Final Version

MOUNT ST. MARY’S UNIVERSTIY
The Application of Body
Language in Law
Enforcement
By: Constance M. Kniesler
Advised by: Prof. Joseph J. Vince Jr.
01-May-15

Kniesler 1
This paper as a systematic consideration of law enforcement professionals’ skills of
observing and using body language as a form of nonverbal communication and application
within the criminal justice system. Beginning the paper with literary research of past
psychological studies, I have discovered more evidence in support of human nonverbal
communication through body language than against it. In regards to the application to law
enforcement, there are two parts. First, I review the information from previous sections and
apply it to practical uses for law enforcement professionals. Second, I provide an account of
actual statistics of police officers’ use of force. Finally, I end my paper with Chi Square analysis
of the data to see if there is a significant relationship.
INTRODUCTION
There is a plethora of television shows, newspaper articles, and websites dedicated to the
idea of reading body language. All of these seem to perpetuate the idea that any person can tell
when another lies, provided they are trained with the correct information. There are two extreme
perceptions that can be drawn from these outlets. First, the sentiment of: “I can do that too,” in
which case the individual begins to micro-read people he or she interacts with daily.
Alternatively, the person writes off the whole idea as a pseudoscience and scoffs at people who
utilize similar skills in their profession.
The average proportion of nonverbal communication may be broken down into facial
movements, verbal tone, and spoken words (at 55%, 38%, and 7%, respectively). Although
these cues are used daily, many people misunderstand the communicational context. They think
that individual actions relay hidden messages in people’s conversations. The original claim by
Albert Mehrabian (1981), however, included all three parts to be considered within a certain
context. Mehrabian disclaimed on his website, “unless a communicator is talking about their

Kniesler 2
feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable” (2011). The general public’s misuse of
this information and related research make the study of body language appear less reliable.
However, the science behind the study of body language has validity and depth. This paper
focuses on looking at body language fundamentals which granted validity to the subject’s
universality across cultures and personalities. Paul Ekman and various colleagues conducted a
large amount of the research. A foundational study Ekman (1969) performed, Pan-Cultural
Elements in Facial Displays of Emotion, discovered cross-cultural patterns of basic emotions and
facial displays related to them. This, along with other studies, suggests all human persons
communicate through similar body language. This paper also reviews more specific subsets of
body language to identity if deceit and aggression cues were applicable.
Another problem with the media’s portrayal of body language is the perception of lie
detecting or reading someone’s attraction to you as its best use. While law enforcement
professionals can and do apply body language to detect truthfulness or deceit, they also use this
basic human skill to do much more. On the street, a police officer comes in contact with many
people and some of them are not friendly towards authority. Reading an individual’s body
language can help officers determine the person’s comfort with the situation. That may lead the
officer to judge how to resolve the situation, such as whether to give a traffic citation or not. The
skill of understanding body language also has the capacity to warn the officer of dangerous
people and situations. For example, when I worked as a police officer over the summer of 2014,
we were taught to look for certain body language cues which could alert us to someone about to
fight or run. Early detection of these ideas in a perpetrator can help the officer deescalate the
situation and maintain safety. I wish to present my research in a systematic way so civilians can
understand how and why law enforcement officers act a certain way.

Kniesler 3
In my research I hope to validate the use of reading body language and encourage law
enforcement professionals’ use of the skill. This would especially relate to specific skills police
need such as detection of deceit and weapons. Then finally, through metadata analysis this paper
shows the relationship between police use of force on citizens with citizens’ body language.
BODY LANGUAGE
Validating Body Language As A Communicative Tool
Interacting with people on a daily basis, one has little doubt of the impact of body
language. Gestures, eye contact, and facial expressions guide the meaning between the words
we speak. But can this basic form of communication stand as a trusted building block of our
interactions? Should law enforcement officers trust a glance or shift in posture to inform them of
a person’s intent?
Body language is not solely a cultural phenomenon, but rather an instinctual human
behavior. Ekman, Sorenson, and Friesen (1969) began one of the first studies of cross-cultural
expressions of emotion. They took freshmen from American, Japanese, and Brazilian colleges to
judge the perceived expression of a person in a photograph. The researchers found that there
was a significant relationship between the responses: the majority of students identified the same
emotion for the particular pictures (1969:88). However, all of these countries were “westernized”
and there was the chance that the perception was guided by shared media and globalization. To
control for this, Ekman et al. included two pre-literate cultures, New Guinea and Borneo
(1969:88). After interpretation, the majority of the non-westernized respondents identified the
same emotions to the same facial expressions as the western studies. This research indicated

Kniesler 4
universality to the emotions of happiness, anger, fear, disgust, surprise, and sadness and their
expression in the human face (1969:88). The basis of facial expression universality opens the
discussion of other aspects of inherent body language and communication.
Despite Ekman, Sorenson, Friesen, and their associate’s work in the biological basis of
human nonverbal communication, other researchers support the belief that these behaviors are
culturally learned. Birdwhistell (1970) argued the ambiguity of many nonverbal cues which
humans use. During World War II, he observed American soldiers using a classic military sign,
a hand salute, for more than a sign of respect.
By shifts in stance, facial expression, the velocity or duration of the movement of
salutation, and even in the selection of inappropriate contexts for the act, the soldier could
dignify, ridicule, demean, seduce, insult, or promote the recipient… It was this order of
variability on a central theme which stimulated one of the primary “breakthroughs” in the
development of kinesics [study of body language] (1970:79-80).
Birdwhistell’s observation furthered his investigation into the source of nonverbal cues in
humans. He concludes that there is no gesture or expression which can be considered universal.
He argues this because of the extreme variation of the use of the same symbols in situations.
Even within the same culture, in this case the military, manipulating a simple gesture can give it
a multitude of meanings. He holds that symbolic gestures are culture bound. Natural overlap of
similarly used expressions occurs due to a natural limit to the number of expressions a human
can make (1970:81).
According to Birdwhistell’s account, law enforcement’s application of body language is
seriously hampered. If an officer cannot trust his or her knowledge, training, and experience it
will become more difficult for him or her to identify and respond to known dangerous actions.

Kniesler 5
Now he or she has to analyze each action anew with this particular citizen. Having to reanalyze
each situation could lead to an officer not reacting quickly enough to a dangerous action.
Additionally, law enforcement officers cannot use body language as an investigative tool. It
would mean they cannot use it as reasonable suspicion or probable cause to take action against a
possible threat.
Ekman agreed that many actions only made sense within cultural context. Yet he still
held that the source of body language was inherent and universal. In Biological And Cultural
Contributions To Body And Facial Movement, Ekman (1977) discussed many actions which are
used cross culturally and are indicators of certain thoughts and emotions. The first category of
study was Emblems. Emblems are actions, often expressed through the arms and hands, which
signify a specific meaning. These are largely cultural and usually need to be in context to
understand the meaning. They are often used in place of words (1977:40). Ekman and
associates were not surprised to find, “no universal emblems… [rather, emblems] are learned
much like language” (1977:42). Despite this, they did find that the meanings of certain emblems
were similar across cultures. This means that various cultures that Ekman studied had emblems
for similar topics, such as eating/feeling hungry, sleeping/feeling tired, and committing suicide
(1977:43-44). This research agrees with Birdwhistell’s ideas, but Ekman continues to go deeper.
Ekman moved from linguistic displays to their roots. Emotional expressions are the
facial expressions related to a particular emotion. Ekman claims that facial expressions are
difficult to decipher because of their variety of uses. They can act as an emblem, signifying a
specific work or idea. There are also illustrators which provide support for words spoken.
Finally, there are emotional expressions in which case it is a biological mechanism, not a learned
one (1977). Ekman proposes that expressions are biologically-based reactions to stimuli, with

Kniesler 6
cultural adjustments. He recounts how many times, in a sudden expression of emotion the visible
sign is extremely similar across cultures. However, when an authority figure is present at the
time of stimulation, there is a change in the portrayal of the expression (1977).
While it is debated whether the use of body language is learned or innate, the fact
remains that humans use it constantly. Even if the behaviors are totally learned, Ekman has
shown that many cultures come close in how they relay similar, important ideas. Law
enforcement professionals can use this knowledge to interact with citizens, as they are usually
looking for basic cues such as deceit and aggression. An officer could see past the spoken word
to see if there is trust or fear underneath which could indicate if the person is lying or needs help.
Body Language On The Streets
My first week as a police officer, I was walking up the Boardwalk in Ocean City,
Maryland on foot patrol. I saw three young males were walking towards me. I overheard, “shut
it, it’s a cop” whispered from one to another, who was talking loudly. I watched them closer,
and saw one of them touch the bottom of his left, front pocket every time he glanced at me. The
movement of the hand was very slight and in line with the natural swing of his hand from
walking. The male was acting out a subconscious movement police call “indexing” (Jones
2014). People index when they have something they are concerned about (See Figure 1). An
everyday example is when you expect a call you often touch or check your phone without always
realizing it. Police constantly look for suspicious indexing. I casually watched the group of
males from a distance but did not observe any indexing behavior until the males saw me.
I followed the males and one, who was not indexing or showing any other suspicious
behavior, began to talk conversationally with me. The indexing male told him to stop, he did not
need to talk to me and told me to, “go away, we don’t have to talk to you.” I did not have back

Kniesler 7
up from other officers so decided it was safest to approach the situation another time. From my
experience over the summer, this is a clear example of suspicious indexing. He clearly began
indexing once he saw me and only became agitated when I attempted to interact with them.
Figure 1 (Gallagher 1992)

Kniesler 8
However, professionals must be wary of misreading citizen’s body language. The first
kind of problem is Idiosyncrasy Error. Idiosyncrasy Error occurs when the observer has an
expectation of how an individual will act with everyone that he or she meets (Ekman and
O’Sullivan 1989). This would include an officer expecting every person he or she sees indexing
to have drugs or a weapon, although a more likely reason is that the citizen is waiting for a text
message. An officer confronting someone for such suspicion may provoke the next problem,
Othello Error. This error occurs when the stresses such as fear, surprise, or nervousness are
shown in body language and misread for feelings of guilt or deceit (1989).
Much later in the summer I stood watching citizens. A middle-aged man walked quickly
down the Boardwalk. His head was down, he glanced apprehensively around him at other
people, and he kept touching a bulge of about three inches by six inches under his shirt in the
area of his right hip. The object was too big to be a cell phone. I followed him from a distance
and he went into the male restroom. A Fulltime Officer came by and when the man left the
restroom I pointed him out. He no longer had the item under his shirt and appeared more
relaxed. That is when I learned what an ostomy pouch was (a medical device to collect solid
waste); I had applied my techniques to a man whose only danger was embarrassing himself. If I
had stopped and talked to him, he likely would have portrayed extremely agitated behavior
which I may have continued to misread because of my expectations and his discomfort. Officers
should remain aware of the context of people’s behavior. This becomes especially important as
many people are nervous around police.
An officer does not just need to watch other people’s body language, but also his or her
own. When standing on the Boardwalk many people looked at me, especially if there was
another officer with me. A common stance for a relaxed officer includes his or her arms and

Kniesler 9
hands resting on his or her duty belt. My hands laid across my baton, gun, and pepper spray
because of the setup of my belt. Many people would glance at my weapons as they went by, their
gaze partially drawn by my posture (Ekman 1965). Often people came to ask a question, but did
not come close until I moved my hands away from my belt and weapons. My ready access to
weapons sometimes made citizens nervous, but it was not meant to be intimidating on my part.
Standing with my hands resting on my duty belt was simply the most comfortable and tactically
appropriate stance.
Police officers are taught to rarely allow their hands to fall below the belt line, because
the further they go down, the longer it takes to respond to a threat. Additionally, they are taught
to not intertwine crossed arms so they are not impended if you need to act quickly. (Jones 2014).
This means that the most comfortable position left is to rest the arms on the belt instead of
holding them up for hours on end. However, the citizens do not know that and become nervous
when they see it. Ekman (1965), in studying emotion and body language, would include full-
body pictures instead of only the face so judges had more cues to use. Body language is rarely
isolated to a single marker and must be understood in context with the whole person. Officers
should remember this and take less threatening stances with peaceful civilians. Or they can use
it to their advantage and use their stances as a reminder to non-cooperative civilians to behave.
In the police academy I was told a story meant to teach me about articulating my reasons
for action, but it also serves well in this paper. “Officer Smith” was newly assigned to the Day
South Watch. Other officers on this beat knew “Bob Miller” often causes trouble in their area
and had numerous confrontations with the police. However, Officer Smith did not know about
Miller and was dispatched to a disorderly conduct call involving Miller. As Officer Smith
attempted to write down his information, Smith was constantly telling Miller to calm down and

Kniesler 10
stop yelling. Suddenly Office Smith punched Miller in the head and knocked him out. When the
case when to trial the defense attorney argued that Officer Smith used excessive force. Officer
Smith responded that Miller was yelling threats to his person, his family, and the onlookers in the
area. Furthermore, he saw Miller take a ‘fighting stance’ and draw back his arm, as if to punch
Office Smith. The judge decided that based on Miller’s body language, Officer Smith’s action
was appropriate as he does not need to be injured before defending himself. Officers need to
recognize various cues of aggressive behavior to increase personal and public safety (Jones
2014).
In Defensive Tactics lead by Sgt. Shawn Jones (2014), my academy class was taught to
identify various aggressive behaviors and the appropriate responses. As mentioned previously,
indexing behavior is performed by people who become preoccupied by a specific idea. I
mentioned indexing drugs, because the young male felt worried about that illegal activity.
Officers also watch for indexing of weapons. Guns especially require constant checks by
professionals and non-professionals alike to feel secure. As an officer, I often felt the handle of
my gun with my elbow before entering a potentially dangerous situation to remind myself of my
training. Untrained civilians however need to constantly check their weapon to keep it secure.
They often hide their weapon in the waistband, causing the pants to sink from the extra weight.
They billow out the bottom of their oversized shirt to re-adjust for better concealment, and to
make sure access is not impaired. If they have to move quickly, they will have to hold the
weapon in place as they move, possibly causing a disturbed gait (Jones 2014). Officers should
watch for people who show many of these signs. An officer who initiates a conversation with
the person could use further skills to determine if the person is a threat, and whether to take
further action.

Kniesler 11
Once an aggressive citizen recognizes your presence, he or she may start showing cues of
dangerous intent. The “thousand yard stare” is when a person seems to look past or through you.
This often indicates the person’s preoccupation with creating a plan of action. Often
accompanied by gaze avoidance, the citizen may still attempt to avoid all contact with the officer
at all. Yet, he or she still has a plan in case a confrontation does happen and it likely includes
violence. The greater danger lies once the stare becomes locked on the officer, now a focus of
attention and a target. This is when the officer may experience a confrontation and should have a
plan of action before even moving toward the threat. The best first step is to break the citizen’s
train of thought to distract him and gain time to prepare a plan (Leland 2009).
Finally, when in direct contact with the citizen, he or she will inadvertently tell you if he
or she plans to become violent. Humans cannot go from zero to sixty, we need to prepare for our
actions. So when someone shifts from a normal stance to a power stance with feet farther apart
and bringing his or her hands up, he or she is planning combat (Jones 2014). These signs may
be subtle, and they may be disguised. For example, during traffic stops a man may get out of his
car and walk toward the cruiser. Then, he does not comply with any commands of the officer to
go back to the car. A common sight when citizens act incompliantly is they wave their arms or
dance distractingly. This helps with the movement of blood in the citizen’s body and prepares
for a fight (2014). Another indicator often comes as a small jump, or bouncing on the balls of
the feet in anticipation. These seem distracting to the officer and often appear as if the man
simply wants to annoy the officer. The officer usually tries to calm the citizen, but does not
always tactically prepare. If the citizen continues to circle back to the car door and away,
sometimes a weapon is hidden and the citizen hides the purpose with going back and forth, or is
attempting to build up courage to act. An officer needs to take highly proactive measures to

Kniesler 12
distract the citizen from his plan. Regaining compliance is difficult but necessary to control the
situation and increase safety (Leland 2009).
Although the natural reaction to a threat is to neutralize it, possibly by fighting, law
enforcement professionals must maintain a level of uniformity. The Use of Force Continuum
(Figure 2) gives a standard which many law enforcement agencies follow (Jones 2014). The
Continuum includes all forms of police control from the officer’s mere presence to lethal force.
The Continuum is set up as a direct response to the citizen’s actions, yet officers are generally
allowed to advance to the next level to maintain control of the situation.
The Continuum has various forms, but all follow the same general pattern. Normal
interaction/compliance is at the bottom where the police do not need to become involved in a
situation. Next, there is a nonviolent action by the citizen to which the officer verbally responds.
An example of such includes an order for the woman to meet the officer and explain why he or
she was looking into many car windows. Next, the officer attempts to maintain compliance with
forceful orders or non-injury inducing contact. For example, in a resist of arrest the officer grabs
a woman’s hands and forces them behind her back. Next is a physical fight between the two,
where the officer may injure the citizen. Within that level the officer may use ‘less than lethal’
weapons which are intended to gain pain compliance but not mean to cause permanent damage.
Finally, if the officers fear for the lives of onlookers or their own, they may use lethal force
(2014).

Kniesler 13
Figure 2
Rodgers 2015
Jones (2014) stated that this continuum was fluid based on the officer’s perception of
events. The cues shown by citizens and responses of an officer can happen so quickly it follows
a natural progression and does not feel contracted to follow the “official order”. In the situation
previously outlined between Officer Smith and Miller, Officer Smith made an obvious jump
from presence and verbal orders to significant physical force. The jump is justified based on the
sudden change in body language by the citizen to a fighting expectation. An officer must
constantly monitor the citizen’s body language to determine the safest response throughout the
encounter.
Body Language In Interrogation
After arresting a suspect or inviting a witness into the station an interview takes place. No
matter who the officer talks to, he or she needs to determine the truthfulness of the person. Many

Kniesler 14
police officers like to believe that they have a great ability to read between the lines of the
interviewee’s story, but that may depend upon the kind of lies told. In a study of professional
law enforcement officers, federal judges, psychiatrists, and college psychology students most
groups hardly did better than chance guessing at judging deception (Ekman and O’Sullivan
1991). Ekman and O’Sullivan broke the scores into three groups: at or below 30% which would
be below a chance guess. Next, 40-60% correct, which is approximately a chance guess.
Finally, 70-100% correct or better judgment than change, which indicates actual skill (1991). A
chance guess is the estimation of someone who does not know but simply chooses. Ekman and
O’Sullivan found that the majority of people from the various groups mainly scored in the 40-
60% margin. The exception was the Secret Service Agents, none of whom scored in the bottom
set and a slight majority was in the top set (1991).
This research indicates that the majority of people have minimal skills in judging
deception, including professionals who constantly interact with liars. Their judgments were
about as likely as chance. However, Ekman’s later research with Frank (1997) changed the
kinds of lies. Previously, students were instructed to tell minor lies. These lies were constructed
for the experiments and not personal to the students. In 1997, people were offered a reward or
punishment for succeeding or failing to make the subject interviewer believe them. The subjects
were personally involved in the lie: the chose whether or not to steal $50 from a briefcase. The
test also made sure the reward was sufficient enough that some people would lie (up to sixty
dollars) and the punishment would make them nervous (loss of participation fee and an
uncomfortable situation for an hour). They were testing to see if using higher stakes would it be
easier or harder to identify deceit in the interviewee. Ekman and Frank found that higher stakes
increased the bodily emotional expression of the interviewee. This allowed a majority of subject

Kniesler 15
interviewers (64-80% across three experiments) to properly differentiate the liars from the truth
tellers (1997).
Additionally, a law enforcement officer should determine how close to the crime the
suspect is before the interview. This knowledge could help to not only determine which
questions to ask but also the proper emotional expressions to the subject matter. If a man’s wife
was found dead, he would likely show traces of disbelief or sadness. But if he appears scared or
overly interested in the subject he may know more information than he is telling, whether or not
he is the killer. However, if the officer is interviewing a neighbor who did not interact with the
victim often, it would be strang for that person to display strong emotions.
Subsequently, the interviewer still needs to know the kinds of emotional expressions to
look for in deceit. DePaulo, et al (2003) determined over 180 different nonverbal cues which
relate to deceit. The large number is because each person is different in how they lie, and even
in the kinds of lie they are telling. The researchers divided the cues into five main groupings:
how forthcoming, flow and expression, positive and pleasant, tension, and finally imperfections
and context. In this case, a nonverbal cue is not restricted to body movements or facial
expression; it includes the tone and flow of the interviewee’s speech pattern (2003).
First, the more forthcoming the interviewee is, usually the more truthful he or she is.
Cues related to this include time lapse between responses, detail of the story, unique and detailed
word choice, and body movements which indicate ‘holding back’ such as crossed arms or
pressed lips. The truthful person has a more natural flow and expressed account of his or her
story. Next, the second grouping focused on if the story was as compelling. DePaulo et al.
found, “By all three of the indicators, the lies made less sense than the truths. They were less
plausible… less likely to be structured in a logical, sensible way… and more likely to be

Kniesler 16
internally discrepant or to convey ambivalence” (2003). This grouping was more identified by
the ambivalence portrayed and the tone of the story told. Next, the third group had minor
differences shown between liars and truth tellers in how positive and pleasant they were during
the interview. Attitude was determined by the tone of voice, nodding head movements, and the
timing and kind of smile shown; it is believed that a smile which lifts at the cheeks is less sincere
than one which lifts at the eyes (2003). In a fourth category of tension, DePaulo found no
significant correlation with lying. Finally, ordinary imperfections and context were more
controlled by liars than truth tellers. This means that while a liar may give setting and context
for the story, he is less likely to add to it or make spontaneous corrections during the telling
(2003).
An interviewer should not be expected to look for each individual cue during the
interview. Understanding how the cues of movement, tone, and story pattern work together can
build the profile of the interviewee’s state of mind. The officer should watch for changes as the
interview progresses, to see if the person begins in truth and lies about parts of the story. Or if
the person was simply nervous to begin, and relaxed as the interview continued.
A way for the interviewer to identify deception beyond cues is what Paul Ekman calls
microexpressions. Ekman and Friesen (2009) made a discovery which supported a previous
observation, in which microexpressions, “can occur in cases of both deliberate concealment
and… repression. It is important to note that the micro looks the same in both cases”
(2009:130). The significance of microexpressions comes out because they leak the true
demeanor of the subject. While the cues and tone of the interviewee may portray integrity, at a
specific trigger a flash of the true emotion may come through. It seems that our biology has
written humans to show what they feel; Ekman’s list of microexpressions is the same as the list

Kniesler 17
of universal emotional expression. However, the emotions are only on the face for approximately
one-fifteenth of a second (2009:131). While almost no untrained observers notice this
expression at full speed, within an hour of training almost any trained observers can correctly
identify microexpressions in conversations. Once an officer becomes cognizant of these
miniature cues he can effectively use them in everyday interactions.
Again, the interviewer should be cautious in using these expressions. As with other
nonverbal cues, interviewers should consider microexpressions within the context, history, and
timing of the conversation. Without a continued conversation with a person, the interviewer has
little to no understanding of why the emotion appears. Does the interviewee feel fear from the
interrogation? Does she fear retaliation for her speaking out? Or does she fear she will get caught
in the lie? Understanding hidden emotion behind the mask can help the interviewer judge which
more overt cues to pick up.
DATA AND METHODS
Hypothesis
Psychologists have determined that humans use body language. Various sources
reinforce the applicability of body language to law enforcement in particular. However, I wish to
determine if there is a real relationship between citizens’ actions and officers’ responses. In
order to study this thoroughly, I will have two hypotheses against my null hypothesis.
: There is no relationship between the independent variable (“Did You Get Out Vehicle”) and
either dependent variable.

Kniesler 18
: There is a relationship between the “Did You Get Out Vehicle” independent variable and the
“Did Police Shout” dependent variable.
: There is a relationship between the “Did You Get Out Vehicle” independent variable and the
“Police Push or Grab” dependent variable.
Data Source
The Police – Public Contact Survey (PPCS) is a supplemental report to the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS data is gathered twice yearly from households
with participants 12 or older. Its purpose includes the estimation of trends and who is at risk for
various crimes. The PPCS is collected once every three years with participants age 16 or older
who have had contact with police. Individuals for the 2011 survey were chosen from their
responses to the NCVS in the last 6 months of 2011, additionally if they were English speaking,
16 or older, and willing. The PPCS began in 1996 with subsequent collections in 1999, 2002,
2005, 2008, 2011 and one unpublished for 2014. I will be reviewing the data from the 2011
survey. Researchers collected this data using new instruments compared to past PPCS surveys:
computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI), face-to-face interview, and telephone interview.
They used two forms for the surveys: one from the previous collections in 2008 based on people
who were stopped in the street or traffic and a new form for 2011 which was for people who
requested police assistance.
The data was collected by the United States Department of Justice, which includes the
Office of Justice Programs, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. They used a multistage cluster
sample model to cluster states, cities, and blocks, down to all individuals who meet the criteria
within clustered households. These individuals were questioned on their personal contact with

Kniesler 19
police in the past year by one of the two surveys. If more than one individual in a household was
surveyed, they all received the same form.
Within the data, the responses are coded numerically. Each response is given a number
beginning with 01. The variables which they collected range from the initial reason for the stop
to the end result. This encompasses every possibility in between such as how professional the
officer was, if a search was requested or conducted, and if the person felt it was warranted.
Advantages and Disadvantages of PPCS
The advantages of the data I am using include the encompassing nature of the Bureau of
Justice Statistics’ survey. The questions I chose had approximately 3,000 responders. Through
face interviews and computer assisted interviews, they were able to identify any vague meaning
behind respondents’ answers and receive clarification. Furthermore, I will be able to accurately
see the cause and effect nature of the citizens’ and officers’ actions leading to the end result of
the incident. A disadvantage related to this is I am only seeing the citizen’s point of view. This
opens up the possibility that the citizen lying to the interviewer or not understanding why the
officer responded in a certain manner. Upon further searching, I was not able to locate the
codebook for any officer’s responses in similar studies. Another disadvantage is I do not know if
the citizen is underestimating how threatening their action was to the officer’s perspective or if
they over analyzed the how officer responded to them. Further problems include it does not
appear that they included any people in jail or prison in their response, which would likely
include more people who have had force used against them.
Independent Variable

Kniesler 20
For my independent variable, I will observe the action of citizens. I decided this because
in realistic situations, most officers respond to the citizen. I chose the variable, “Did You Get
Out of Vehicle” during a traffic stop. This variable in particular is frequently the decision of the
citizen unprovoked by officers. People usually only get out of the vehicle if he or she wants to
give something to the officer and forgot to wait in the car or wants to harm the officer. This is a
more overt expression of body language than subtle ones which officers may have missed, and it
is considered significantly more threatening. I also chose this variable because of the high
response rate compared to other kinds of body language in the survey and I needed rates high
enough to be tested.
Dependent Variables
Because of the wide possible responses by officers, I will study two dependent variables.
My first dependent variable is, “Did Police Shout” during the traffic stop. In general, this is
likely one of the most common responses by officers to incidents. While it is not considered
“force” by some agencies, I use it because of it still show officer response to the citizen. The
second dependent variable I wish to study is as follows: did ‘Police Push or Grab” you during the
traffic stop. Again, I am looking for the officer’s response to the citizen’s action. Some would
think this is an obvious correlation as citizens would only get pushed or grabbed if they out of
the car. However, if a citizen gets out of his or her car it does not mean the officer will touch
him or her. Additionally, depending on the situation, officers may actually reach into the car to
control a person. An example of that would include that the citizen had a weapon within reach.
I decided to use the lowest given kinds of use of force expecting it would have the
greatest number of incidents. This gives me more opportunity to study the relationship between
citizens’ actions and officers’ responses. Actions of more force, such as shooting a firearm, may

Kniesler 21
have more overt relationships between independent and dependent variables. However, the
higher on the use of force continuum, the less likely that force is used. From looking at the data,
there were not enough incidents of greater force for me to test for a significant relationship.
Analytical Strategy
In order to discover if there is a relationship between my independent and dependent
variables, I will use the multivariate hypothesis test of Chi Square. This hypothesis test works
with nominal variables, which are variables which cannot be ordered based on value. The Chi
Square test determines if there is a relationship between the variables but not direction. This
means the Chi Square informs the researcher if the variables are related, but not necessarily if
one caused the other. As I explained before, I determined “Did You Get Out of Vehicle” as the
independent variable because in most situations it is the citizen’s choice to get out of the vehicle.
The dependent variables were chosen as they infer a natural escalation timeline compared to
some other variables.
RESULTS
Frequencies
In the 2011 the Police-Public Contact Survey used two different forms. The variables I
chose all come from the same form. This survey had a total of 62,280 respondents. Of those
respondents approximately 4,315 had contact with police relevant to the variables which I use.
In regards to my dependent variable, 4,317 respondents were asked if they got out of their
vehicle. Of those less than .5% (19 people) did not respond to the question. The majority of
respondents reported not getting out their vehicle, 92.47%, which was a statistic that did not

Kniesler 22
surprise me. From my knowledge and experience, most people do not want to leave their car and
have little reason to. This is part of the reason that the 7.08% of people who do leave the vehicle
may cause apprehension for the officer. Unless the officer asks them to, there are not many good
reasons for the citizen to exit the vehicle. If most people have a question for officers, they wait
until he or she comes back to the window. If they cannot find an item, such as the insurance
card, the officer often tells them to hold it out the window to let the officer know it was found.
Table 1
For the first dependent variable, there were 4,315 people asked the question and only
.0016% (7 people) did not give an answer. 97.78% of respondents were not shouted at by police.
Police did shout at 2.13% of respondents from traffic stops. I was actually slightly surprised this
number was not higher when compared to the number of people who got out of other vehicle. I
know many officers will yell at people to stay in their car once they are spotted getting out.
Though if the officer is close the car he or she may not have to shout in a way which seems
agressive. The officer also may escalate past warnings and use physical force.

Kniesler 23
Table 2
Finally, mainly the same group of 4,314 people who were asked if the police pushed or
grabbed them during the traffic stop were asked whether or not they got out of the vehicle.
Again, a minimal number of people did not give an adequate response only .0014% (6 people).
As many people would confirm from their traffic stops, the vast majority at 99.54% of people
were not pushed or grabbed by police. Only .32% of responders (14 people) reported being
physically pushed or grabbed.
Table 3

Kniesler 24
Results
Based on the set up of my tables and the 95% Confidence Interval I used, the critical Chi
Square was 16.919. This applied to both tests I ran. For the first, the relationship between
getting out of the vehicle and police shouting, I rejected the null hypothesis. I found that there is
a true relationship between the independent and both dependent variables.
For the first test I found the Observed Chi Square to be 129.75. This is well above the
critical number and indication of a true relationship. Of the 306 people who did get out of the
car, 9.8% (30) were shouted at. This may mean the citizens were complying with commands to
exit the vehicle or that officers felt they could control the situation more peacefully. Of the 3992
people who did not get out of the car, 1.5% (60) were shouted at, which is statistically much less.
This result is fairly intuitive: if people stay in the vehicle, they will experience less force.
Table 4
Chi Square 16.919 (degree of freedom 9, p<.05)
Then, with my second test, I rejected the null hypothesis. I found there to be a true
relationship between my independent variable and “Police Push or Grab”. Again, my critical Chi
Square number was 16.919 and my Observed Chi Square come out to be 215.7. I found that

Kniesler 25
4.2% (13) of people who got out of the car were pushed or shoved by police. Finally, I found
that less than .025% (1 person) of people who stayed in the car were pushed or shoved. One
person was pushed or grabbed and I suspect he or she likely had a weapon of some sort or a
threatening demeanor which caused the reaction. While citizens were less likely to be physically
touched than yelled at, both instances increased when the citizens exited their vehicles.
Table 5
Chi Square 16.919 (degree of freedom 9, p<.05)

Kniesler 26
DISCUSSION
Though the numbers appear small, that does not necessarily mean the information is not
important. The rates of officers using force are low as 9.8% shouting at and 4.2% pushing or
grabbing citizens when they get out of their cars. It appears that many police do not use force in
threatening situations. Yet not every situation was likely threatening to the officers. We do see
the increased rates of force applied when the citizen demonstrates a threatening action.
Consider that most traffic stops are completed without incident and without pressure for
officers to use force. We do not hear about dangerous stops constantly in the news, yet there are
likely hundreds of traffic stops each day. Also, traditionally aggressive behavior, such as getting
out of the car, may actually be peaceful. Officers can request or demand people to exit the
vehicle. In that case, it seems less likely an officer would have reason to act aggressively,
especially if the driver is compliant to commands. One example of such a situation is in car
searches. I found that sample of 306 people got out of their car includes 34.64% citizens (106)
were asked to by police. For instance, when police search a car, they have the people exit so not
to impede the search. If the citizen is compliant when they get out of the vehicle, there would be
no use of force.
Furthermore, officers often do not need to exert much force to gain compliance. Over the
summer I only yelled at one person in my arrests. I only chased and had one person lay on the
ground to be arrested, and he was not the same as the one I yelled at. Increasing the use of force
puts the subject, officer, and other citizens at more risk. Officers usually try for the safest
method: talking someone down. Though in extreme cases, police may skip a lower act of force,
like grabbing, in favor of a more forceful action. If a citizen got out of his or her car and
immediately reached into his or her waistband, the officer may suspect the citizen of drawing a

Kniesler 27
weapon and unholster his or her own. Analyzing each of the small incidents in between
experiencing on force and being shot would take up an immense amount of space in a paper.
This research suggests the majority of officers are capable of controlling situations without
resorting to use of force. Yet, force is used at a higher rate in response to people who
demonstrate threatening body language.
CONCLUSION
This research, from its review of literature, application to reality, and the final
examination of data all reveal a certain fact. In body language and in law enforcement as a
whole, nothing is certain. Yet, body language is a tool which law enforcement professionals can
use to react appropriately to situations. The skill of reading body language gives professionals
more ways of reading the situations and finding certainty and the appropriate reaction.
Body language has a foundation in natural human interaction. Every healthy person uses
body language to communicate to some degree. Many of the basic signals are universal to
humans, but sometimes are built upon to create a more complex and culturally specific meaning.
The cues which law enforcement professionals read stem from specific habits that occur within
criminal culture, such as indexing. Learning these cues and how to read non verbal
communication in general can help professionals develop their ability to interact with and
interview people. Data shows that law enforcement professionals do react with more force to the
body language citizens display during traffic stops. When a citizen exits his or her car, police
officers are more likely to use force than if the citizen remained inside.
Additionally, I believe that citizens should understand the affect of their body language
on officers. If citizens realized something as simple as keeping their hands out of their pockets
would deescalate situations, there would be less negative interactions with police. Teaching

Kniesler 28
citizens how to interact with police could curtail many uses of force and keep both the public and
police safer.
I believe officers should be taught basic skills in regards to body language. Many
academies already include these skills, yet if some academies do not, there are books and other
media which could be used to teach. While it would add an initial cost to the agencies, it could
save money in the future. Officers who accurately understand the intentions of citizens will
respond more appropriately. When they have better responses, there may be less or more
effective uses of force, fewer complaints clogging the system, and possibly fewer court cases and
costs if there are more appropriate uses of force. With increased understanding and usage of
body language, public and officer safety could increase.

Kniesler 29
REFERENCES
Adelson, Rachel . 2004 "Detecting deception." American psychological association 35(7):-.
Retrieved from American psychological association on Sep 20, 2014
Albert, Mehrabian. 2011. “A Nigerian-American Partnership Beckons.” "Silent Messages" -- A
Wealth of Information About Nonverbal Communication (Body Language), 2011.
Retrieved October 10, 2014 (http://www.kaaj.com/psych/smorder.html).
Birdwhistell, Ray L. 1970. Kinesics and Context. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press.
DePaulo, Bella M., James J. Lindsay, Brian E. Malone, Laura Muhlenbruck, Kelly Charlton, and
Harris Cooper. “Cues to Deception”. Psychological Bulletin. 129(1). Doi: 00332909
Ekman, P. (1977). Biological And Cultural Contributions To Body And Facial Movement. The
Anthropology of the Body, 15, 39–84.
Ekman, P. (1965). Communication-Through-Nonverbal-Behavior-A-Source-Of-Information
About an Interpersonal Relationship. Affect, Cognition And Personality: Empirical
Studies, 390–442.
Ekman, Paul. 2009. "Lie Catching and Microexpressions." Pp. 118-135 in The Philosophy of
Deception. edited by C. W. Martin. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press.
Ekman, Paul; Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting-Deception-From-The-Body-Or-Face.pdf. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 288–298.
Ekman, Paul; O’Sullivan, M. (1989). Hazards In Detecting Deceit. (D. C. Raskin,
Ed.)Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence (pp. 297–332). New
York: Springer Publishing Company. Retrieved from https://www.paulekman.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/Hazards-In-Detecting-Deceit.pdf

Kniesler 30
Ekman, P. & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). “Who Can Catch A Liar?” American Psychologist, 46(9),
913-920.
Ekman, Paul.; Sorenson, E. R.; & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Pan-Cultural Elements in Facial
Displays of Emotion. Science, 164, 86–88.
Frank, M. (2008). Human behavior and deception detection. Wiley Handbook of …, 5, 1–13.
Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470087923.hhs299/full
Frank, M. G. & Ekman, P. (1997). The Ability to Detect Deceit Generalizes Across Different
Types of High-Stake Lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1429-
1439.
Gallagher, Robert. 19922. Spotting A Hidden Handgun. Retrieved March 30, 2015.
(http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/sites/buckeyefirearms.org/files/publicfiles/pdf/spotting-
a-hidden-handgun.pdf)
Greenfelld, Lawrence; Kaminski, Robert; Langan, Patrick; Smith, Steven. Nov 22, 1997. “Police
Use Of Force.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 31, 2013.
Jones, Shawn. 2014. “Defensive Tactics.” Presented at WorWic Community College, May 19,
Salisbury, MD.
Leland, Fred. 2009. “Recognizing the Signs and Signals of Crime and Danger”. The
International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors. Law Enforcement &
Security Consulting Blog. Retrieved March 9, 2015. (http://www.lesc.net/blog/firearms-
instructor-ialefi-official-publication-publishes-article-recognizing-signs-and-signals)
Nowicki, S. A. (2004). Principles of kinesic interview and interrogation. Journal of Forensic
Identification, 54(4), 471.

Kniesler 31
Rodgers, Garry. 2015. “Police Shootings – To Wound or To Kill?” Dying Words Blog. Retrieved
February 20, 2015 (http://dyingwords.net/tag/use-of-force-
continuum/#sthash.VF3U1f3i.dpbs).
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Police-Public Contact Survey, 2011. ICPSR34276-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research[distributor], 2014-03-18.
http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34276.v1

Final Version

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Final Version

Similar to Final Version (20)

Final Version