O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a navegar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nosso Contrato do Usuário e nossa Política de Privacidade.
O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a utilizar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nossa Política de Privacidade e nosso Contrato do Usuário para obter mais detalhes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: USE OF FORCE REPORT
This report provides a summary of force incidents by Honolulu Police Department (HPD)
officers for 2019. Use of force information officers entered into the department’s Case
Reporting System (CRS) is the data source for this report. The key findings are
• During the year, 2,354 Use of Force incidents were reported and submitted by
officers. This is an increase from 2018 when there were 2,070 incidents reported
and submitted by officers.
• Only a small percentage of police interactions with the public involved the use of
force. The department averaged 4.14 force incidents per 1,000 calls for service.
This is an increase from 2018 when the department averaged 3.67 force incidents
per 1,000 calls for service.
• The most common types of incidents that required officers to use force were
Simple Assault 13.4% (316), Mental Health, also known as MH-1 13.2% (312),
and Miscellaneous Public 6.7% (158) cases. This is similar to the 2018 findings.
• During the year, most of the force incidents occurred on Mondays and Saturdays.
The time of the day when most incidents occurred was between 2400 hours and
• In 2019, the average age of subjects was 34 years old. The average was the
same for 2018. Males accounted for 78% of subjects involved in force incidents.
Juvenile subjects ranged in age from 12 to 17 years old and were involved in 6.4%
of incidents. Unemployed subjects accounted for 28% of all subjects. At 34.5%,
the greatest number of subjects in force incidents were Native Hawaiian Pacific
Islanders. Subjects suspected of drug and/or alcohol use at the time of the
incident accounted for 58% of all force incidents. This is a decrease from 2018,
where 63.1% of all force incidents involved subjects where drug and/or alcohol use
• In 2019, Physical Confrontation techniques were the most frequent force option
used by officers and accounted for 53% of force applications, as compared to 51%
• There were five subject deaths involving firearms discharged by officers.
• There were no subject injuries in 74% of the incidents, as compared to 73% in
• In 2019, there were no officer injuries in 95% of the incidents, as compared to 94%
in the previous year.
The Honolulu Police Department’s jurisdiction is the City and County of Honolulu (island
of Oahu). The land area is approximately 600 square miles with an estimated resident
population of 980,080. The department geographically divides the island into eight police
At the end of 2019, the actual personnel strength of the department was 2,292 of which
1,825 were police officers.
Calls for Service. In 2019, the department recorded 568,157 calls for service that
resulted in a case report. Calls for service are incidents that require the presence of
officers and/or come to the attention of officers via the communications center (9-1-1
calls) or are field-initiated.
The following provides a general summary of use of force incidents by district.
USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS
Data collection. When any use of force beyond routine handcuffing is used, a use of
force report is completed and submitted by the officer who used force, whether injuries
occurred or not. Data for this report is based on 2,354 incidents where force was used in
2019 that was documented in the CRS.
There were occurrences where multiple reports resulting from the same incident were
submitted by each of the officers involved. These reports are counted as a single force
Incidents by District. District 1 reported the highest number of use of force incidents
(690) during this period. Furthermore, District 1 had the highest number of calls for
service in 2019 with 150,896. A summary of force incidents per 1,000 calls for service is
Use of Force Incidents by District
Use of Force
District 1 82,900 150,896 690
District 2 116,900 35,568 173
District 3 166,800 64,810 174
District 4 136,000 49,381 159
District 5 140,900 79,861 321
District 6 26,200 42,886 308
District 7 158,600 67,313 276
District 8 154,700 77,442 253
Total 983,000 568,157 2,354
*Resident population estimates based on 2018 U.S. Census Honolulu County QuickFacts; (2019 data not available,
as of March 6, 2020).
**Source: Computer Aided Dispatch System. Incident types not included as they are generated by officers and/or
dispatchers: 000 (Follow up), 200W (WARN FAM OFF/NEG), 210 (DUI), 297 (WARRANT ARREST), 446
(EXTRADITION VIOLATION), 464 (INITIAL TRO), 535 (TRAFF ARREST/CIT), 653 (TRANSFER), 999 (OFCR IN
TROUBLE), C6 (INVESTIGATION), OT, OUT (OUT OF SERVICE), SA (SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT), SV (STALLED
VEHICLE), TS (TRAFFIC STOP), TZ (TOW ZONE)
TYPES OF INCIDENTS
Types of incidents. The following is a summary of the type of incidents where force was
used. Simple Assault cases accounted for the largest number of force incidents with
13.4% (316). Mental Health cases accounted for the second largest number of incidents
at 13.3% (312). Miscellaneous Public cases were the third largest figure, accounting for
6.7% (158) of all force incidents.
Incidents by hour of day. The following is a summary of use of force incidents by hour
of day and by day of week. The number of incidents was highest between 2400 and
0059 hours, accounting for 6.9% of force incidents. Incidents occurring on Mondays
(347) and Saturdays (351) accounted for almost 29.7% of all use of force incidents.
Hours of Day
Use of Force Incidents by Hour of Day
Use of Force Incidents by Day of Week
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
Incidents 312 347 342 331 342 329 351
Percentage 13.3% 14.7% 14.5% 14.1% 14.5% 14.0% 14.9%
SUBJECTS OF FORCE INCIDENTS
Subject age. Of the 2,248 incidents where age can be determined, subject’s ages
ranged from 12 years old to 91 years old. The most frequent age group was subjects in
their twenties (26%) with 27 year olds being the most frequent subjects involved in force
incidents. The average age of all subjects was 34 years of age with the median age
being 47 years old. Juveniles (ages 12 to 17 years old were subjects in approximately
6.4% (150) of force incidents.
10-17 18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 UNK
Incidents by Subject Age
Subject Gender. In the 2,298 reports where gender is reported, 1,790 subjects (78%)
were male and 508 (22%) were female. Juvenile males accounted for 7.16% of all male
subjects and juvenile females accounted for 6.63% of all female subjects.
Subject Employment. The number of subjects who were unemployed at the time of the
incident continues to be significant. Even with a large number of blank and unknown
entries on the Use of Force Report form in CRS, subjects known to be unemployed at the
time of the incident accounted for 650 (28%) of all subjects. This is a decrease from
2018, where unemployed subjects accounted for 37% of all incidents.
SUBJECTS ORIGIN AND RACE
Subject Origin and Race. The origin and race of subjects involved in force incidents
were more frequently Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHPI), accounting for
34.5% of incidents. This is an increase from 2018 where 31.1% of incidents involved
NHPI. NHPI are defined by the Census Bureau as persons having origins in any of the
original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people
who indicate their race as “Native Hawaiian,” “Micronesian,” “Samoan,” or provide other
detailed Pacific Islander responses.
NHPI was followed by White subjects (23.1%) and Asian subjects (13.4%). When
compared with the U.S. Census estimates for Honolulu, there continues to be a
significant difference in the number of Use of Force subjects represented in the NHPI
category when compared to the general population.
Use of Force Incidents by Subject Origin and Race
Origin & Race Use of Force Incidents
Percent of UOF Incidents by
WHITE 543 23.1%
BLACK 174 7.4%
(American Indian, Alaska Native)
ASIAN 316 13.4%
(Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander)
2 OR MORE RACES 256 10.9%
HISPANIC ORIGIN 51 2.2%
UNKNOWN 189 8.0%
OTHERS 10 0.4%
DRUGS AND/OR ALCOHOL USE BY SUBJECT
Drug or alcohol use. Fifty-eight percent of all incidents involved subjects that used or
were suspected of using drugs and/or alcohol. This is a slight decrease in the reported
number of incidents involving subjects that used or were suspected of using drugs and/or
alcohol in 2018 (63.1%). Male subjects had a higher (76.4%) frequency of drug and/or
alcohol use at the time of the incident than female subjects (22.3%).
Incidents where subject used or suspected of using drugs and/or alcohol
Percent of Incidents
Percent of all
Male 1,044 76.4% 44.4%
Female 305 22.3% 13.0%
Unk or Multiple Subjects 17 1.2% 0.7%
Total 1,366 100.0% 58.0%
SUBJECT LEVEL OF RESISTANCE
The amount of force used should be relative to the level of resistance (the actions taken
by a subject to evade an officer's attempts at control). The Honolulu Police Department’s
Use of Force Report form categorizes subject resistance into seven levels, listed here
from the lowest to highest: psychological intimidation, verbal noncompliance, passive
resistance, defensive resistance, active resistance, active aggression, and aggravated
In examining the highest level of resistance encountered for each incident, defensive
resistance was the most frequent level of resistance encountered in 818 (35%) incidents.
Active resistance was the second most frequent level with 445 (19%) and active
aggression was third with 217 (9%). No resistance was encountered in 396 (17%)
incidents. These 396 incidents represent the number of times officers unholstered their
weapons (e.g., firearm, conducted energy weapon) as a safety measure when they
responded to potentially dangerous situations, however, no subjects were encountered
nor weapons discharged. Though a weapon is not used on a subject, unholstering it is
considered a display, therefore, counted as a type of force.
396 35 156 207 818 445 217 80 2,354
Highest Level of Resistance Encountered by Officer
BREAKDOWN OF OPTIONS USED IN INCIDENTS REQUIRING FORCE
Summarized below is the highest level of force used by officers in each incident.
Physical Confrontation techniques were the most frequent force options used by officers,
which accounted for 46% of force applications. Deadly Force accounted for 21% of force
options used. The act of unholstering the firearm is included in the same category as
deadly force. See below for details.
Highest Level of Control Use During Incident
Type of Force Used by Officers
Deadly Force: Firearm Unholstered Versus Discharged at Subject
The deadly force figure above does not indicate that firearms were discharged at subjects
in 21% of force incidents. Officers often unholster their firearms as a safety measure
when responding to potentially dangerous situations such as a burglary in progress or
building search for a suspect. Included in the 21% are incidents when firearms are
unholstered but not discharged at a subject.
Though officers unholstered their firearms in 478 incidents, only in 9 situations did
officers resort to discharging their firearms at a subject.
Officer Response to Subject’s Actions
2 10 1 5 1 16 35
3 52 10 44 2 44 155
3 127 3 59 1 13 206
2 314 18 454 3 27 818
2 96 16 307 6 17 444
2 31 20 153 4 7 217
1 3 1 29 3 43 80
Total 15 633 69 1,051 20 167 1,955
Duration of Resistance. Most of the resistance interactions lasted less than 30 seconds
(935) or 40%. Of the total, 69% of all incidents lasted a minute or less.
Duration of Resistance
< 30 Sec
30 Sec to 1
1-2 Min 2-4 Min > 4 Min N/A
935 693 341 201 134 50
40% 29% 14% 9% 6% 2%
Officer Response in Relation to Subject Age and Gender. In 2019, Physical
Confrontation was most effective in incidents involving juveniles, the same was reported
for 2018. Consistent with 2018, the application of force options were applied consistently
over all age groups with Physical Confrontation techniques (45%) being the most
commonly used option. In 2018, it accounted for 44% of all force incidents.
Physical Confrontation technique was used more often with male (36%) than female
(10%) subjects. The Deadly Force option, which includes unholstering of a firearm, was
used in a higher percentage of incidents where male subjects (17%) were involved
versus female subjects (3%).
Subject injuries. In 2019, 74% of subjects in use of force incidents had no observable
injury and reported none when asked. Subjects who had no observable injury but
complained of injury accounted for 6% of subjects. There were 471 (21%) subjects who
sustained bodily injury, eleven subjects who sustained substantial bodily injury, and
seven subjects who sustained serious bodily injury. As reported by officer(s) at the time
of the incident, eight subjects died during incidents where force was used in response to
a call for service.
Officer injuries. In 2019, 95% of incidents occurred without an officer reporting injury.
Officers sustained bodily injuries in 108 (5%) incidents. Of the total use of force
incidents, one (less than 1%) resulted in substantial bodily injury. There were 17 (1%)
officers who complained of injuries without having visible signs of the injuries.
Use of Batons. In 2019, there were nine incidents reported in the Case Reporting
System (CRS) where a baton was used. Six incidents involved the display of the baton.
There were three baton strikes and no jabs. In 2018, there were eight incidents where
the baton was used. Five incidents involving displaying the baton, three incidents
involving baton strikes, and no jabs.
Use of Vascular Neck Restraint. There were eleven incidents where the vascular neck
restraint (VNR) was used as compared to nine incidents in 2018.
Use of Chemical Agents. There were 73 reports on the use of chemical agents. Of
those reported, all were oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray incidents. Of those incidents, 18
incidents were display only and 55 officers reported discharging the spray. In 2018, there
were 93 reports on the use of chemical agents, all OC spray incidents. Of those
incidents, 20 incidents were display only and 73 officers reported discharging the spray.
Conducted Electrical Weapon Use. In 2019, there were 58 incidents in which the
conducted electrical weapon (CEW) was used. Of those incidents, 40 were display and
18 were probe deployments. In comparison for 2018, the CRS reported 53 incidents
where the CEW was used. Of those, 42 were display only incidents, 11 probe
deployments, and no drive stuns.
Use of Firearms. Use or display of firearms, including handguns, shotguns, and rifles
were reported in 488 force incidents in 2019. Of the total number of cases involving
firearms, nine incidents involved a discharge of the weapon(s). In 2018, there were 407
incidents, including 11 incidents where firearms were discharged.
Tables on the following pages summarize some of the observations in this section.
Type of Control Used Within Each Force Option (based on highest level of force used)*
Asking Setting Context Ordering Giving Options Confirmation Other Total
12 0 15 0 0 0 27
Touch Escort Lt Pressure Pt Lt Joint Lock Other Total
446 110 13 35 55 659
Chemical Agent Displayed Only Chemical Agent Used Total
18 55 73
Physical Confrontation (Includes Conducted Energy Weapon)
Foot/Leg Strike Head Lock Joint Lock
118 45 25 140 627 115 1,070
Display Only Probes Drive Stun
Conducted Energy Weapon
40 18 0 58
Baton Strike Baton Jab
6 3 0 11 0 0 20
Displayed/Unholstered Weapon Fired Weapon Other Total
478 9 1 488
*Note: Information was retrieved from CRS and filtered based on (i) force start dates between 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2019, and (ii) submitted as approved reports. Confirmed with PSO.
Type of Force Used by Subject Age
<18 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
None 1 0 3 2 3 0 8 17
Verbal Command 1 11 8 5 1 1 0 27
Physical Contact 40 236 179 94 52 39 19 659
Chemical Agent 4 25 18 7 6 3 10 73
Physical Confrontation 79 375 299 134 108 41 34 1,070
Intermediate Weapon 1 8 6 3 0 2 0 20
Deadly Force 25 165 116 72 46 29 35 488
Total 151 820 629 317 216 115 106 2,354
Type of Force Used by Subject Gender
Subject Injuries by Type of Force Used
Type of Force None
None 16 1 0 0 0 0 17
Verbal Command 25 0 2 0 0 0 27
Physical Contact 516 39 100 1 0 3 661
Chemical Agent 41 7 25 0 0 0 73
Physical Confrontation 662 79 317 8 4 0 1,070
Intermediate Weapon 10 4 6 0 0 0 20
Deadly Force 447 10 21 2 3 5 488
Total 1,717 140 471 11 7 8 2,354
% of Force Used 73.0% 5.9% 20.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3%
*Note: Information was retrieved from CRS and filtered based on (i) force start dates between 1/1/2019 to
12/31/2019, and (ii) submitted as approved reports.
Officer Injuries by Type of Force Used
Type of Force None
None 16 0 1 0 0 0 17
27 0 0 0 0 0 27
639 9 10 0 1 0 659
Chemical Agent 71 0 2 0 0 0 73
976 8 85 1 0 0 1,070
18 0 2 0 0 0 20
Deadly Force 480 0 8 0 0 0 488
Total 2,227 17 108 1 1 0 2,354
% of Force
94.6% 0.7% 4.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0%
*Note: Information was retrieved from CRS and filtered based on (i) force start dates between 1/1/2019 to
12/31/2019, and (ii) submitted as approved reports.
The following recommendations are based on the call for police reform facing law
enforcement agencies across the nation. Although Hawaii has a more diversified
demographic make-up in regards to ethnicities, there still may be a need to track officers’
use of force to identify issues of implicit or explicit bias. Also, a review of the Justice in
Policing Act draft identifies disproportionate minority contact as one of the key issues in
developing their proposed reporting mandates. The purpose of these recommendations
are two-fold: to identify employees who may be bias in their application of use of force
and to anticipate reporting mandates to maintain federal funding requirements.
Toward these ends, the department will explore the feasibility of implementing the
• Ensure that the source material data contain specific fields that can capture and
provide a breakdown of the number of incidents by the race, age, and gender of
the officers involved in relation to the subject on whom force is used.
• Ensure that the source material data contain data to capture incidents when
canines are deployed as a force response. This will also be included in the update
of the policy on Use of Force.
• Implementation of IAPro Blue Team upon completion of the new Report
Management System (RMS). The Blue Team feature will be able to extract and
compile Use of Force data and compose an early intervention dashboard to be
used in conjunction with the Employee Early Recognition System policy.
• Integration of officer race information into IAPro from a human resources
database. This will give the system the ability to provide racial comparisons
between officers and subjects. The information may identify patterns or trends in
an officer’s use of force. This process will be crucial to supporting the ability to
provide officers’ demographics in upcoming reports.
The following recommendation is being made to help improve reporting accuracies and
streamline data collecting practices. It has been determined that reporting discrepancies
between statistics obtained from the Professional Standards Office (PSO) and the RMS
(via the Case Report System) were due to each division maintaining their own separate
• Implementation of IAPro Blue Team upon completion of the RMS. The data
collection (documenting) of use of force into the database will be at the user-level.
Regardless of purpose, the extracting of data will be from the original source. The
PSO and ITD will need to work with IAPro in the development of the reporting
format to ensure all data they need for their specific purpose is captured, including
statistics for mandated reporting.
The following recommendations are to include data on other force options not previously
documented and to further define the types of Deadly Force used. The statistics
contained in the Annual Use of Force Report severely misrepresents Deadly Force
reporting as it includes unholstering of a firearm even when a subject is not encountered
(i.e.: state of readiness, building searches, etc.).
• Delineate circumstances where a firearm was used into specific categories (i.e.:
discharge of a firearm, brandish of a firearm, other technique, etc.). The Deadly
Force categories would be represented in the Annual Use of Force Report in a
table or pie chart.
• Revise the Use of Force report form and data collection to distinguish incidents
that do not involve the presence of a subject or the weapon being used to compel
a subject. As an example, an officer performing a building search, but no subject
• The PSO investigates all reports of officer involved shootings, therefore, the
accuracy of firearm discharges in the Annual Use of Force Report shall be
reconciled with the PSO prior to publishing. This would ensure that the reporting of
statistics include all officer-involved shootings.
• Capturing data and reporting on the use of the Vascular Neck Restraint (VNR) as
a deadly force option. An update to department’s policy on Use of Force will reflect
this reporting change.
• Documenting and reporting the deployment of a canine as a force option.
The following recommendations are intended to improve accuracy and quality of data that
is documented on the Use of Force form.
• Officers and supervisors should receive more training on how to fill out the Use of
Force form as well as why properly completing the form is important (e.g.,
improving training, policy, and responsiveness to areas of corrections).
• Measures or procedures to improve the accountability of supervisors and/or others
who are directly responsible for reviewing and ensuring Use of Force forms are
properly and thoroughly completed.