Showing 1 – 15 of 15 results.
Curated
American Bar Foundation: State Criminal Court Cases, 1962 (ICPSR 7272)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
This study presents data about criminal court cases in the 50 states and District of Columbia in 1962. Variables include state and county of trial, case processing, offense charged, sentence, type of counsel, amount of bail, length of time in jail, and other aspects related to the disposition of the cases. Demographic information on the defendant is provided, such as age group, sex, race, and years of school completed.
Curated
Case Outcomes Following Investigative Interviews of Suspected Victims of Child Sexual Abuse in Salt Lake City and County, Utah, 1994-2000 (ICPSR 27721)
Released/updated on: 2010-08-10
Geographic coverage: United States, Salt Lake City, Utah
Time period: 1994-01-01--2000-01-01
The purpose of this study was to examine whether the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol impacted child sexual abuse case outcomes within the justice system. The researchers coded information from child protection and police reports, Children's Justice Center (CJC) intake forms, and the CJC electronic database to create a dataset on 1,280 alleged child sexual abuse cases involving children interviewed in Salt Lake County, Utah, between 1994 and 2000. Specifically, the research team gathered case characteristics and case outcomes data on 551 alleged child sexual abuse cases in which investigative interviews were conducted from 1994 to mid-September 1997 before the NICHD protocol was implemented, and 729 alleged child sexual abuse cases in which investigative interviews were conducted from mid-September 1997 to 2000 after the implementation of the NICHD protocol, so that pre-NICHD protocol and NICHD protocol interview case outcomes could be compared. The same police detectives conducted both the pre-NICHD protocol interviews and the NICHD protocol interviews. The dataset contains a total of 116 variables pertaining to cases of suspected child abuse. The major categories of variables include demographic data on the suspected child victim and on the suspected perpetrator, on case characteristics, on case outcomes, and on time delays.
Curated
Collecting DNA at Arrest: Policies, Practices, and Implications, in 28 States, 2005-2012 (ICPSR 34682)
Released/updated on: 2016-09-28
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Vermont, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah, South Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Arizona, South Dakota, Minnesota, California, Kansas, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland
Time period: 1997-01-01--2011-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
This study examined arrestee DNA laws (laws that allowed testing of arrestees DNA pre-adjudication), their implementation in the field and their subsequent effects on agency operations as well as their success in aiding investigations in the 28 states that have these laws. The study investigated five specific questions:
- What states have passed legislation authorizing the collection of DNA from arrestees?
- How do the laws and policies regarding collecting DNA from arrestees differ by state?
- How have the courts ruled on these new laws?
- How have arrestee DNA laws been implemented in each state?
- What has been the impact of requiring DNA collection from arrestees on state crime laboratories and other involved agencies?
- What evidence is available to determine the effects of collecting DNA from arrestees on public safety or other criminal justice outcomes?
To answer these questions, researchers used a mixed methods data collection plan, including reviewing relevant statutes and case law, interviewing state and federal Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) laboratory staff and other forensic experts, and collecting descriptive data from state laboratories.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence in Alexandria, Virginia, 1990-1998 (ICPSR 2858)
Released/updated on: 2006-07-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Alexandria, Virginia
Time period: 1990-01-01--1998-01-01
This study was undertaken to evaluate Alexandria, Virginia's Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP), which is a coordinated community response to domestic violence. Specifically, the goals of the study were (1) to determine the effectiveness of DVIP, (2) to compare victims' perceptions of program satisfaction and other program elements between the Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Program and domestic violence victim support services in Virginia Beach, Virginia, (3) to examine the factors related to abusers who repeatedly abuse their victims, and (4) to report the findings of attitudinal surveys of the Alexandria police department regarding the mandatory arrest policy. Data were collected from four sources. The first two sources of data were surveys conducted via telephone interviews with females living in either Alexandria, Virginia (Part 1), or Virginia Beach, Virginia (Part 2), who were victims of domestic violence assault incidents in which the police had been contacted. These surveys were designed to describe the services that the women had received, their satisfaction with those services, and their experience with subsequent abuse. For Part 3 (Alexandria Repeat Offender Data), administrative records from the Alexandria Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) were examined in order to identify and examine the factors related to abusers who repeatedly abused their victims. The fourth source of data was a survey distributed to police officers in Alexandria (Part 4, Alexandria Police Officer Survey Data) and was developed to assess police officers' attitudes regarding the domestic violence arrest policy in Alexandria. In four rounds of interviews for Part 1 and three rounds of interviews for Part 2, victims answered questions regarding the location where the domestic violence incident occurred and if the police were involved, their perceptions of the helpfulness of the police, prosecutor, domestic violence programs, hotlines, and shelters, their relationship to the abuser, their living arrangements at the time of each interview, and whether a protective order was obtained. Also gathered was information on the types of abuse and injuries sustained by the victim, whether she sought medical care for the injuries, whether drugs or alcohol played a role in the incident(s), whether the victim had been physically abused or threatened, yelled at, had personal property destroyed, or was made to feel unsafe by the abuser, if any other programs or persons provided help to the victim and how helpful these additional services were, and whether a judge ordered services for the victim or abuser. After the initial interviews, in subsequent rounds victims were asked if they had had any contact with the abuser since the last interview, if they had experienced any major life changes, if their situation had improved or gotten worse and if so how, and what types of assistance or programs would have helped improve their situation. Demographic variables for Part 3 include offenders' race, sex, age at first criminal nondomestic violence charge, and age at first domestic violence charge. Other variables include charge number, type, initiator, disposition, and sentence of nondomestic violence charges, as well as the conditions of the sentences, imposed days, months, and years, effective days, months, and years, type of domestic violence case, victim's relationship to offender, victim's age, sex, and race, whether alcohol or drugs were involved, if children were present at the domestic violence incident, the assault method used by the offender, and the severity of the assault. For Part 4, police officers were asked whether they knew what a domestic violent incident was, whether arresting without a warrant was considered good policy, whether they were in favor of domestic violence policy as a police response, whether they thought domestic violence policy was an effective deterrent, whether officers should have discretion to arrest, and how much discretion was used to handle domestic violence calls. The number and percent of domestic violence arrests made in the previous year, percent of domestic violence calls that involved mutual combat, and the number of years each respondent worked with the Alexandria, Virginia, police department are included in the file. Demographic variables for Part 4 include the age and gender of each respondent.
Curated
Evaluation of Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in the State College, Pennsylvania, Police Department, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3166)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
This project was an 18-month long research-practitioner partnership to conduct a process evaluation of the State College Police Department's implementation of a grant to encourage arrest policies for domestic violence. The general goals of the process evaluation were to assess how and to what extent the State College Police Department's proposed activities were implemented as planned, based on the rationale that such activities would enhance the potential for increasing victim safety and perpetrator accountability systemically. As part of the grant, the police department sought to improve case tracking and services to victims by developing new specialized positions for domestic violence, including: (1) a domestic violence arrest coordinator from within the State College Police Department who was responsible for monitoring case outcomes through the courts and updating domestic violence policies and training (Part 1, Victim Tracking Data from Domestic Violence Coordinator), (2) a victims service attorney from Legal Services who was responsible for handling civil law issues for domestic violence victims, including support, child custody, employment, financial, consumer, public benefits, and housing issues (Part 2, Victim Tracking Data From Victim Services Attorney), and (3) an intensive domestic violence probation officer from the Centre County Probation and Parole Department who was responsible for providing close supervision and follow-up of batterers (Part 3, Offender Tracking Data). Researchers worked with practitioners to develop databases suitable for monitoring service provision by the three newly-created positions for domestic violence cases. Major categories of data collected on the victim tracking form (Parts 1 and 2) included location of initial contact, type of initial contact, referral source, reason for initial contact, service/consultation provided at initial contact, meetings, and referrals out. Types of services provided include reporting abuse, filing a Protection from Abuse order, legal representation, and assistance with court procedures. Major categories of data collected on the offender tracking form (Part 3) included location of initial contact, type of initial contact, referral source, reason for initial contact, service/consultation provided, charges, sentence received, relationship between the victim and perpetrator, marital status, children in the home, referrals out, presentencing investigation completed, prior criminal history, and reason for termination. Types of services provided include pre-sentence investigation, placement on supervision, and assessment and evaluation. In addition to developing these new positions, the police department also sought to improve how officers handled domestic violence cases through a two-day training program. The evaluation conducted pre- and post-training assessments of all personnel training in 1999 and conducted follow-up surveys to assess the long-term impact of training. For Part 4, Police Training Survey Data, surveys were administered to law enforcement personnel participating in a two-day domestic violence training program. Surveys were administered both before and after the training program and focused on knowledge about domestic violence policies and protocols, attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence, and the background and experience of the officers. Within six months after the training, the same participants were contacted to complete a follow-up survey. Variables in Part 4 measure how well officers knew domestic violence arrest policies, their attitudes toward abused women and how to handle domestic violence cases, and their opinions about training. Demographic variables in Part 4 include age, sex, race, education, and years in law enforcement.
Curated
Evaluation of Law Enforcement Training for Domestic Violence Cases in a Southwestern City in Texas, 1997-1999 (ICPSR 3400)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1997-01-01--1999-01-01
This study was an outcome evaluation of the effects of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project Training Model for Law Enforcement Response on police officer attitudes toward domestic violence. Data on the effectiveness of the training were collected by means of an attitude survey of law enforcement officers (Part 1). Additionally, two experimental designs (Part 2) were implemented to test the effects of the Duluth model training on (1) time spent by police officers at the scene of a domestic violence incident, and (2) the number of convictions. Variables for Part 1 include the assigned research group and respondents' level of agreement with various statements, such as: alcohol is the primary cause of family violence, men are more likely than women to be aggressive, only mentally ill people batter their families, mandatory arrest of offenders is the best way to reduce repeat episodes of violence, family violence is a private matter, law enforcement policies are ineffective for preventing family violence, children of single-parent, female-headed families are abused more than children of dual-parent households, and prosecution of an offender is unlikely regardless of how well a victim cooperates. Index scores calculated from groupings of various variables are included as well as whether the respondent found training interesting, relevant, well-organized, and useful. Demographic variables for each respondent include race, gender, age, and assignment and position in the police department. Variables for Part 2 include whether the domestic violence case occurred before or after training, to which test group the case belongs, the amount of time in minutes spent on the domestic violence scene, and whether the case resulted in a conviction.
Curated
Improving Evidence Collection Through Police-Prosecutor Coordination in Baltimore, 1984-1985 (ICPSR 9290)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland
Time period: 1984-01-01--1985-01-01
The purpose of this data collection was to investigate the effects of changes in police evidence procedures and the effects of providing feedback to officers on felony case charge reductions or dismissals due to evidentiary problems. The data were designed to permit an experimental assessment of the effectiveness of two police evidence collection programs implemented on April 1, 1985. One of these was an investigative and post-arrest procedural guide. The other was an individualized feedback report prepared by prosecutors for police officers. The officer file includes information on each officer's sex and race, length of police service, and assignment changes during the study period. Data on the offender and the case files include time of arrest, information on arresting officer, original investigating officer and principal investigating officer, offense and victim characteristics, arrestee characteristics, available evidence, case processing information, and arrestee's criminal history.
Curated
Mandatory Drug offender Processing Data, 1986: Alaska, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia (ICPSR 9420)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Iowa, United States, Alaska, Minnesota, California, New York (state), Virginia, Nebraska
The National Consortium for Assessing Drug Control Initiatives, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and coordinated by the Criminal Justice Statistics Association, collected drug offender processing data from eight states: Alaska, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia. The purpose of the project was to track adult drug offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest) through final court disposition, regardless of whether the offender was released without trial, acquitted, or convicted. These data allow researchers to examine how the criminal justice system processes drug offenders, to measure the changing volume of drug offenders moving through the different segments of the criminal justice system, to calculate processing time intervals between major decision-making events, and to assess the changing structure of the drug offender population. For purposes of this project, a drug offender was defined as any person who had been charged with a felony drug offense. The data are structured into six segments pertaining to (1) record identification, (2) the offender (date of birth, sex, race, ethnic origin), (3) arrest information (date of arrest, age at arrest, arrest charge code), (4) prosecution information (filed offense code and level, prosecution disposition and date), (5) court disposition information (disposition offense and level, court disposition, final disposition date, final pleading, type of trial), and (6) sentencing information (sentence and sentence date, sentence minimum and maximum). Also included are elapsed time variables. The unit of analysis is the felony drug offender.
Curated
National Survey of Miranda Warnings, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 23100)
Released/updated on: 2008-10-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2006-01-01
Miranda warnings given by police to criminal suspects before they are questioned, are heterogeneous in their language, length, and content. Past research has focused mostly on individual Miranda warnings. Lacking in generalizability, those studies have had limited applicability to both public policy and professional practice. This data collection contains the results of a large-scale survey that examined Miranda warnings from across the United States and documented differences in their length and content. The first wave of the survey involved systematically contacting sheriff and public defender offices across the United States. These data were augmented with additional warnings from other Miranda investigators. The first wave generated 532 unique Miranda warnings. The second wave surveyed prosecutors (i.e., district attorneys and state attorneys) across the United States using similar procedures. This survey focused on 28 states with low response rates (i.e., less than or equal to 20 percent of counties) in the first wave. This survey also included responses to the wave one survey that were received from public defenders months after the deadline for the first wave. The second wave generated an additional 358 unique Miranda warnings that were written in English and intended for general use.
Curated
Patterns of Behavior in Police and Citizen Transactions: Boston, Chicago, and Washington, DC, 1966 (ICPSR 9086)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Massachusetts, Boston
These data have been influential in the development of theories of police behavior. Variables in the collection supply information on the nature and context of encounters between citizens and the police. Data are included on the characteristics and roles of individuals involved in an encounter, relationships among the participants in the encounter, individuals' definitions of the situation after the arrival of police, specific police actions and manner of police behavior during the encounter, and informal characterizations by police of participants involved in the encounter. In cases where offender suspects were involved, information was collected on restraints employed, searches, interrogations, confessions, advisement of rights, booking, and other arrest processes.
Curated
Phoenix [Arizona] Use of Force Project, June 1994 (ICPSR 6626)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona
Time period: 1994-06-13--1994-06-27
In 1994, the Phoenix Police Department, in conjunction with Rutgers University and Arizona State University, designed and implemented a study on the use of force by and against Phoenix police officers. This study was concerned with describing the amount of force used in different arrest situations and determining the extent to which officer, suspect, offense, and arrest situation characteristics can predict the amount of force used. Data were collected primarily through a one-page, two-sided survey instrument given to police officers. In addition, screening interviews regarding the use of force during the arrest were conducted with both officers and suspects to assess the reliability of the officer surveys. During the screening interviews, officers and suspects were asked brief questions about the use and extent of force by officers and suspects. In the officer survey form, six potential areas of force were identified: voice, motion, restraints, tactics, weapons, and injuries. Three dimensions of weapons use--possession, threatened use, and actual use--were also recorded. Basic demographic information on officers and suspects, descriptions of the arrest, and information regarding injuries were also collected.
Curated
Police and Child Abuse: Policies and Practices in the United States, 1987-1988 (ICPSR 6338)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-01-01--1988-01-01
This study was conducted by the Police Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute to document municipal and county law enforcement agencies' policies for dealing with child abuse, neglect, and sexual assault and exploitation, and to identify emerging police practices. The researchers investigated promising approaches for dealing with child abuse and also probed for areas of weakness that are in need of improvement. Data were collected from 122 law enforcement agencies on topics including interagency reporting and case screening procedures, the existence and organizational location of specialized units for conducting child abuse investigations, actual procedures for investigating various types of child abuse cases, factors that affect the decision to arrest in physical and sexual abuse cases, the scope and nature of interagency cooperative agreements practices and relations, the amount of training received by agency personnel, and ways to improve agency responses to child abuse and neglect cases.
Curated
Police Use of Force in Metro-Dade, Florida, and Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, 1993-1995 (ICPSR 3152)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Springfield, Eugene, Florida
Time period: 1993-01-01--1995-01-01
This study gathered data on police use of force in Metro-Dade, Florida, and Eugene and Springfield, Oregon. The study differed from previous research in that it addressed the level of force used by the police relative to the suspect's level of resistance. The data for Metro-Dade (Part 1) were collected from official Metro-Dade Police Department Control of Persons Reports from the last quarter of 1993 and all of 1994 and 1995. The Eugene and Springfield dataset (Part 2) was created from items in the Police Officers' Essential Physical Work Report Form, which was completed by members of the Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, Police Departments during April 1995. The dataset includes all police-citizen contacts, rather than being limited to the use-of-force situations captured by the Metro-Dade data. In Part 1 (Metro-Dade Data), information on the subject includes impairment (i.e., alcohol and drugs), behavior (i.e., calm, visibly upset, erratic, or highly agitated), level of resistance used by the subject, types of injuries to the subject, and types of force used by the subject. Information on the officer includes level of force used, medical treatment, and injuries. Other variables include ethnic match between officer and the subject and relative measures of force. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, and ethnicity of both the subject and the officer. In Part 2 (Oregon Data), information is provided on whether the officer was alone, how work was initiated, elapsed time until arrival, reasons for performance, perceived mental state and physical abilities of the suspect, amount and type of resistance by the suspect, if another officer assisted, perceived extent of effort used by the suspect, type of resistance used by the suspect, if the officer was knocked or wrestled to the ground, if the officer received an injury, level of effort used to control the suspect, types of control tactics used on the suspect, whether the officer was wearing tactical gear, how restraint devices were applied to inmate, time taken to get to, control, resolve, and remove the problem, how stressful the lead-up time or the period following the incident was, if the officer worked with a partner, types of firearm used, and if force was used. Demographic variables include age, gender, weight, and height of both the suspect and officer, and the officer's duty position.
Curated
Prevalence, Context, and Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases in 19 States in the United States, 2000 (ICPSR 20400)
Released/updated on: 2009-04-30
Geographic coverage: Vermont, United States, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Dakota, Arkansas, Utah, South Carolina, Michigan, Nebraska, West Virginia, Iowa, Texas, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Ohio, Virginia, North Dakota, Idaho
This project provided the first large-scale examination of the police response to intimate partner violence and of the practice known as "dual arrest." The objectives of the project were: (1) to describe the prevalence and context of dual arrest in the United States, (2) to explain the variance in dual arrest rates throughout the United States, (3) to describe dual arrest within the full range of the police response to intimate partner violence, (4) to analyze the factors associated with no arrest, single arrest, and dual arrest, (5) to examine the reasons why women are arrested in intimate partner cases, and (6) to describe how the criminal justice system treats women who have been arrested for domestic violence. Data for the project were collected in two phases. In Phase I, researchers examined all assault and intimidation cases in the year 2000 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) database (NATIONAL INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING SYSTEM, 2000 [ICPSR 3449]) to investigate the extent to which dual arrest is occurring nationwide, the relationship between incident and offender characteristics, and the effect of state laws on police handling of these cases for all relationship types. Because the NIBRS dataset contained a limited number of incident-specific variables that helped explain divergent arrest practices, in Phase II, researchers collected more detailed information on a subset of NIBRS cases from 25 police departments of varying sizes across four states. This phase of the study was restricted to intimate partner and other domestic violence cases. Additional data were collected for these cases to evaluate court case outcomes and subsequent re-offending. This phase also included an assessment of how closely department policy reflected state law in a larger sample of agencies within five states. The data in Part 1 (Phase I Data) contain 577,862 records from the NIBRS. This includes information related to domestic violence incidents such as the most serious offense against the victim, the most serious victim injury, the assault type, date of incident, and the counts of offenses, offenders, victims, and arrests for the incident. The data also include information related to the parties involved in the incident including demographics for the victim(s) and arrestee(s) and the relationship between victim(s) and arrestee(s). There is also information related to the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred such as population, urban/rural classification, and whether the jurisdiction is located in a metropolitan area. There are also variables pertaining to whether a weapon was used, the date of arrest, and the type of arrest. Also included are variables regarding the police department such as the number of male and female police officers and civilians employed. The data in Part 2 (Phase II Data) contain 4,388 cases and include all of the same variables as those in Part 1. In addition to these variables, there are variables such as whether the offender was on the scene when the police arrived, who reported the incident, the exact nature of injuries suffered by the involved parties, victim and offender substance use, offender demeanor, and presence of children. Also included are variables related to the number of people including police and civilians who were on the scene, the number of people who were questioned, whether there were warrants for the victim(s) or offender(s), whether citations were issued, whether arrests were made, whether any cases were prosecuted, the number of charges filed and against whom, and the sentences for prosecuted cases that resulted in conviction. The data in Part 3 (Police Department Policy Data) contain 282 cases and include variables regarding whether the department had a domestic violence policy, what the department's arrest policy was, whether a police report needed to be made, whether the policy addressed mutual violence, whether the policy instructed how to determine the primary aggressor, and what factors were taken into account in making a decision to arrest. There is also information related to the proportion of arrests involving intimate partners, the proportion of arrests involving other domestics, the proportion of arrests involving acquaintances, and the proportion of arrests involving strangers.
Curated
Partially restricted
Understanding the Use of Force By and Against the Police in Six Jurisdictions in the United States, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3172)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, San Diego, Charlotte, Mecklenburg, United States, Texas, Colorado, St. Petersburg, California, Florida, Dallas, Colorado Springs
Time period: 1996-08-01--1997-02-01
This study examined the amount of force used by and against law enforcement officers and more than 50 characteristics of officers, civilians, and arrest situations associated with the use of different levels of force. An important component of this multijurisdiction project was to employ a common measurement of elements of force and predictors of force. Data were gathered about suspects' and police officers' behaviors from adult custody arrests in six urban law enforcement agencies. The participating agencies were the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department, Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department, Dallas (Texas) Police Department, St. Petersburg (Florida) Police Department, San Diego (California) Police Department, and San Diego County (California) Sheriff's Department. Data collection began at different times in the participating departments, so the total sample included arrests during the summer, fall, and winter of 1996-1997. Forms were completed and coded for 7,512 adult custody arrests (Part 1). This form was used to record officer self-reports on the characteristics of the arrest situation, the suspects, and the officers, and the specific behavioral acts of officers, suspects, and bystanders in a particular arrest. Similar items were asked of 1,156 suspects interviewed in local jails at the time they were booked following arrest to obtain an independent assessment of officer and suspect use of force (Part 2). Officers were informed that some suspects would be interviewed, but they did not know which would be interviewed or when. Using the items included on the police survey, the research team constructed four measures of force used by police officers -- physical force, physical force plus threats, continuum of force, and maximum force. Four comparable measures of force used by arrested suspects were also developed. These measures are included in the data for Part 1. Each measure was derived by combining specific actions by law enforcement officers or by suspects in various ways. The first measure was a traditional conceptual dichotomy of arrests in which physical force was or was not used. For both the police and for suspects, the definition of physical force included any arrest in which a weapon or weaponless tactic was used. In addition, police arrests in which officers used a severe restraint were included. The second measure, physical force plus threats, was similar to physical force but added the use of threats and displays of weapons. To address the potential limitations of these two dichotomous measures, two other measures were developed. The continuum-of-force measure captured the levels of force commonly used in official policies by the participating law enforcement agencies. To construct the fourth measure, maximum force, 503 experienced officers in five of the six jurisdictions ranked a variety of hypothetical types of force by officers and by suspects on a scale from 1 (least forceful) to 100 (most forceful). Officers were asked to rank these items based on their own personal experience, not official policy. These rankings of police and suspect use of force, which appear in Part 3, were averaged for each jurisdiction and used in Part 1 to weight the behaviors that occurred in the sampled arrests. Variables for Parts 1 and 2 include nature of the arrest, features of the arrest location, mobilization of the police, and officer and suspect characteristics. Part 3 provides officer rankings on 54 items that suspects might do or say during an arrest. Separately, officers ranked a series of 44 items that a police officer might do or say during an arrest. These items include spitting, shouting or cursing, hitting, wrestling, pushing, resisting, fleeing, commanding, using conversational voice, and using pressure point holds, as well as possession, display, threat of use, or use of several weapons (e.g., knife, chemical agent, dog, blunt object, handgun, motor vehicle).