“Show me your hands.” Every officer has said it hundreds of times. Most of the time, the person complies. Sometimes the hands stay in a pocket, slide behind a hip, or sink into a waistband, and the officer has a split second to decide what that means.
When a suspect won’t show hands, it is one of the strongest warning signs an officer can see. In the FOCUS study of officer-involved attacks, hands were concealed in 53% of incidents where officers were attacked. Outside of non-compliance and amplifiers, no single behavior showed up more often.
This article covers what the research shows, how the courts have treated hands that stay hidden, and how officers can read and articulate this cue without treating it as an automatic danger sign.
What the FOCUS study found about concealed hands
The FOCUS study reviewed five years of public-domain officer video, the largest sample of its kind. Two researchers independently classified the behavior each subject displayed before violence occurred. FOCUS stands for Field Observable Cues for Unknown Situations.
Three findings matter most for this cue:
- Officers who were shot or shot at faced an average of 4.8 indicators beforehand. In violent encounters where officers were not hurt, the average was 1.5.
- Non-compliance was present in 95% of attacks, and an amplifier in 94%. An amplifier is context that makes harm more immediate or more likely: credible call or weapon information.
- Concealed hands appeared in 53% of attacks. That is more than any other sentinel cue the researchers tracked.
FOCUS calls these high-frequency behaviors sentinel cues. Concealed hands rarely appear alone; they show up alongside the others.
The practical lesson is the cluster. A hand in a pocket by itself means very little. A hand in a waistband from someone who is refusing commands, walking away, or glancing at the officer’s weapon is a different situation entirely.
Independent research points the same way
FOCUS is not the only study to flag hidden hands. In 2019, Richard Johnson published a frame-by-frame video analysis of 174 real arrests in the Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. He compared 87 suspects who physically resisted with 87 who did not.
Placing hands in pockets was one of only four commonly taught cues that actually predicted resistance:
| Cue | Resisted arrest | Did not resist |
|---|---|---|
| Hands in pockets | 44% | 5% |
| Invading personal space | 39% | 13% |
| Fighting stance | 23% | 1% |
| Clenched hands | 21% | 2% |
Hands in pockets showed the largest statistical difference of the four.
An earlier Johnson study, from 2014, surveyed 129 officers who had survived an assault. They ranked placing hands in pockets among the three behaviors most strongly tied to imminent violence. Every officer rated it at least a 6 on a 7-point scale.
Why hidden hands are so dangerous: action beats reaction
Hands are what deliver an attack. An officer who cannot see them cannot see a weapon until it is already coming out.
The human factors research explains why that matters. A response requires the officer to perceive the movement, decide, and then act. A suspect who has already decided only has to act. That built-in lag means an officer who waits to see a gun is usually reacting after the threat has arrived.
Darrell Ross reviewed 1,100 federal court decisions on police use of deadly force from 1989 to 2012. His findings describe the conditions these decisions happen in:
| Condition at the moment of fire | Share of incidents |
|---|---|
| Reaction window under 2 seconds | about 90% |
| Officer and suspect 12 feet apart or closer | about 86% |
| Low light | about 64% |
At that distance and speed, distance and cover are the officer’s best tools. When a subject refuses to show hands, the safest first move is often to create space or get behind cover, not to close in. That buys the reaction time the officer would otherwise not have.
What the courts say when a suspect won’t show hands
Courts have repeatedly held that officers do not have to see a weapon before they act. Use of force is judged under Graham v. Connor (1989): what a reasonable officer on scene would have believed, in a tense and rapidly evolving moment, without 20/20 hindsight. The Tenth Circuit, borrowing a line from New York’s highest court, put it plainly in Estate of Larsen v. Murr (2008): officers need not wait for the glint of steel.
Four cases show how refusing to show hands plays out in court.
| Case | What the subject did | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Anderson v. Russell (4th Cir. 2001) | After a gun tip and a visible bulge, raised his hands on command, then lowered them toward the bulge. He was unarmed. | Shooting held reasonable. The court refused to second-guess why the officer didn’t take cover instead. |
| Estate of Taylor v. Salt Lake City(10th Cir. 2021) | Refused repeated commands to show hands, walked away, dared officers to shoot, then pulled a hand from his waistband while lifting his shirt. He was unarmed. | Shooting held reasonable. The court called his movement a hostile motion consistent with drawing a gun. |
| Argueta v. Jaradi (5th Cir. 2023) | Fled while clutching his right arm tight to his side. | Court treated it as a furtive gesture akin to reaching for a waistband, even assuming the gun wasn’t visible. |
| Hill v. Commonwealth(Va. Ct. App.) | Ignored at least ten commands to show hands while digging beside his car seat. | Refusal to show hands, with other factors, supported reasonable suspicion that he was armed. |
Two patterns run through these decisions.
Sequence matters. The strongest cases follow the same order: a clear command, refusal, then a hand moving toward where a weapon could be. In Anderson, the court focused on the hands dropping toward the bulge in defiance of the order. That sequence made the threat imminent.
Refusal alone is not enough. In Hill and in the Virginia cases it cites, a single furtive movement in a high-crime area did not justify a stop. Courts want concealed hands plus context: a weapon call, a bulge, non-compliance, flight, or threats.
That is the same cluster the FOCUS research identifies.
Not every hidden hand is a threat: baseline and context
Most people with their hands in their pockets are not about to attack anyone. They are cold, nervous, holding a phone, or simply not listening. Some cannot hear or understand the command because of earbuds, a language barrier, intoxication, or a mental health crisis.
Research also warns that fear and aggression can look alike. A 2017 study in the Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology cautioned that many commonly taught cues overlap with signs of anxiety. That is why FOCUS treats concealed hands as one data point, not a verdict.
The question is not whether the hands are hidden. It is how that behavior differs from the person’s baseline, and what else comes with it. FOCUS separates these levels of concern:
- Ambiguous movement. Fidgeting, or a brief touch near the waistband while otherwise complying. Low concern.
- Non-compliance with safety commands. Ignoring “show me your hands,” or slow, deceptive compliance.
- Weapon access cue. A hand that disappears to the waistband, pocket, or bag right after a “don’t reach” command. Also an elbow pinned tight to clear clothing, a garment lift, or a shoulder dip consistent with a draw. This is the highest-signal version.
Then the officer weighs amplifiers that raise the risk. A hand in a coat pocket on a cold night from a subject who is talking calmly sits at the bottom of that scale. A hand digging in a waistband after the third command, at ten feet, in low light, sits at the top.
How to articulate concealed hands in your report
“Furtive movement” is one of the weakest phrases in a use-of-force report. It tells a reviewer that you saw something, but not what. Courts credit specific, sequenced descriptions, like the hand moving toward the bulge in Anderson.
A strong description answers where, when, and how:
Weak: “The suspect made a furtive movement toward his waistband.”
Strong: “After my second command to show his hands, the subject turned his right side away and pushed his right hand into his right front waistband. His elbow stayed pinned to his side. He was about 10 feet from me in low light, and I had no cover within reach.”
The strong version documents the command, the refusal, the specific body region, the movement, the distance, and the conditions. Each one is an articulable fact in the totality of the circumstances.
Practical takeaways for officers
- Give a clear command early, and repeat it. A refusal only becomes meaningful once the subject has heard a lawful command.
- Create distance or use cover when hands stay hidden. Time is the one advantage concealed hands take away from you.
- Look for the cluster. Concealed hands plus non-compliance, walking away, arguing, or target glancing is a far stronger signal than any one cue.
- Read the trend. Hands coming out and distance growing are mitigators. Hands going deeper after commands is escalation.
- Write it like a timeline. Command, response, body region, distance, lighting, and what options you had.
Frequently asked questions
Why do police tell people to show their hands? Hands are what hold and use a weapon. Seeing them lets an officer rule out an immediate threat and use less force. In the FOCUS study, concealed hands were present in 53% of attacks on officers.
Is refusing to show your hands a crime? Not by itself in most situations. During a lawful detention, though, ignoring safety commands can count as non-compliance, and courts consider it as part of the totality of the circumstances.
Can an officer use force if a suspect won’t show hands? Refusal alone rarely justifies deadly force. Courts have upheld force when concealed hands came with other facts: a weapon report, a bulge, threats, or a hand moving toward a waistband after commands, as in Anderson v. Russell and Estate of Taylor v. Salt Lake City.
Do officers have to see a gun before using deadly force? No. Courts judge what a reasonable officer would have perceived in the moment. Several federal circuits have held that officers need not wait to see a weapon when the subject’s actions are consistent with drawing one.
Is hands in pockets a pre-attack indicator? Yes. A 2019 video study of 174 arrests found hands in pockets in 44% of suspects who resisted, compared with 5% who did not. It is most meaningful when it continues after a command, moves toward the waistband, or clusters with other cues like non-compliance, walking away, or target glancing.
Learn to read the warning before the attack
When a suspect won’t show hands, the officer’s job is not to guess. It is to read that cue in context, recognize when it clusters with other warning signs, and articulate it in a way that holds up. Officers who were shot or shot at faced an average of 4.8 warning signs first. Those signs were there to be seen.
FOCUS trains officers to recognize those sentinel cues and turn what they observe into a defensible, real-time risk assessment. It is built on the largest study of its kind and taught by Dr. Travis Yates, a 30-year law enforcement veteran.
- See how the FOCUS methodology works
- View training dates and certification levels
- Bring FOCUS to your agency
Related reading: Pre-Attack Indicators: Why Police Training Has Almost No Research Behind It
Sources
- FOCUS study findings, Tactical Behavior Science training materials. tacbehavior.com
- Wallentine, K. (2021). No Liability When Suspect Refused to Show Hands, Acted as if Drawing a Gun. Lexipol. Covers Estate of Taylor v. Salt Lake City (10th Cir. 2021).
- Johnson, R. R. (2019). Exploring the Validity of Behavioral Cues Predictive of Physically Resisting Arrest. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 34, 134–144.
- Johnson, R. R. (2014). Perceptions of Interpersonal Social Cues Predictive of Violence Among Police Officers Who Have Been Assaulted. Springer.
- Ross, D. L. (2013). Assessing Lethal Force Liability Decisions and Human Factors Research. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 13(2), 85–101.
- Kahn, K. B., McMahon, J. M., & Stewart, G. (2017). Misinterpreting Danger? Stereotype Threat, Pre-attack Indicators, and Police-Citizen Interactions. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology.
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
- Anderson v. Russell, 247 F.3d 125 (4th Cir. 2001).
- Estate of Larsen v. Murr, 511 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2008).
- Argueta v. Jaradi (5th Cir. 2023).
- Hill v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App.).