It can be challenging for responding officers to determine who the predominant aggressor is on calls involving domestic violence and sexual assault (DVSA), especially when both parties have injuries or report they were victimized. Additionally, some state laws require officers to make arrests in DVSA cases in which certain domestic violence laws have been violated, which can pressure them to act quickly or lead to the arrest of both parties, causing further trauma for victims and hindering their access to support services.  

Predominant aggressor determination should consider facts and circumstances and whether one of the parties has engaged in a pattern of abusive conduct. DV is not solely characterized by physical violence, but also by power, coercion, and control exerted over a current or former partner through force, threats, or other abusive behaviors. In some cases, an abuser may receive injuries as a result of the victim’s self-defense actions or may act manipulatively to characterize themself as the victim of abuse, so an evaluation of all the facts in totality is critical for making informed decisions. 

The sections below provide examples of agencies in three stages of development:  

Lagging Behind, when an agency does not have a formal policy or the practices are outdated and/or harmful; 

Making Progress, when an agency uses practices that are considered the minimum standard; and  

Leading the Way, when an agency has researched promising practices and implements best practices tailored to the needs of victims. 

The examples provided below are not exhaustive for each category; they are only meant to illustrate the types of practices common at each stage.  

  • Officers do not receive training or guidance on predominant aggressor determination, or training/guidance exists but relies on outdated and/or flawed identification strategies.  

  • Agency policy requires mandatory arrest on domestic violence-related calls for service (even where not required by law).    

  • Predominant aggressor determination training may be available, but it is not mandatory or is provided only sporadically.    
  • ​​​Predominant aggressor training teaches officers and investigators to analyze offensive and defensive injuries, as well as power and control tactics.   ​​     ​​ 
  • Agency policy does not require mandatory arrest, unless required by law.    

  • Predominant aggressor training is evidence-based and required for all sworn personnel.    
  • Predominant aggressor training is also provided to critical professional (non-sworn) staff, including dispatchers and crime analysts.   
  • ​​Policies properly define domestic violence and patterns of abusive behavior that are used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over, or harm, an intimate partner. 
  • Policy addresses case law and standards for determining predominant aggressor. 
  • If a predominant aggressor is not determined, policy requires that the officer(s) notify a supervisor and provide reasoning in the written report. 
  • Policy requires supervisory intervention (review and approval) when an officer has determined that both parties have utilized equal violence, no self-defense was involved, or that there was no predominant aggressor.  

Explore the resources below for guidance on how to move beyond “Lagging Behind” and “Making Progress” to “Leading the Way.” The following resources provide guidance on making predominant aggressor determination:  


 

 

This project was supported by Grant No. 15JOVW-22-GK-04008-MUMU, awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed on this page are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice.