In recent years, police use of force has become the focus of both media and law enforcement agencies. Since the death of George Floyd in May 2020, the constriction of suspects’ breathing has been of particular concern. Neck restraint techniques of various kinds are all now considered deadly force chokeholds and prohibited by almost all agencies nationwide. As of September 2021, the Justice Department withholds federal funding from “any jurisdiction where choke or carotid holds are not banned.”

Understanding why this form of restraint has been so widely used and why there is officer resistance to the ban provides clues to help us develop effective alternatives.

This article explores the reasons why in high-stress situations, officers still revert to neck restraints and how rear restraints can be modified for safer application. A method of restraint using the most effective elements of chokes or carotid compression but without any neck contact is possible and can become a valuable component of approved defensive tactics curriculum.

Banning of the rear neck restraint

Rear neck restraint techniques are referred to by various terminology, including “sleeper hold,” “vascular neck restraint,” “carotid artery compression” and “lateral vascular neck restraint” (LVNR). Although there is significant research supporting the relatively safe application of these techniques, isolated incidents involving a suspect’s death have resulted in legal decisions that any constriction of the neck, causing even temporary loss of consciousness is too dangerous for inclusion in a defensive tactics curriculum. To lawmakers and the general public, the appearance of an officer’s arm around a subject’s neck will always be seen and defined as a chokehold.

Officer resistance to the ban

In New York City, long after neck restraint techniques have been prohibited, officers continue to use them in struggles with actively resistant or assaultive subjects. Between 2014 and 2020, the civilian complaint review board received 996 reports of its use. The unreported incidence of use is probably far higher.

In high-stress situations, officers are now put in the position of choosing between a lesser-force option such as a taser, OC spray or baton, or escalating the level of force by using their firearm. No effective alternative to the LVNR has been offered to fill the gap. A closer look at the elements that make neck restraints so effective can help identify effective alternatives.

Why officers rely on rear neck restraints

In a struggle with highly resistant or assaultive subjects, a taser or OC spray is often ineffective or cannot be accessed during a struggle. When in harm’s way, moving to the position of maximum safety is instinctive. The rear position best meets this need for maximum safety and control. This is especially true for officers of smaller stature or limited physical strength. The rear is by far the most effective position for taking an individual’s balance, which is the key to gaining control. Contact from the rear eliminates the need to grab a combative subject’s wildly flailing arms and wrists, which proves extremely difficult during a struggle.

What is missing in current defensive tactics training is alternative contact points, which do not involve the neck, do not constrict breathing or blood flow to the brain and do not cause loss of consciousness. The restraint must still be effective at taking balance and controlling aggressive behavior. Fortunately alternatives do exist.

Alternative rear control techniques

Following World War II, a military combat instructor and martial arts master, Morihei Ueshiba, developed a defensive system called aikido. It is based on the principle of responding to violence using minimal force. Tokyo Police have successfully used this system for decades. One of aikido’s central techniques is “irimi nage,” meaning “entering to the rear.” From the correct irimi position, a subject’s balance is taken by drawing them slightly backward, using their collar or shoulder as contact points and pinning their head firmly to the officer’s shoulder.

With their balance compromised, even large, aggressive individuals have little strength. With the officers’ arms wrapped around the forehead area, their eyes are covered. The temporary loss of vision serves two important purposes. Loss of vision further weakens balance, and it also reduces stimulation — a prerequisite for calming the subject. At this point, verbal de-escalation can safely begin. 

This irimi technique combines the safe, strong, dominant position of neck restraints without the violent appearance or potential dangers. The officer is actually protecting the head from injury. Compared to many defensive tactics techniques, irimi is relatively simple to learn and can be effectively used by officers of small stature. If the subject remains aggressive, they can be lowered to the ground with the head protected. From this position, the officer can apply an armbar as the subject turns to get up.

There is a level II irimi maneuver, which enables the officer to slip to the rear position from the front. This is achieved through distraction. The officer faints a blow to the face — momentarily capturing the subject’s attention, while simultaneously slipping alongside and to the rear. Another important benefit of the level II maneuver is that the officer evades any threats coming from his rear or flanks.

Conclusion

With any form of restraint around the neck now considered a chokehold, a serious void exists in the defensive tactics curriculum where a moderately high but less-than-deadly physical force is required for restraining highly resistant or combative subjects. Given that rear control is the safest and most effective position, officers need and deserve approved methods of restraint from this position. The level I and level II irimi techniques can effectively fill this need.