By Sergeant Marinus Jorgensen
The use of force is one of the most scrutinized aspects of corrections work, carrying legal, professional and personal consequences for everyone involved. Agencies cannot eliminate the need for force, but they can control how it is reviewed and understood. A structured review process ensures accountability, protects officers and administrations from liability, and creates valuable opportunities for training and professional growth.
Court decisions like Graham v. Connor, Tennessee v. Garner and Whitley v. Albers have shaped the standards for how force is judged, emphasizing not just what type of force was used, but why it was applied. With 25 years in corrections and specialized training through Force Science, I have seen firsthand how critical it is for agencies to adopt formal use of force (UOF) review committees to align practice with these legal and ethical expectations.
| ON-DEMAND WEBINAR: Seeing the whole picture: Unlocking insight across corrections operations
Why use of force reviews matter
Implementing UOF reviews should not be viewed as a burden but as a critical tool for cultural insight. Such reviews provide a window into the behaviors and responses of individual officers and entire shifts. Some teams thrive under pressure; others struggle. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for leadership.
UOF reviews allow supervisors to reconnect with the day-to-day challenges officers face — challenges they may have forgotten amid administrative duties. The goal is not to nitpick but to assess objectively whether policies were followed and whether the force used was necessary and proportionate. When properly executed, reviews protect both officers and administrations.
As first-line supervisors, sergeants play a pivotal role. During my time on the floor, I developed informal safety cues, like using the word “bumblebee” to signal an officer to disengage. This type of proactive culture safeguards careers and reinforces accountability.
Training through review
A well-structured UOF review program can also highlight training deficiencies. It can be the foundation for requesting additional training resources or adjusting existing programs. Agencies that invest in their officers reap long-term benefits — both in performance and liability mitigation.
Body-worn cameras (BWCs) have become essential tools in this effort. Though initially met with resistance, BWCs provide an unbiased perspective of incidents. Their implementation has significantly reduced frivolous lawsuits in our agency.
How the use of force review process works
Following several costly lawsuits, our agency prioritized BWCs for all personnel. Despite budget constraints, the investment paid off immediately. Once cameras were in place, we developed a structured UOF review process, particularly for our jail operations where such practices were historically lacking.
A dedicated review team — composed of instructors certified in relevant disciplines — was formed. Their role is to assess incidents objectively, focusing solely on the force used, not extraneous behavior or commentary. Training logs are kept separate from official reviews to prevent them from becoming discoverable in litigation.
Key steps in the review process
Incident documentation requires officers to detail not just the basic facts but also relevant behavioral history, intelligence from the arresting agency, and key officer/subject factors such as age, size and gender. Reports should be concise yet detailed enough for a jury to understand.
Collecting materials means compiling all officer reports, video evidence (BWC and overhead), subject management and compliance (SMC) forms, and the review checklist.
Initial review begins with reading all reports to understand the officer’s perspective. Only after this should the reviewer examine video footage, ensuring it aligns with the written documentation. Reviewers must avoid letting video footage bias the interpretation of the officer’s memory, especially given how stress impacts recall.
Assessment criteria apply the Graham v. Connor standard: Was the force necessary and reasonable? What was the threat level? Was there resistance? The focus should remain strictly on the use of force and its justification.
Training identification requires separately logging training opportunities — such as premature relaxation or failure to recognize danger signs — without including them in the official review. These logs feed into our agency’s bi-monthly response to aggression training.
Building the right team
Effective UOF reviews require reviewers who are trained, experienced and respected. Supervisors should be fluent in case law and human performance under stress. Force Science offers exceptional training in these areas and has significantly improved our evaluative capabilities.
Finalizing the review
After reviewing all evidence, the checklist should confirm whether dictations were completed, video was reviewed and body and overhead cameras were used. Findings must clearly state either no policy violations or specify which policy was violated. The report is forwarded to the appropriate chain of command for further action, and the final report is shared with all involved officers to build transparency and trust.
Conclusion
A comprehensive UOF review system is not a luxury — it is a necessity. Regardless of the size of your agency or inmate population, this process ensures accountability, improves training and protects both officers and administrations. If your agency lacks a formal review process, I strongly encourage you to implement one. Use our model, adapt another, or create your own — but take the step. The long-term benefits are indisputable.
Tactical takeaway
A structured use of force review system builds accountability, strengthens training and reduces liability risks for correctional agencies.
How does your agency ensure objectivity and transparency in reviewing use of force incidents? Share below.
About the author
Sgt. Marinus Jorgensen is a 25-year corrections veteran and certified use of force instructor. He has led the development of training programs designed exclusively for correctional officers and advocates for accountability, officer wellness and professional growth in the field.
| WATCH: Gordon Graham on the correctional officer’s duty to intervene: