Investigation into detention officer’s use of force on a man while in custody – Cleveland Police, May 2025

Cleveland Police officers were sent to an address to arrest a man wanted on recall to prison. A different man at the same address was behaving in a threatening manner towards the officers and obstructing them from carrying out their duties. The officers arrested the man for being drunk and disorderly. 

Officers took the man to the floor during the arrest, handcuffing him and spraying him with incapacitant spray.  The man did not appear to have any injuries at that time, and he was escorted by the police to a custody suite.

The man was searched in his cell by police officers and custody staff. The man stood up quickly from his bed as officers left the cell, moving towards the officers with his hand in a fist position. A physical interaction occurred between the man and the officers, with the man sustaining an injury to his face and eye.

We received a conduct referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the circumstances of the incident. We examined the decisions and actions of one custody detention officer in relation to their contact with the man while in police custody, including the decision to use force and the nature and extent of that force. We also considered if the use of force was in line with local and national policies, procedures, guidelines, and training.

We obtained statements from the officers and staff involved in the arrest, cell search and subsequent use of force within the cell. We also examined CCTV footage from within the custody suite. We obtained training records for the officers and staff involved, as well as local and national policies, procedures and training material relevant to the arrest and related use of force. We also obtained an expert review of the use of force within the cell. The man who was arrested did not respond to our requests to be considered an interested party in our investigation.

We considered whether the use of force by the custody detention officer was reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. They provided a full account of their decisions and actions.

We concluded there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings. We found that the use of force was reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the circumstances, and to ensure the safety of themselves and their colleagues.

We did recommend that the member of custody staff would benefit from the reflective practice review process (RPRP). This process allows individuals to learn from and reflect on what could have been done better.

We recommended that they receive additional training about acceptable restraint and use of force tactics, as well as additional learning about the powers afforded to them when conducting their duties as a detention officer.

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

We did not identify any organisational learning in this case.