
2.014**
(.4472)
.9484
(.2639)
.5776
259.73
35.06
.0001
353.35
.2352
Note: Logit = logistic regression coefficient; Odds = odds ratio. Standard errors are in parentheses.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
and log odds. The latter are interpreted as increasing or decreasing the odds of witnessing
resistance by the specified amount.
Interaction Models
The interaction models are reported in Table 3. As can be gleaned from the table, Beat was
significant across every model. This reaffirms the results presented in Table 2, namely that
resistance is more likely in areas classified as dangerous by the police department. As for the
interactions, some interesting results emerge. First, as in Table 2, Black suspects were more
likely to resist arrest by White, Black, and Hispanic officers. This finding is consistent with
previous studies (e.g., Engel, 2003; Piquero & Bouffard, 2003).
Another interesting finding from the models reported in Table 3 is that some of the variables from Table 2 achieved significance when interaction terms were included in the model.
Residence, for example, achieved significance in the models where Black suspects were
interacted with White, Black, and Hispanic officers, respectively. Moreover, the sign on the
coefficients is negative, suggesting that outsiders are less likely to resist than city residents.
With respect to the direct effects of suspect race, Table 3 also shows that White suspects are
40
Table 3
Interaction Models
Independent Variable
Logit
Incident
.3675 3068 .3543 .3773 .2848 .3590 .3765 .2961 .3439

(.2262) (.2269) (.2229) (.2251) (.2274) (.2229) (.2263) (.2268) (.2240)
Suspect age
.0027 .0027 .0055 .0035 .0018 .0049 .0022 .0026 .0041
(.0115) (.0113) (.0111) (.0114) (.0112) (.0111) (.0114) (.0113) (.0112)
Residence
.2299 .4308* .3074 .2381 .4429* .3107 .2266 .4302* .3078
(.2081) (.2130) (.2095) (.2077) (.2127) (.2092) (.2078) (.2130) (.2111)
Beat
.6547** .6866** .6254** .6551** .7009** .6338** .6489** .6987**
.6429**
(.2208) (.2212) (.2170) (.2187) (.2206) (.2157) (.2202) (.2208) (.2174)
Charges
.1269 .0265 .1012 .1191 .0067 .1012 .1352 .0186 .0705
(.2741) (.2772) (.2716) (.2735) (.2773) (.2709) (.2738) (.2770) (.2728)
Officer race
.0999 .2222 .2808 .3675 .0927 .0583 .1941 .1440 .0786
(.2653) (.2422) (.3037) (.4881) (.4637) (.6580) (.2872) (.2569) (.2480)
Suspect race
.5090 1.381* .2383 .8067**1.111** .0907 .7748** .9610** .0148
(.3785) (.5527) (.3573) (.2422) (.2740) (.2184) (.2807) (.2920) (.2166)
White ofc./White sus.
.4082
(.4815)
White ofc./Black sus.
.3688
(.6256)
White ofc./Hispanic sus.
.1893
(.4338)
Black ofc./White sus.
.9542
(.9829)
Black ofc./Black sus.
.7775
(1.142)
Black ofc./Hispanic sus.
.2204
(.8572)
Hispanic ofc./White sus.
.0452
(.5109)
Hispanic ofc./Black sus.
.7719
(.7364)
Hispanic ofc./Hispanic sus.
1.703*
(.6899)
Log likelihood
264.60 261.12 270.11 264.97 261.86 270.54 265.09 260.94 266.58
2 ln L 2
25.33 32.28 14.29 24.58 30.80 13.44 24.34 32.64 21.35
Prob > 2
.0014 .0001 .0745 .0018 .0002 .0976 .0020 .0001 .0063
Goodness-of-fit 2
327.36 329.32 343.42 290.89 289.76 305.58 317.16 318.86 334.46
Prob > 2
.2385 .2156 .1662 .2713 .2071 .2157 .2374 .2056 .1625
Note: Logit coefficients reported with standard errors in parentheses. Officer race and suspect race refer to the
appropriate model (e.g., for the White officer/White suspect interaction, both officer and suspect race were coded
as Whiteother races coded as 0).
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
less likely to resist arrest by Black and Hispanic police officers. Both findings stand in contrast to previous research (e.g., Engel, 2003).
As for the interaction variables themselves, all but the last were nonsignificant. Somewhat
perplexing is the inclination among Hispanic suspects to resist arrest from Hispanic officers
but no other type of officer. This is an interesting outcome that we did not expect to find.
Taken together, the findings presented in Table 3 add some depth to the literature on why suspects resist arrest. They did not necessarily confirm previous research, which suggests a need
for additional study. Fit statistics presented at the bottom of Table 3 show that the models fit
the data reasonably well.
41
Discussion and Conclusion

It is important to study resisting arrest for at least two reasons. First, such research helps
arm police officers with the necessary information going into encounters with citizens. It
helps them understanding suspect characteristics, locations, and situations when resistance is
likely. Second, such research has implications for police administration. It is within the interest of police administrators to preserve their subordinates safety. Research concerning suspect resistance can inform training programs to serve this end.
From an academic standpoint, resisting arrest is an important area of study because of its
implications for theory. Tylers (1990) theory of compliance with the law, Tedeschi and
Felsons (1994) theory of coercive action, and of course, defiance theory bear significantly
on the relationship between suspect characteristics and resisting arrest. And although our
analysis did not formally test one of these theories, our results lend support to each theory in
varying degrees.
For example, one of defiance theorys key elements is a perception of a sanction as being
unfair. Although Sherman (1993) did not operationalize this concept in any sense, it is plausible that race of the officer vis--vis the suspect may be an important factor predicting defiance. Indeed, research suggests that individuals are more likely to perceive encounters with
White police officers as unfair, independent of the citizens race (Levin & Thomas, 1997).
Although this did not hold for all of our interaction models, it appears, at least, that Black suspects are more resistant. A defiance theory explanation of this phenomenon is that Black suspects feel unfairly treatedespecially by White officersand, as such, are more likely to
resist.
Notwithstanding the race issue, our analysis also revealed some additional findings that
we think are interesting. First, our analysis suggests that offense seriousness does not bear on
resistance. This is contradictory to at least one previous study (Kavanagh, 1997). Suspect age
had no effect on resistance, consistent with previous research. Also consistent with previous
research (e.g., Piquero & Bouffard, 2003) is the finding that suspect residence has no bearing
on resistance. In a departure from previous research, we found that the area of the city is an
important predictor of resistance; resistance was encountered more often in police beats
perceived as dangerous.
We also found that when officer and suspect race were interacted together, some variables
that were not significant in the direct effects models achieved significance. One example is
Residence. Another is Suspect Race; White suspects were less likely to resist arrest from
Black and Hispanic officers. This latter finding may provide evidence of some type of racial
sensitivity effect such that White suspects do not resist out of fear of reprisal from Black or
Hispanic officers. As for the Residence variable, it is somewhat counterintuitive that people
who reside within the city are more likely to resist than outsiders, but familiarity with the
police in a given area could make suspects more comfortable deciding to resist arrest. This is
speculation, however, and we are not aware of any literature or theoretical base for these
findings.
Study Limitations
We sought to improve on existing research on why suspects resist arrest. We did so with
random sampling, an objective measure of resistance, recent data, increased attention to
42
interactions between suspect and officer race, and additional predictors that have been
ignored in previous research. Our research is not intended to cast doubt on or supplant extant
findings, however. Rather, our intent has been to add to the small but growing body of literature concerned with factors linked to suspect resistance in police-citizen encounters.
Yet, although our study improves on previous research for several reasons, it also falls
short on some levels. We were unable to collect data on some specific variables of interest in
previous studies. These include, but are not limited to, whether the officer and suspect were
acquainted, suspect demeanor, and number of bystanders. We were also unable to gather
extensive details on officer characteristics such as education and their attitudes toward people
suspected of violating the law.
Another possible limitation of our study is that it does not clearly comport with the findings in previous studies. Although some may feel this is not a limitation, contradictory and
inconsistent results across several studies make it difficult to inform policy. So, although
research on suspect resistance is important and can have potential policy benefits, there needs
to be more consistency in the literature (which comes from more research) so that police
training and education programs get the correct points across and arm trainees with the information they need to avoid problems during encounters with citizens.
Despite these limitations, one of the most significant predictorsBlack suspect
appeared to predict resistance in our research. This finding, coupled with a random selection
of cases and an objective measure of resistance, contributes further to our understanding of
suspect resistance in police-citizen encounters. Many questions remain unanswered, however. Our analysis, like a few before it, has dwelled on the characteristics of police-citizen
encounters that result in resistance. Further research should focus on the thought processes of
those who defy police authority.
References
Black, D. (1976). The behavior of law. New York: Academic Press.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brandl, S. (1996). In the line of duty: A descriptive analysis of police assaults and accidents. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 24, 255-264.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cascio, W. (1977). Formal education and police officer performance. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 5, 89-96.
Cohen, B., & Chaiken, J. (1972). Police background characteristics and performance: Summary. New York:
Rand.
Croft, E. (1985). Police use of force: An empirical analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 46(8), 2449-A.
Croft, E., & Austin, B. (1987). Police use of force in Syracuse, New York: 1984 and 1985. In N.Y.S. Commission
on Criminal Justice and the Use of Force, Report to the Governor by the N.Y.S. Commission on Criminal Justice and the Use of Force (Vol. 3, pp. Ci-C128). Albany, NY: N.Y.S. Commission on Criminal Justice and the
Use of Force.
Engel, R. S. (2003). Explaining suspectsresistance and disrespect toward police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31,
475-492.
Fagan, J. (1990). Intoxication and aggression. In M. Tonry & J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and crime, crime and justice (Vol. 13, pp. 241-320). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43
Fridell, L., & Pate, A. (2001). Death on patrol: Killings of American law enforcement officers. In R. Dunham & G.
Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (4th ed., pp. 636-663). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Garner, J. H., Maxwell, C. D., & Heraux, C. G. (2002). Characteristics associated with the prevalence and severity
of force used by the police. Justice Quarterly, 19, 705-746.
Geller, W. (1982). Deadly force: What we know. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10, 151-177.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
Greenan, S. (1987). Findings on the role of officer gender in violent encounters with citizens. Journal of Police
Science and Administration, 15, 78-85.
Hirschel, J., Dean, C., & Lumb, R. (1994). The relative contribution of domestic violence to assault and injury of
police officers. Justice Quarterly, 11, 99-117.
Hosmer, D. W., Jr., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Hurst, Y. G., & Frank, J. (2000). How kids view cops: The nature of juvenile attitudes toward the police. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 28, 189-202.
Jesilow, P., Meyer, J., & Namazzi, N. (1995). Public attitudes toward police. American Journal of Police, 14, 6789.
Kaminski, R., & Sorensen, D. (1995). A multivariate analysis of individual, situational and environmental factors
associated with police assault injuries. American Journal of Police, 14, 3-48.
Kavanagh, J. (1997). The occurrence of resisting arrest in arrest encounters: A study of police-citizen violence.
Criminal Justice Review, 22, 16-32.
Klinger, D. (1994). Demeanor or crime? Why hostile citizens are more likely to be arrested. Criminology, 32, 475493.
Lester, D. (1982). Civilians who kill police officers and police officers who kill civilians: A comparison of American cities. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10, 384-387.
Lester, D. (1984). The murder of police officers in American cities. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 11, 101-113.
Levin, J., & Thomas, A. R. (1997). Experimentally manipulating race: Perceptions of police brutality in arrest.
Justice Quarterly, 14, 577-586.
Marciniak, E. M. (1994). Community policing of domestic violence: Neighborhood differences in the effect of
arrest. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland,
College Park.
Mastrofski, S., Reisig, M., & McCluskey, J. (2002). Police disrespect toward the public: An encounter-based analysis. Criminology, 40, 519-551.
Meyer, C., Magedanz, T., Dahlin, D., & Chapman, S. (1981). A comparative assessment of assault incidents: Robbery related, ambush, and general police assaults. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 9, 1-18.
Meyer, C., Magedanz, T., Dahlin, D., Chapman, S., & Swanson, C. (1982). An analysis of factors related to robbery-associated assaults on police officers. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10, 127-150.
Muir, W. K., Jr. (1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. (2001). Law enforcement statistics and facts. Retrieved
October 5, 2001, from http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/history.htm
Piliavin, I., & Briar, S. (1964). Police encounters with juveniles. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 206-214.
Pinizzotto, A., & Davis, E. (1995). Killed in the line of duty. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 64(3), 1-7.
Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (Eds.). (2002). Rational choice and criminal behavior: Recent research and future
challenges. New York: Routledge.
Piquero, N. L., & Bouffard, L. A. (2003). A preliminary and partial test of specific defiance. Journal of Crime
and Justice, 26, 1-21.
Scheff, T. J., & Retzinger, S. M. (1991). Emotions and violence: Shame and rage in destructive conflicts.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Sherman, L. W. (1992). Policing domestic violence. New York: Free Press.
Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445-473.
Sykes, R. E., & Clark, J. P. (1975). A theory of deference exchange in police-civilian encounters. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 584-600.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
44
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Uchida, C., Brooks, L., & Kopers, C. (1987). Danger to police during domestic encounters: Assaults on Baltimore
county police, 1984-1986. Criminal Justice Policy and Research, 2, 357-371.
Walker, S. (1999). The police in America (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Westley, W. (1970). Violence and the police. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Worden, R., & Shepard, R. (1996). Demeanor, crime, and police behavior: A reexamination of the police services
study data. Criminology, 34, 83-105.
Worrall, J., & Marenin, O. (1998). Emerging liability issues in the implementation and adoption of community
oriented policing. International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 21, 121-136.
Kimberly J. Belvedere is currently completing her Jurist Doctor degree at Southwestern University School of
Law in Los Angeles. She holds a Master of Arts in Criminal Justice from California State University, San
Bernardino, and was a police officer for almost a decade. Her research interests include legal issues in American
policing, the effects that restrictive departmental policies have on the efficiency and safety of police officers, and
the validity of using biological and social characteristics to predict the likelihood of criminal behavior. Her work
has been presented at national conferences. This is her first published article, and she expresses gratitude to the
Criminal Justice Department at California State University, San Bernardino for their continuing support in her
academic pursuits.
John L. Worrall is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at California State University,
San Bernardino. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Washington State University in 1999. His
research interests are crime control policy and legal issues in policing. He is the author of six books, the most
recent of which is Crime Control in America: An Assessment of the Evidence (Allyn and Bacon, 2006). His work
has also appeared in the Journal of Criminal Justice, Crime Delinquency, Evaluation Review, Police Quarterly,
and Social Science Research, among other journals.
Stephen G. Tibbetts is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at California State University, San Bernardino. His research interests include the influence of biosocial and personality traits on the development of criminality, as well as testing the validity of traditional theoretical models of offending behavior. His
work has appeared in various journals, including Criminology, Criminal Justice & Behavior, Justice Quarterly,
Deviant Behavior, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Journal of Crime
and Justice, and Psychological Reports.

Explaining Suspect Resistance in Police-Citizen Encounters

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Explaining Suspect Resistance in Police-Citizen Encounters

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Criminal Justice Review