New Study: More Evidence Against the Myth of “Restraint Asphyxia”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Arrest in Prone Position

Overwhelming scientific evidence has found that restraining an arrestee in the prone position does not create an exceptional risk of serious injury or death.

Yet thanks to allegations leveled by plaintiffs’ attorneys and police critics, the myth of potential harm persists, including the claim that the weight of an officer placing a knee on a suspect’s back to aid in stabilizing and handcuffing can cause “restraint asphyxia,” a supposed fatal impairment of the subject’s ability to breathe.

Now the latest study of prone positioning has debunked that assertion.

This research measured the amount of downward pressure (“weight force”) that’s transferred from an officer to a suspect when the officer temporarily applies one or both knees to a suspect’s back to help maintain control until the cuffed subject can safely be rolled to his side or raised up.

The conclusion: none of four knee-on-back techniques commonly taught and used in law enforcement transfers any amount of weight even close to being dangerous, regardless of how heavy the officer applying the force is.

Believed to be the first of its kind, the study is authored by a six-person research team, headed by Dr. Mark Kroll, an internationally renowned biomedical scientist with the University of Minnesota and California Polytechnic State University who testifies frequently as an expert witness in police litigation.

“Our findings are important,” Kroll told Force Science News, “because North American officers control and restrain agitated and resistant subjects in the prone position over half a million times each year. Subjects end up being proned out in about 60 per cent of physical force encounters—without a death or serious injury resulting.
“Prone restraint is needed for officer safety, and the stake needs to be driven into the heart of the stubborn myth that this procedure is inherently excessive and dangerous.”

Dr. Mark Kroll, An Internationally Renowned Biomedical Scientist


Six academy recruits and 35 active-duty male and female officers in Minnesota were the volunteers for Kroll’s testing. Their weight ranged from under 150 lbs. to over 260 lbs., with most weighing between 175 and 200 lbs.

One at a time they applied four standard restraint-and-stabilization handcuffing techniques involving knee placement to the back of a training mannequin that was lying prone on a sophisticated electronic scale.

They were “instructed to do their best to hold each position with consistent normal downward pressure for 30 seconds,” Kroll explains. The scale was programmed to record multiple readings during this period and to average “the actual weight force transferred” to the “arrestee” through each knee contact.

One technique required an officer to face the subject’s side and apply both knees to the subject’s back. The other three maneuvers were single-knee restraints, with the officer variously positioned at the side or up by the suspect’s head and one knee applied to the back at different angles, avoiding direct contact with the neck or spine. The unengaged knee was kept on the floor or butted against the suspect’s side or shoulder for support and principal weight bearing.


In prior scientific studies, weights of up to 225 lbs. have been placed on a prone subject’s back without causing any clinically significant respiratory impairment, Kroll points out. For fatal consequences to be likely “would take two or more LEOs, weighing 287 lbs., each standing on the back of a prone subject,” he writes.

The measurements from his study were nowhere near those levels.

The average force weight delivered by the single-knee techniques ranged from merely 55 to 73 lbs., regardless of the officer’s body weight, Kroll reports. The weight from the double-knee technique was “slightly” greater, but even then the average weight force for a 200-lb. officer was about 99 lbs., still well below a consequential level in terms of injury potential. “In force-involved litigation,” Kroll writes, “the weight of the LEO, including all equipment, is often stressed” as presenting a risk of great physical damage. The underlying “presumption—that a large fraction of the LEO’s weight is transferred” to the subject—“stands refuted by these data.” In short, Kroll states:

“Our data do not support a risk of restraint asphyxia occurring from standard knee-on-back techniques.”

Dr. Mark Kroll, An Internationally Renowned Biomedical Scientist

However, Kroll cautions against “stretching” the findings to far different circumstances; for example, two or more officers lying or sitting on a suspect’s back with their full weight, so that both the suspect’s upper torso and lower back are under heavy pressure simultaneously. “This extreme positioning could hypothetically impair both chest breathing and belly breathing at the same time, producing fatal results in a matter of minutes,” he says.

He also warns: “Regardless of any scientific studies, officers need to be aware that there is a long ‘hangover legacy’ of court decisions that are not in harmony with the latest human-factors research. These can be used to blame officers unjustly for deaths following prone restraint, when, in fact, other matters like the suspect’s health or drug intoxication may be the causative elements. It’s important to document precisely how restraint was applied and to be certain that any attorney defending police actions be current with scientific findings.”

Kroll’s report on the knee research appears in the current issue of the quarterly American Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology, under the title “Applied Force During Prone Restraint: Is Officer Weight a Factor?” A free abstract, plus a link where the full study can be purchased, is available below.

Joining Kroll in the research were Attorney Michael Brave, Sergeant Scott Kleist of the Plymouth Police Department, medical consultant Mollie Ritter, Dr. Darrell Ross of Valdosta State University, and cardiac pathologist Dr. Steven Karch.

Our thanks for certified Force Science Analyst Gary Klugiewicz for his assistance with this report.

6 Responses
  1. Blake Paine

    But what if they are using un approved methods? In the George Floyd case we can see two officers are putting the totality of their body weight upon the entirety of the person’s back. Both Derek Chauvin & J Alexander Kueng have their entire body weight on Floyd with their shoes just being used for balance. That is almost 400 lbs of weight of men and equipment, negating both means of inhalation; chest elevation and diaphragmatic expansion, to the point that sufficient oxygen to maintain life cannot be moved into the lungs.

    A single knee to prevent mobility has never been the issue and as clearly stated in the June 1995 informative directive by the DoJ If he continues to struggle “do not sit on his back” which is what these two law enforcement officers did.

    This article is ‘proving’ something not even in contention by the DoJ directives and is itself the primary ‘myth’.

    Rolling a prone prisoner over can save their life – be a public servant or just a human being and do just that.

    1. Martin Thomas

      Would you be willing to provide more clarity for you observations? Are you relying on statements, video, or physical evidence to support your statements? I admittedly have no access to witness statements or physical evidence and I only have access to publicly posted video but I did take the time to review every available video of the event. I watched very clear video of Derek Chauvin kneeling on the back/side of Floyd’s neck with his left knee while his right knee was orientated toward the ground. I would not be willing to testify that the right knee was on the ground but it most certainly was not carrying Chauvin’s weight on Floyd’s back. The second officer is even less clear. If in fact he was ever kneeling on Floyd, it appears that he was below Floyd’s chest and closer to his hips.

    2. Jason

      Not taking into consideration conditions that impair the respiratory system; unknown factors that honestly we should be smarter about at this stage. This article might have been relevant 20+ years ago. Wake up for the love of god.

  2. Jeremy

    He died from excited delirium caused by the lethal amounts of Meth and Fentanyl, which is from his autopsy and toxicology report. The real ones, not the ones that Floyd’s family and lawyer paid to get the results they were looking for. A knee on the side of your neck cannot stop you from breathing.

  3. Karen jorgensen

    I would guess none of the restrained participants were fearful of being restrained and did not have a fight or flight response or panic or hyper ventilate which no doubt alter the body’s ability to breath. And while Floyd had drugs in his system, let’s not forget the length of time he was restrained, the number of officers who were there, and what he clearly told the officers – l can’t breathe. So did the participants fear for their life? Do you think that anyone being restrained and scared would not continue to struggle to be free? What do officers do then? They apply more force. Mr. Floyd was in physical distress – maybe more so because of the drugs, maybe because of physical health factors like overweight/Afib/asthma, maybe the panic- so did any of the restrained participants have any of those issues? Yes, in an ideal world the restrained person has no drugs, no health issues, is calm and cooperative- the officer is following protocol. Let’s not forget the officer who maybe is fearful for his life and his adrenaline that’s racing because they are holding down an uncooperative and struggling person, maybe they forget protocol as the office struggles to control the person. In an ideal world, yes this type of restraint might be safe for a short period of time. But in cases like Floyds and others, he said he couldn’t breathe. The ideal world and reality don’t match and to try to justify the ideal world is a disservice to the people officers are sworn to protect. The reality is for a variety of reasons – this method of restraint is dangerous.

Leave a Reply