What To Look for in a Use of Force Investigation

A use-of-force investigation is only as strong as the steps taken in the earliest moments and the thoroughness of the follow-up. Whether conducted internally or reviewed externally, the quality of the investigation often determines whether decision-making, supervision, and accountability can be meaningfully assessed.

Several core elements consistently distinguish a comprehensive use-of-force investigation from a deficient one.

On-Scene Investigation and Scene Management

A proper investigation begins at the scene. This includes securing the location, identifying involved areas, and documenting conditions as close in time to the incident as possible. Early scene management helps preserve evidence and prevents later disputes about what was present or observable at the time force was used.

The investigator should be a supervisor who had no involvement in the use-of-force incident. This includes any supervisor who was on scene and in a position to direct or control the use of force, participated in planning the incident if it was pre-planned, or otherwise directed or took part in the incident.

Investigators should canvass the scene to identify physical evidence, potential witnesses, and relevant vantage points. This step is critical, particularly in public settings where bystanders, vehicles, and nearby structures may affect what was seen or recorded.

Identification and Documentation of Evidence

A thorough investigation requires active searching for evidence, not simply relying on what is immediately visible. This includes locating and documenting physical evidence, markings, damage, or environmental features that may be relevant to the use of force.

Equally important is documenting where evidence was found and how it relates spatially to the incident. Photographs, diagrams, and measurements help preserve context that cannot be reconstructed later.

Witness Identification and Perspective

Witness identification should extend beyond those who come forward voluntarily. A scene canvass should include efforts to locate individuals who were present but may not immediately identify themselves as witnesses. The investigating supervisor should document the extent and results of the canvass, including specific street addresses and whether they spoke with someone at each address.

Witness interviews should capture not only what each person reports seeing or hearing, but also where they were positioned at the time of the incident. Documenting witness viewpoints through photographs taken from their stated locations or diagrams showing lines of sight adds critical context when evaluating the reliability and scope of witness observations.

Review of All Available Video Evidence

Comprehensive video review is a cornerstone of modern use-of-force investigations. Investigators should make reasonable efforts to identify and review all available video sources, including:

• Body-worn cameras

• In-car cameras

• Fixed surveillance cameras

• Private or commercial security video

• Cell phone video recorded by witnesses or bystanders

Video review should be systematic and documented. The absence of video from an expected source should be noted and explained, rather than assumed.

Video from News Media and Public Sources

In addition to agency-generated video, use-of-force reviews should consider whether footage exists from news media or has been captured and disseminated publicly. In many incidents, video may be recorded by journalists, bystanders, or community members and later broadcast, uploaded to social media platforms, or otherwise shared online.

Such footage can provide additional perspectives, timelines, or context that may not be captured by body-worn or in-car cameras. Investigators and reviewers should make reasonable efforts to identify, preserve, and review publicly available video, recognizing that online content may be edited, reposted, or removed over time.

When video originates from external sources, it is important to document where the footage was obtained, what portion was reviewed, and any limitations related to angle, continuity, or authenticity. The existence of publicly circulated video should be acknowledged in the review, even when it does not materially alter investigative findings.

Failure to identify or account for widely available video may raise questions about the thoroughness of a use-of-force review and undermine confidence in the investigative process.

Interview of the Person Upon Whom Force Was Used

A complete investigation includes an effort to interview the individual upon whom force was used, when medically and legally appropriate. This interview provides information that may not be captured elsewhere, including the individual’s perceptions, physical condition, and account of events.

Investigators should also address medical considerations, including requesting a medical records release. If a release is refused, that refusal should be documented. Medical records, when available, can provide important information about injuries, timing, and treatment related to the force event.

Officer Statements and Involved Personnel

Investigations should obtain statements from all involved officers and any witnessing officers. These statements should be evaluated in light of training, policy, assigned roles, and individual responsibilities at the scene.

Supervisory actions and command decisions should also be documented, including notifications, approvals, and post-incident responsibilities. Use-of-force investigations are not limited to the actions of a single officer; they encompass the broader operational response.

Supervisory Intervention and Timely Retraining

When a supervisor conducting a use-of-force investigation identifies a concern with tactics, decision-making, or policy application, timely corrective action is critical. Waiting until an investigation is formally completed or closed may allow problematic practices to continue unchecked.

Supervisory intervention does not necessarily mean discipline. In many cases, it means immediate retraining, clarification, or corrective guidance to address an identified issue. If no feedback or retraining occurs, the involved officer may reasonably conclude that their actions were acceptable and repeat the same behavior in subsequent encounters.

Timely retraining reinforces expectations, supports professional development, and reduces the likelihood of repeated errors. From an accountability and risk-management perspective, addressing issues as they are identified is often more effective than relying solely on post hoc conclusions.

Documenting corrective action taken during the investigative process also demonstrates active supervision and a commitment to continuous improvement, rather than passive review.

Equipment and Force-Option Data

When force options involving equipment are used, relevant data should be preserved and reviewed. This may include downloading and documenting data from conducted electrical weapons, reviewing deployment information, and ensuring that associated evidence is retained in accordance with policy.

Failure to preserve or review available equipment data can significantly undermine the completeness of an investigation.

Documentation, Completeness, and Review

Finally, a use-of-force investigation should demonstrate completeness. Required investigative steps should be clearly documented, deviations from policy should be explained, and supervisory review should be evident in the record.

An investigation that omits key steps or leaves unanswered questions makes it difficult to assess decision-making, supervision, or accountability. Thorough documentation supports transparency, defensibility, and meaningful review.

However, the investigation itself is only the first step in the accountability process. A complete review requires an independent adjudicative determination, in which the designated reviewer evaluates all collected evidence and explicitly determines whether the force used was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and consistent with agency policy. This review should also identify any tactical, training, or decision-making issues revealed by the investigation, or clearly document that such issues were already addressed by the investigating supervisor through timely corrective action or retraining.

A well-conducted use-of-force investigation is foundational to accountability, risk management, and organizational learning, but it is not the endpoint. Meaningful oversight requires both a thorough investigation and a documented, independent evaluation of the incident’s reasonableness, policy compliance, and training implications. Attention to investigative fundamentals—such as scene management, evidence collection, witness perspective, video review, and documentation—allows agencies and reviewers to evaluate use-of-force incidents within the totality of the circumstances and in alignment with professional standards.

Independent review of use-of-force investigations and investigative quality is among the services offered by Riggs Advisory Group.