Whether it’s a thrown punch, a buzzing taser, an attacking canine, or even a whirling bullet–officers within the Utah Highway Patrol sometimes use force to uphold the law.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police reports public controversy surrounding their use of force due to its more violent nature. As a result, each case is collected and logged by the Department of Public Safety so that the details and dispositions of each case can be evaluated and shared with the public.
A study done under the department and through the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2018 Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), along with data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), found that out of 61.5 million residents 16 or older in the U.S in 2018, 1.3 million experienced threats or use-of-force from police.
That’s 1.3 million people possibly behind a verbal threat, a taser, or even a bullet–and UHP officers with their lives on the line.
Keeping record of those incidents is helpful to UHP and DPS, according to law professor Matthew Tokson at the University of Utah. He thinks this is especially true as they work to create and uphold regulations to protect citizens and officers.
“Police use of force impacts a large number of Americans at some point in their lives,” said Tokson. “If use of force regulations aren’t clear or consistent, that could adversely affect officers in potentially dangerous situations.”
But how does the Utah Department of Public Safety know what those regulations need to look like? How do they know what the citizens of Utah need?
Tokson believes that comes down to how easy the regulations are to understand.
“We’d want the regulations to be easy to understand and follow,” said Tokson. “Regulations should strike the appropriate balance between restricting excessive uses of force and maintaining officer and civilian safety.”
Seth Stoughton, Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina and Director of the Excellence in Policing & Public Safety Program, agrees.
“Research tends to show that officers are responsive to agency policy; as a shorthand, most officers will follow most policies most of the time,” said Stoughton. “So, if the agency wants to change officer behavior, policy revisions can be an effective way to do so, even if policy is not 100% effective.”
Stoughton believes that by keeping track of use of force information and recording data, UHP and DPS can better understand what is happening in each individual case, and make further regulations and policies to protect citizens and officers while also upholding the law.
UHP reports there were a total of 47 logged use of force incidents over the past three calendar years, 2021-2023.
Of those, there were 25 accounts of “resist arrest,” eight “fleeing suspect,” six “other,” four “assault on officer,” and one “forced blood.”
How this data translates from statistics to policy, however, is a matter of how the UHP and DPS review and label the case, which I experienced first hand with the process of a GRAMA, or a Government Records Access and Management Act request.
A GRAMA request, as posted in the Utah Public Records, is “Utah’s version of the federal government’s Freedom of Information Act.” This act, according to the FOIA guidelines, provides the public with the right to request government information.
An act that allows journalists, like myself, to obtain information regarding police use of force within the UHP.
Out of 47 cases reviewed in those three years, 36 were “within policy,” meaning there were 36 times where use of force was deemed necessary. This is followed by two “exonerated” cases, as well as three “counseled” cases, two “commendation” and three “mixed findings.”
Although this data may seem detailed, the reason behind this meticulous book-keeping is relatively simple according to Stoughton.
“There’s an old saying: what gets measured, gets managed,” said Stoughton. “If officers don’t document their uses of force, it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to conduct any kind of meaningful review on the individual officer in that specific incident and patterns across agency personnel more broadly.”
So, according to officers within the UHP: it’s written down, and it’s reviewed, and then it’s reviewed again.
Major Jeff Nigbur, Assistant Superintendent of the UHP, and Lieutenant Cameron Roden stress that this is not something taken lightly within the department.
“We are possibly taking away people’s rights,” said Maj. Nigbur. “So we take it very seriously.”
That is why, he said, this information is ultimately compiled and provided to the public.
“It is important that the public has access to this information because it is the public that evaluates the performance of the agency that decides whether the local police department is doing a good job or a bad job,” said Stoughton. “To do that effectively, and to maintain trust in the agency, the public needs meaningful information.”
Stoughton, Tokson and officers with the UHP all believe that police accountability comes down to public disclosure.
“Ultimately, there is a lot of public trust,” said LT. Roden.“Each department will be different, but the public is always the person that holds police accountable.”