Electronic Control Devices: Legal Resources
Legal resources for the legal aspects of electronic control devices (ECDs)
staff@ecdlaw.info
800-944-4485
electronic control devices basic principles and information Electronic Control Devices Issues Elevated Risks for Electronic Control Devices Societally Protected Groups and Electronic Control Device Uses Electronic Control Device Civil Legal Cases Electronic Control Device Statutes Electronic Control Device Model & Sample Policies

Electronic Control Devices: Legal Resources

LAAW
Website is owned by LAAW International, LLC
Which is owned by Michael Brave


This "index" page is currently the ONLY operational page on this website.
Website tentatively will be fully populated by some day.

(Free) Newsletter (Information Update(s)) Subscribe / Unsubscribe:

Subscribe to Newsletter (Information Update(s))

Unsubscribe to Newsletter (Information Update(s))

Excellent ECW-Related Reference Websites:

IPICD Logo Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths, Inc. ("IPICD")
- For information on sudden death, agitated delirium, excited delirium, medical/scientific aspects of Electronic Control Devices (ECDs):
- For a large number of TASER® ECD related documents go to the IPICD website (articles page)
- IPICD 2nd Annual Restraint Symposium - April 27-29, 2015 - Las Vegas, Nevada
- 2015; Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths (IPICD) 10th Annual Symposium - November 16-18, 2015 - Las Vegas, Nevada.

UOMExcited Delirium Education, Research, and Information
University of Miami, Miami, Florida (Dr. Deborah Mash, Ph.D., Professor of Neurology, Professor of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, Director of University of Miami Brain Bank)

AELE

AELE - Americans for Effective Law Enforcement,
- Law Enforcement Legal Center

- Excellent resource for law enforcment related legal matters.
- AELE's Electronic Control Weapons (ECW) Legal Research/Library Internet Portal

Primary TASER® Conducted Electrical Weapons (CEW) White Papers:

(11/17/14) CEW Research Index
(12/10/14) Brave - Brief DRAFT Outline of Selected Numbers, Law, Research
(11/18/13) Brave - 2013 IPICD Annual Conference Presentation PowerPoint
(10/03/14) TASER Risk Management PowerPoint (pptx file - 10 megabytes)
(02/24/13) International TASER Risk Management Canadian and International PowerPoint (pptx - 4 megabytes)
(09/07/10) ECD Forensic Index
(08/19/08) ECD Research Index and Conclusions

(10/15/13) Council of Canadian Academies and Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. The Health Effects of Conducted Energy Weapons.  Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on the Medical and Physiological Impacts of conducted Energy Weapons – Full Report. Council of Canadian Academies and Canadian Academy of Health Services. 2013
(10/15/13) Hall, C. 2013. RESTRAINT. Canadian Police Research Centre, Canadian Safety and Security Program, Government of Canada. October 2013
(05/24/11) Laub, J. Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption. National Institute of Justice
(05/24/11) Alpert, G., Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapon. National Institute of Justice
(03/11) Pasquier, M. Electronic Control Device Exposure- A Review of Morbidity and Mortality. Annals of Emergency Medicine

(07/14/12) Introduction: TASER ECDs, History, Electricity, Electrical Stimulation, Electrical Measurements, & Human Body

(08/28/08) TASER® Electronic Control Devices (ECDs) Review of Safety Literature, Mark W. Kroll, PhD, FACC, FHRS. (Note, this document has been enhanced and published (as Chapter 42: TASER Electronic Control Devices) in Electrical Injuries: Medical and Bioengineering Aspects, Second Edition, Edited by Raymond M. Fish and Leslie A. Geddes, Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc.)

(03/17/07) Basic DRAFT Electronic Control Device (ECD) Legal Outline - will be enhanced, corrected, improved.

Basic Use-of-Force Information:

(09/09/14) Brave - Brief ECD Case Force Factors Presentation (PowerPoint)
(12/19/10) Brave - Numbers Presentation (PowerPoint)
(12/19/10) Brave - Other Presentation (PowerPoint)
(11//01/11) Missy O'Linn's Use of Force Presentation PowerPoint (17 megabytes)
(08/15/11) Missy O'Linn's PowerPoint from TASER Chief's Program, Irvine, California

Use of Force Analysis Charts:

(04/21/14) Charts: LAAW International, LLC. Use of Force Analysis Charts.
(03/01/09) Basic Fourth Amendment (4th) "Objective Reasonableness" ("OR") Force Considerations

Basic Arrest-Related Death Information:

(01/02/09 In-Custody Death Research Index
(03/13/09) Excited Delirium Checklist - with references

LAAW International, LLC TASER ECD Reference Sheets (LRSs) Detail (D):

(06/25/08) TASER Electronic Control Device, Legal Issues Outline: Restraint Cases

TASER Reference Sheets (TRSs) and Other ECD Related Reference Summaries:

(10/15/12) TASER ECD Risk Management Injury Reduction PowerPoint Presentation (.pptx - 6 megabytes)
(12/11/12) International TASER Risk Management Canadian and International PowerPoint (.pptx - 4 megabytes)

(03/19/08) TRS-D 2004: What the Numbers Say (U.S.) - Detail
(02/06/08) TRS What the U.S. Drug Abuse Numbers Say ...
(09/02/08) TRS-D Ventricular Fibrillation (VF) - Detail
(06/10/08) TRS-D Metabolic Acidosis - Detail
(04/24/08) TRS-D Breathing Effect - Detail
(04/25/08) TRS-D Rhabdomyolysis - Detail
(06/10/08) TRS-D TASER Electronic Control Device (ECD) Delivered Energy Basic Analogy Examples
(12/27/11) TASER X26 ECD Demonstration Outline

(03/01/13) TASER Handheld Conducted Electronic Weapons Law Enforcement Warnings
(10/15/09) TASER Training Bulletin 15.0 Medical Research Update and Revised Warnings
(03/01/06) Reason for June 28, 2005, TASER Training Bulletin, regarding multiple TASER electronic control device exposures alleged effects on respiration and pH levels warnings

(02/01/09) TASER M26 Electrical Characteristics
(02/06/09) TASER M26 Specifications Sheet
(02/01/09) TASER X26 Electrical Characteristics
(02/06/09) TASER X26 Specifications Sheet

TASER ECD State Statutes (Summaries):

(02/17/11) (US) 2011 U.S. State Statutes Quick Reference Summary Regarding TASER Brand ECDs

(02/17/11) (US) 2011 U.S. State Statutes Regarding or Relating to TASER Brand ECDs

TASER ECD-Related Books Available:

(02/12) Atlas of Conducted Electrical Weapon Wounds and Forensic Analysis. Edited by Jeffrey D. Ho, Donald M. Dawes, and Mark W. Kroll, Springer Science Business Media. June 2012.

(09/11) Clinical Forensic Medicine: A Physician’s Guide. 3rd Edition.. Edited by Stark, M. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. Sept 2011;(8):233-275.  Chapter 8: TASER Conducted Electrical Weapons.

(02/01/09) Electrical Injuries: Medical and Bioengineering Aspects, Second Edition, Edited by Raymond M. Fish and Leslie A. Geddes, Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc. Chapter 42: TASER Electronic Control Devices.

(03/26/09) TASER® Electronic Control Devices: Physiology, Pathology, and Law, by Mark W. Kroll (Editor), Jeffrey D. Ho (Editor), (Table of Contents)

TASER® Conducted Electrical Weapons are rapidly replacing the club for law-enforcement control of violent subjects within many countries around the globe. A TASER CEW is a hand-held device that delivers a 400-volt pulse with a duration tuned to control the skeletal muscles without affecting the heart at a distance of up to 6.5 meters over tiny wires. If necessary, it begins with an arcing voltage of 50,000 V to penetrate thick clothing; the 50,000 V is never delivered to the body itself. Due to the widespread usage of these devices and the widespread misconceptions surrounding their operation, this book will have significant utility. This volume is written for cardiologists, emergency physicians, pathologists, law enforcement management, corrections personnel, and attorneys.

(04/27/08) TASER ELECTRONIC CONTROL DEVICES AND SUDDEN IN-CUSTODY DEATH: Separating Evidence from Conjecture, By Howard E. Williams. C C Thomas 2008 . 226 pp.

DESCRIPTION: Negative sentiment regarding ECDs is due largely to a lack of understanding about the technology behind such weapons and a misunderstanding of those weapons’ physiological effects. Media accounts that speculatively associate sudden in-custody deaths with the use of ECDs only add to the confusion. The book documents 310 deaths in the United States proximate to the application of TASER electronic control devices from 1983 through 2006. The study examines the phenomenon of sudden death as it relates to electromuscular disruption technology and TASER ECDs by constructing 213 cases studies, dating from 1983 through 2005, and analyzing information available from news accounts, police reports, and autopsies. After reviewing the available evidence from this extensive case study, the author concludes that these conducted energy weapons are excluded as the cause of death in 182 of the 212 cases. In only two cases did the evidence tend to confirm the weapon was either a cause of death or a significant contributing factor. While arguing that the TASER ECDs are safe less-lethal weapons, the author also cautions that they are not completely effective. He notes that the weapons were not effective in subduing more than 60 percent of violent or aggressive subjects in the 213 case studies, and he documents 131 cases of fatal police shootings and one police fatality following the failure of the weapons. The only way to determine whether the ECDs are responsible for deaths is to separate evidence from conjecture and analyze the facts of each case. This book will be an excellent resource for law enforcement professionals, attorneys, investigators, and criminal justice personnel.

A Few Recent VERY Important TASER ECD Cases of Interest:

Cyrus v. Town of Mukwonago, 624 F.3d 856 (C.A.7 (Wis.), November 10, 2010).

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, 625 F.3d 661 (C.A.10 (Utah) November 3, 2010)
- Officer's use of ECD on woman was objectively unreasonable, and therefore, officer was not entitled to qualified immunity in her § 1983 action alleging use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where officer had responded to a non-emergency request for help from woman's husband in finding her after a domestic dispute, officer was investigating a non-injurious assault, woman was heading towards her door when officer used ECD on her in probe mode, woman did not act aggressively towards officer or threaten him, she did not have any weapon, officer did not give her any warning, there was only a single bystander who was in his driveway next door, and woman was not fleeing or resisting arrest.
- When ECD was deployed in probe mode - "Ms. Cavanaugh, whose feet were on the front steps of her home, went rigid, spun around, and struck her head on the concrete steps. Id. at 26. As a result of this fall, Ms. Cavanaugh suffered a traumatic brain injury. She later plead guilty to assault-domestic violence and intoxication."
- It was clearly established law that officer could not use ECD on a nonviolent misdemeanant who did not pose a threat and was not resisting or evading arrest without first giving a warning, and therefore, officer was not entitled to qualified immunity in woman's § 1983 action alleging use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- POLICY [Department's "unwritten" ECD policy] The district court found that the Cavanaughs produced sufficient evidence that Woods Cross City's unwritten [TASER ECD] policy was the moving force behind Officer Davis's actions. See Aplt. App. 28. The Defendants-Appellants do not challenge this conclusion on appeal, arguing only that no constitutional violation occurred. See Aplt. Br. at 25. Because we decide otherwise, Woods Cross City may be liable for Officer Davis's actions.

Snauer v. City of Springfield, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 4875784 (D.Or., October 1, 2010)
- ECD probe deployment causing fall from 6-7 foot high fence on fleeing person was objectively unreasonable, Quoting plaintiff's expert "Anyone trained to operate and carry a TASER [ECD] in the field should, by TASER International standards, clearly understand that the application of the TASER [ECD] to a suspect who is high off the ground would be considered a deadly force application in that the potential result of the particular use of force could cause serious bodily injury or even death."
- "Snauer continued fleeing, and began climbing over a six or seven foot high wooden fence. When Snauer had reached the top of the fence, [Officer] Sether fired his [TASER ECD in probe mode]. When Snauer was hit by the probes, he became temporarily paralyzed, and plunged head-first to the other side unable to break his fall. As a result, Snauer sustained serious bodily injury, i.e. multiple spinal fractures."
- "It does not take a panel of judges to alert a reasonable police officer that causing a paralyzed man to tumble head first onto the ground from a platform six to seven feet above the ground 'creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury.'"
- "Any reasonable police officer would know from the training received in this case that tasing a suspect who is cresting a six to seven foot high fence would likely result in serious injury."
- POLICY - (No Monell policy violation) "The evidence shows that [Officer] Sether was trained that [TASER ECDs] cause neuromuscular disruption, temporarily causing the subject to lose the ability to control his or her movements. Sether was voluntarily tased during training, and had himself experienced neuromuscular disruption. He was trained that use of the [ECD] created the risk of secondary injuries to the subject caused by the subject's inability to catch himself or herself during falling. He was trained that this risk increased when the subject was in an elevated position off the ground. He was trained that the Springfield Police Department's policy on [ECDs] stated that they "shall not be used in situations where the suspect may fall from a significant height." As noted above, plaintiff's quibble over the adjective "significant" is overstated. Any reasonable police officer would know from the training received in this case that tasing a suspect who is cresting a six to seven foot high fence would likely result in serious injury. Thus, Springfield's motion for summary judgment should be granted."

(08/25/10) Marquez v. City of Phoenix, CV-08-1132-PHX-NVW, USDC-AZ

(10/28/11) Brave - very brief en banc Mattos memo
(10/17/11) (C.A.9 en banc) Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (C.A.9 (Hawai'i) October 17, 2011)
(03/26/10) Brooks v. City of Seattle, 599 F.3d 1018 (C.A.9 (Wash.),2010)
- (09/30/10) This case was been accepted for en banc review (pending). The Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has Ordered that "[u]pon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that [the Brooks decision ] be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit." Brooks v. City of Seattle, 623 F.3d 911 (C.A.9 (Wash), September 30, 2010).

(01/12/10) Mattos v. Agarano, 590 F.3d 1082 (C.A.9 (Hawai‘i) 2010)

(11/30/10 (CURRENT (THIRD) case) Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (C.A.9 (Cal.), November 30, 2010).
(06/18/10 SECOND Case withdrawn and superseded on 11/30/10) Bryan v. MacPherson, 608 F.3d 614 (C.A.9 (Cal.) 2010)
- (12/28/09 FIRST Case) Bryan v. MacPherson, 590 F.3d 767 (C.A.9 (Cal.) 2009) (superseded by 608 F.3d 614)
- Brief synopsis (of FIRST case) of (CA) Bryan v. MacPherson
- For post-(06/18/10) Bryan decision court analyses see these cases:
- - (08/26/10) Marella v. City of Bakersfield, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3386465 (E.D.Cal., Aug. 26, 2010)
- - (09/21/10) Bohnert v. Mitchell, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3767566 (D.Ariz., Sept. 21 2010)
- - (09/28/10) Garcia v. City of Imperial, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3834020 (S.D.Cal., Sept. 28, 2010)

(12/24/09) Orsak v. Metropolitan Airports Com'n Airport Police Dept., 675 F.Supp.2d 944 (D.Minn.,2009)

(12/02/09) Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (C.A.11 (Ga.) 2009)

(10/26/09) Oliver v. Fiorino, 586 F.3d 898 (C.A.11 (Fla.) 2009)

(07/22/09) Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (C.A.8 (Minn.) 2009)

(07/21/09) Sanders v. City of Fresno, 340 Fed.Appx. 377 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2009)

(12/12/08) Dziekanski (Vancouver, Canada):

Dziekanski, 41, died in the secure arrivals area of Vancouver International Airport on Oct. 14, 2007, moments after he was shot with RCMP stun guns. His death ignited an international debate about the police use of stun guns.

[Attorney General Criminal Justice Branch spokesperson Stan] Lowe said Friday that, after a full examination of the evidence, Crown prosecutors found it fell remarkably short of the test needed to apply criminal charges.

He revealed the officers stunned Dziekanski a total of five times with Tasers, but also said three pathologists concluded that Dziekanski did not die from the electric shocks. Instead the pathologists concluded Dziekanski died from a combination of alcohol withdrawal, a hysterical fear of flying, lack of sleep and restraint by the officers, Lowe said.

The Crown concluded the officers involved were acting with their legal duties to detain and restrain Dziekanski as they did, Lowe said.

British Columbia Criminal Justice Branch Statement and British Columbia Press Release Document

Brief Sampling of TASER ECD Related Papers:

(01/30/09) Jauchem, PhD, James R., Deaths in custody: Are some due to electronic control devices (including TASER® devices) or excited delirium? Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2008.05.011.

(01/19/09) Kroll, Mark W., Physiology and pathology of TASER® electronic control devices, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2008.12.012.

(01/15/09) Bozeman W, II WH, Heck J, Graham D, Martin B, Winslow J., Safety and Injury Profile of Conducted Electrical Weapons Used by Law Enforcement Officer Against Criminal Suspects. Annals of Emerg Med. 2009, doi:10.1016/j. annemergmed. 2008.11.021.

Conclusion: To our knowledge, these findings represent the first large, independent, multicenter study of conducted electrical weapon injury epidemiology and suggest that more than 99% of (1201) subjects do not experience significant injuries after conducted electrical weapon use.

(12/08) Chris Butler, Staff Sergeant, Calgary Police Service, Christine Hall, MSc MD FRCPC, Principal Investigator, RESTRAINT Study, Department of Emergency Medicine, Vancouver Island Health Authority, Police/Public Interaction: Arrests, Use of Force by Police, and Resulting Injuries to Subjects and Officers—A Description of Risk in One Major Canadian City (Calgary Police Service, Calgary, Alberta, Canada), Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(6), pgs 139-155.

(Part of Discussion) The commonly held belief that the conducted energy weapon carries a significant risk of injury or death for the population of interest is not supported by the data. Within the force modality framework most commonly available to police officers, the CEW was less injurious than either the baton or empty hand physical control.

Although the study used the intention to treat analysis, when we removed the incidents where the use of the CEW was unsuccessful (n = 14) (thereby requiring subsequent alternative force options—typically physical control), the safety profile of the CEW rose to 88.7% (i.e., no injury or minor injury to subjects only).

(08/28/08) Operational Evaluation of the New Zealand [TASER ECDs] Trial, Police Operations Group and the Evaluation Team at Police National Headquarters, New Zealand Police, dated February 2008.

(06/12/08) RCMP Use of Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW), Final Report, Including Recommendations for Immediate Implementation, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

(05/20/08) TASER ECD Information - Deputy Director for Science & Technology, National Institute of Justice

NIJ Sponsored Medical Study - Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption.
Study Framework: The study is directed by a steering group with representation from NIJ, the College of American Pathologists, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Association of Medical Examiners.

To support the study, the steering group appointed a medical panel comprised of physicians, medical examiners and other relevant specialists in cardiology, emergency medicine, epidemiology, pathology, and toxicology.

"While exposure to CED is not risk-free, there is no conclusive medical evidence within the state of current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CED exposure. Field experience with CED use indicates that exposure is safe in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, law enforcement need not refrain from deploying CED’s, provided the devices are used in accordance with accepted national guidelines such as the model policy of the International Association of Chiefs of Police."

John Morgan, Deputy Director for Science & Technology, National Institute of Justice, May 20, 2008, Less Lethal and Critical Incident Technologies.

(10/08) Medical Panel Issues Interim Findings on Stun Gun Safety, by John Morgan, Ph.D., NIJ Journal, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Issue No. 261, pages 20-23, October 2008.

NOBLE - TASER ECD Statement:

(07/27/07) National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) Resolution in Support of the Use of Electronic Control Devices and Less Lethal Devices by Law Enforcement Officers in Use of Force Situations, Adopted at the 31st Annual Conference, on July 27, 2007, in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

(03/24/08) Minimal Force Less Lethal Report - TASER ECD:

(03/24/08) Report of the Fifth International Law Enforcement Forum for Minimal Force Options and Less-Lethal Technologie, Washington & Fairfax - November 2006, International Law Enforcement Forum.

Page 23: There was general consensus that officers were using conducted energy devices (CEDs), primarily the TASER® [ECD], as the first option.

Page 37: Deployment of conducted energy devices (CEDs), primarily TASER [ECD], within many jurisdictions has affected the consideration and deployment of other tactical options and less-lethal weapons. There was general consensus that officers were using TASER [ECD] as the first option. This was, perhaps, borne out of growing confidence in the system over time and a reduced likelihood of injury to both fficers and subjects (actual and perceived) - as well as the accompanying potential to reduce the likelihood of complaint and post- incident investigation.

Page 38: It is important to note that TASER lnternational [,Inc.] is the leader in the development and manufacture of CEDs. The ILEF recognizes that this vendor has invested in and conducted exhaustive research in order to increase device effectiveness as a tool for law enforcement while minimizing injury to subjects. Additionally, they have cooperated with and supported both government and independent researchers to continue to grow the body of knowledge on these systems. The ILEF views this open and responsible approach to research and testing as a model for other manufacturers to emulate.

Page 39: The psychological impact of CEDs on subjects has been illuminating. Subjects often become defiant when an officer presents a lethal weapon. They do not believe an officer will fire. When an officer presents a CEO, however, often that is enough to gain compliance, since these subjects believe officers are very willing to actually fire the device. Some in the group related experiences where merely pointing the device, orienting the laser dot, or verbally warning,"stop or I will taze you" was enough to gain compliance.

Page 39: Of note also was the sense from many of the group members that police use of CEDs to gain compliance of subjects who are suffering from mental health problems (e.g., schizophrenia) has found broad support among mental health groups (The Schizophrenic Society in Canada, The Schizophrenic Association in the UK, and the National Institute of Mental Health in the US were all mentioned).

A Few Recent TASER ECD Cases of Interest:

(05/19/09) Defense verdict for all law enforcement defendants on all claims. Bud Lee, et. al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et. al., United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division), Case Number 3:06-0108 (Judge Trauger).

(01/26/09) Bud Lee, et. al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et. al., 2009 WL 211051, United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division), Case Number 3:06-0108 (Judge Trauger).

Pg. 45, FN 23: The Court found "as a matter of law, that the Taser device is not defective or unreasonably dangerous is appropriate."

Pg 45: "For the reasons discussed above, Taser is entitled to summary judgment. The plaintiffs have failed to raise a fact issue as to whether the Taser device is unreasonably dangerous or whether the Taser device has a defect."

(12/16/08) Wilson v. TASER International, Inc., 2008 WL 5215991 (11th Cir.(Ga.) Dec. 16, 2008). Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Affirmed District Court's grant of Summary Judgment to TASER International, Inc. in an officer injury training case in Georgia.

(11/24 & 25/08) Ruby Mann, et. al. v. TASER International, et. al., United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division, Civil Action File No. 4:05-CV-0273-HLM. The Court granted TASER International, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment (MSJ) on November 24, 2008, and the law enforcement defendants' MSJ on November 25, 2008. The Court's Orders are not published or linked by Order of the Court. The 11th Circuit's decision is published: (12/02/09) Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291
(C.A.11 (Ga.) 2009).

(09/09/08) Buckley v. Haddock, 292 Fed.Appx. 791, 2008 WL 4140297 (11th Cir.(Fla.) Sep 09, 2008) (Not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter, NO. 07-10988). (06/18/09) Cert. Denied, Buckley v. Rackard, --- S.Ct. ----, 2009 WL 273218, 77 USLW 3449 (U.S. May 18, 2009) (NO. 08-996).

[Note: This case is interesting. The three judge panel had three different opinions as to the constitutionality of the deputy's use of force (three ECD drive-stun applications on the handcuffed emotionally-distraught (crying) arrestee). I suggest reading all three judges' opinions. I also suggest reading the underlying district court denial of summary judgment (Buckley v. Haddock, 2007 WL 710169, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 616 (N.D.Fla. Mar 06, 2007) (NO. 5:06CV53-RS)).] [Buckley Incident video on YouTube].

Conclusion: Plaintiff resisted arrest [by physically dropping to the ground, repeatedly refused to comply with the deputy's reasonable orders (even after being warned that a TASER ECD would be used), and made no effort to stand when the deputy attempted on two occasions physically to lift Plaintiff to his feet.]. Given this circumstance in the context of all the other facts, Deputy Rackard's gradual use of force, culminating with his repeated (but limited) use of a [TASER ECD], to move Plaintiff to the patrol car was not unconstitutionally excessive. In addition, even if Plaintiff could establish that some of the deputy's use of force violated the Fourth Amendment, the deputy still would be entitled to qualified immunity because the applicable law at the time did not clearly establish that the deputy's conduct-given the circumstances-was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the district court erred in denying Deputy Rackard's motion for summary judgment.

(09/02/08) Neal-Lomax, et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al, Case Number: 2:05-cv-1464, United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

LVMPD MSJ Order - The Court ruled that the Las Vegas (NV) Metropolitan Police Department  (LVMPD) Officer used objectively reasonable force in his use of the TASER X26 on William Lomax. Neal-Lomax ex rel. Lomax v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 574 F.Supp.2d 1193 (D.Nev. Sep 02, 2008) (NO. 2:05CV-01464-PMP-RJJ).

TASER MSJ Order - As to TASER International (TI), the Court ruled that: Neal-Lomax ex rel. Lomax v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 574 F.Supp.2d 1170 (D.Nev. Sep 02, 2008) (NO. 2:05CV-01464-PMP-RJJ).

"Plaintiffs have failed to produce any admissible evidence stating to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the [TASER electronic control device] caused or contributed to Lomax’s death. Plaintiffs therefore have not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to causation, and the Court will grant Defendant [TASER International’s] motion for summary judgment."

The Court also ruled to exclude or limit Plaintiff's principle causation experts. The Court found in part that an expert lacks any objective medical source linking the eyewitness testimony and his opinions as to what caused Lomax’s death. Absent any medical or scientific basis to support his opinion the expert's opinions are not based on reliable medical or scientific methodology.

(05/05/08) Torres v. TASER Intern., Inc., 277 Fed.Appx. 684 (C.A.9 (Cal.) May 5, 2008). Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on case of weapons confusion - officer drawing and discharging firearm when intended to draw TASER device.

(05/02/08) TASER International, Inc. and City of Akron (OH) v. Chief Medical Examiner of Summit County, Ohio a/k/a Dr. Lisa Kohler, M.D., In the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Ohio, Case No. CV 2006-11-7421, Judge Ted Schneiderman. This case was upheld (as to TASER) by the Court of Appeals of Ohio, 9th Circuit in their March 31, 2009 decision (2009 WL 826416 (Ohio App. 9 Dist.))). On August 26, 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court (case no. 2009-0868) denied the Medical Examiner's appeal of the appellate decision. (TASER International, Inc. v. Kohler, 912 N.E.2d 108, 2009 WL 2605742 (Ohio).)

In a 4 day bench trial that started on April 21, 2008, TASER International, Inc. (TASER), joined by the City of Akron (OH), went to court (in OH) to have the court determine whether the use of TASER electronic control devices that were listed in 3 autopsy reports by 3 medical examiners (MEs) as contributors to death should be removed. The Court’s Order, dated May 2, 2008, finds for TASER and orders the MEs to change the cause of death determinations. Note, that in (OH) McCullaugh 5 sheriff’s deputies have been criminally charged with various crimes, including one deputy on a murder charge.

Here are some of the highlights from the Court’s Order:

“There is simply no medical, scientific, or electrical evidence to support the conclusion that the TASER X26 had anything to do with the death of Dennis S. Hyde, Richard Holcomb, or Mark D. McCullaugh. The Medical Examiner failed to present any evidence on the use and effect of TASER Devices.”

“Even though the Medical Examiner's conclusions are entitled to much weight, and assuming a nonbinding presumption in favor of the Medical Examiner, the Plaintiffs have proven their claims for changing the reports of autopsy and death certificates on the three individuals by more than a preponderance of the evidence. The multiple number of experts offered by the Plaintiffs in the area of sudden and unexpected death while law enforcement attempted to obtain custody, provided overwhelming credible medical and scientific evidence to support their positions.”

“The experts provided evidence that Dennis S.Hyde and Richard Holcomb probably died as a result of a fatal cardiac arrhythmia due to acute illicit drug intoxication creating crazed states consistent with "Excited Delirium Syndrome," also known as "Agitated Delirium." Also, with Hyde, blood loss by arterial injury was a contributory cause. The TASER Devices had nothing to do with their deaths.”

“As it relates to the death of Mark D. McCullaugh, the testimony and the exhibits presented by the Plaintiffs' experts demonstrated that the TASER Devices did not cause, nor did they contribute to asphyxia as found by the Medical Examiner. More likely the death was due to a fatal cardiac arrhythmia brought on by severe heart disease, his schizophrenia, the struggle, and possibly the Geodon injection. There was no expert evidence to indicate that TASER Devices impaired respiration.”

“IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff, TASER International, Inc., and Intervening Plaintiff City of Akron, Ohio.”

“IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that as provided in Ohio Revised Code Section 313.19, Dr. Lisa Kohler as Chief Medical Examiner of Summit County, Ohio is directed to change the reports of autopsy and death certificates of Dennis S. Hyde, Richard Holcomb, and Mark D. McCullaugh as follows:”

“Dennis S. Hyde: The death shall be ruled "Accidental" and any reference to "Homicide" or contributing factor of electrical pulse incapacitation shall be deleted from both the Death Certificate and Report of Autopsy.”

“Richard Holcomb: The death shall be ruled "Accidental" and any reference to "Homicide" or contributing factor of electrical pulse incapacitation shall be deleted from both the Death Certificate and Report of Autopsy.”

“Mark D. McCullaugh: The death shall be ruled "Undetermined" and any reference to death by "Asphyxia due to the combined effects of chemical, mechanical and electrical restraint," as well as any reference to "Homicide" due to "multiple restraint mechanisms with beating and anal penetration" shall be deleted from both the Death Certificate and the Report of Autopsy.”

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court retain jurisdiction to ensure that the Summit County Medical Examiner makes the changes to the death determinations on the three individuals as directed herein.”

(04/23/08) Zivojinovich v. Barner, 525 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir.(Fla.) Apr 23, 2008) (NO. 07-11903). Officer's use of a TASER ECD on handcuffed suspect was objectively reasonable. Officer did not use excessive force by employing TASER ECD twice against handcuffed suspect whom officer was leading and had probable cause to arrest for resisting officer with violence, and whom officer reasonably believed was intentionally spraying blood toward officer through broken nose.

(04/03/08) (See 9th CIrcuit decision: (07/21/09) Sanders v. City of Fresno, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2157152 (C.A.9 (Cal.) 2009). Sanders v. City of Fresno, 551 F.Supp.2d 1149 (E.D.Cal. Apr 03, 2008) (NO. CIV.F050469AWISMS). Order Granting Defendant City of Fresno's Motion for Summary Judgment, See attached 41 page ORDER. Court found that:

1. Officer Herring’s the 1st, 2nd and 3rd use of the TASER device were not excessive force
2. Officer Escareno’s 2 uses of the TASER device were not excessive force
3. Officer Brown’s 5 drive stuns were also not excessive force
4. Qualified immunity was proper for all the officers
5. No negligence by the officers for the care of decedent after he was fully restrained
6. No municipal liability because there were no constitutional violations and plaintiff made no showing that the training was inadequate
7. State law claims were also dismissed (battery, wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, false imprisonment, & vicarious liability).

The City and all officers are now out of the case TASER is now the lone defendant. Some quotes from the Court's Order (emphasis added):

p. 19 – “case law indicates that Tasers are generally considered non-lethal or less lethal force. See Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492, 508 (6th Cir. 2002); Matta-Ballesteros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255, 256 n.2 (7th Cir. 1990); Montgomery v. Morgan County, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15846, *32 (S.D. Ind. 2008); Fuller v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8730, *57 n.25 (N.D. Ohio 2008); McDonald v. Pon, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92356, *6-*7 (W.D. Wash. 2007); see also San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose, 402 F.3d 962, 969 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005); cf. Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir. 2004). . . . Further, one court has noted that pain is a necessary byproduct of the Taser, pain is not the primary motivator, the Taser is considered to inflict considerably less pain than other forms of force, and the effects of the Taser are generally temporary. See Beaver v. City of Federal Way, 507 F.Supp.2d 1137, 1142-43 (W.D. Wash. 2007).”

p. 19-20 – “No evidence has been presented that Tasers constitute force that creates a substantial risk of death. It is true that Michael died following a struggle in which multiple Taser applications were used, but Michael clearly did not die immediately, he was able to breathe and converse with the officers and Henrickson, and the coroner’s report indicates that he died due to complications associated with cocaine ingestion. The Court will view the use of a Taser as an intermediate or medium, though not insignificant, quantum of force that causes temporary painand immobilization.”

p. 21-22 – “it seems that a strike from a solid baton can be at least equally forceful, if not more so, than a Taser . . .”

p. 39-40 – “With respect to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, Plaintiff has not presented evidence that shows Michael’s constitutional rights were violated. Herring’s use of the Taser was an objectively reasonable means of trying to keep Michael and Lavette separated, given the totality of the circumstances and particularly Michael’s paranoia and agitation, Lavette’s appearance and conduct, and Michael’s statements that the officers were not going to take Lavette from him. All further uses of the Taser by Herring, Escareno and Brown were also objectively reasonable due to the totality of the circumstances, particularly Michael’s resistance of the officers and the inability of multiple officers to physically control Michael. Alternatively, the law was not so clearly developed that a reasonable officer in the Defendants’ position would know that their conduct was unlawful.

Additionally, the post-struggle conduct of the officers did not violate Michael’s rights. Paramedics had been summoned before the struggle ended; Michael was breathing and able to talk with the officers after the struggle; when Michael fell over and said that he could not breathe, the officers propped Michael back up and there is no indication that he continued to complain; when the paramedics arrived Michael was breathing, communicated, and had a pulse; the officers assisted the paramedics with placing Michael on the gurney and Michael was only on his stomach a brief period of time during this process; when Michael was observed in distress by Escareno, he informed the paramedics who examined Michael and said he was okay; and Escareno and Burger helped with CPR and driving to the hospital. The officers’ conduct was reasonable.”

Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 534 F.Supp.2d 984 (D.Minn. Feb 14, 2008) (NO. CIV.06-3141MJD/AJB). Court denied summary judgment to Officer and found that (under plaintiff's version of facts) use of ECD was unreasonable and denied Officer qualified immunity. See 8th Circuit decision:(07/22/09) Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (C.A.8 (Minn.) 2009).

Officer asserts that his use of the ECD was reasonable. He argues that from his point of view at the time of the incident, he knew Richard Brown's vehicle (plaintiff's husband, plaintiff was the passenger) had failed to stop for officers and Brown had not complied with officer commands. Officer notes that fleeing from an officer in a motor vehicle is a felony. Plaintiff admits she did not comply with Officer's commands to get off of the telephone. Officer believed Plaintiff was intoxicated because he smelled alcohol and there were two glasses appearing to contain alcohol at Plaintiff’s feet. Officer believed that Plaintiff threatened officer safety by scooting herself away from the officers, drawing her knees towards her chest, and acting as if she were going to kick them. Officer was also concerned about getting Plaintiff away from the glasses to prevent her from destroying evidence or using them as a weapon. Officer asserts that he warned Plaintiff before using ECD on her (in drive-stun to her arm for 2-3 seconds), but asserts that even if, as Plaintiff asserts, he did not warn her, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff gave no indication of violence and made no attempt to flee; Officer did not warn her that he would use the ECD or attempt to use any other type of force; and Officer was one of 4 officers on the scene and Plaintiff’s husband was already safely in the squad car. The only crime Officer suspected Plaintiff of committing was a violation of the open container statute, a minor crime, particularly since Plaintiff was the passenger in the car. Although there were tumblers at Plaintiff’s feet, any object could be used as a weapon and there is no allegation that Plaintiff made any indication to reach for the tumblers, dispose of the tumblers, or use them as a weapon.

Officer did not order Plaintiff to get out of the car or remove her seatbelt. He only told Plaintiff to hang up the telephone. Accepting Plaintiff’s version of the facts, Officer knew that she was on the telephone with a 9-1-1 operator and was very frightened ("scared to death"), yet after the second time she failed to heed his command to get off of the telephone, without warning, he used the TASER ECD on her.

The Court concluded, that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Officer’s actions were unreasonable. The court also refused to give the Officer qualified immunity.

Casey v. City of Federal Heights, 509 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir.(Colo.) Dec. 10, 2007). In Casey, plaintiff went to a courthouse to contest his traffic ticket, and, when he lost, “he walked to the parking lot to retrieve money from his truck to pay the fine, carrying with him the court file. On his way back to the courthouse he was grabbed, tackled, [an ECD was used], and beaten by city police officers.” 509 F.3d at 1279. First, one officer tackled plaintiff, and then a second officer arrived at the scene while the plaintiff and the first officer were struggling, and the second officer used the ECD on plaintiff. Id. at 1280. The Tenth Circuit held that the second officer did use excessive force in using the ECD on the plaintiff and was not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1286. The court reasoned that plaintiff’s conduct of removing a record from the courthouse was only a nonviolent misdemeanor. Plaintiff committed the offense in a particularly innocuous way because he only took the file to the court parking lot and was attempting to bring it back. Id. The second officer used the ECD on the plaintiff although the alleged crime was minor, plaintiff was not fighting back against the first officer or fleeing, the second officer had just arrived at the scene, and the second officer gave the plaintiff no warning that she was going to use the ECD on him. Id. at 1285. The court concluded that the second officer violated a clearly established right because there was no circuit opinion upholding “the use of a [TASER ECD] immediately and without warning against a misdemeanant.” Id. at 1286.

Beaver v. City of Federal Way, 507 F.Supp.2d 1137 (D.Wash. Aug. 31, 2007). Holding: Federal court in Seattle found that only the first 3 of 5 electronic control device (ECD) discharges were objectively reasonable. Each ECD use lasted 5 seconds, and all 5 ECD uses took place within an 85-second time period. See also Beaver v. City of Federal Way, 301 Fed.Appx. 704 (C.A.9 (Wash), November 25, 2008).

First 3 ECD discharges, officer was chasing (drugged residential burglar) alone and subject was fleeing and then trying to get up. Last 2 ECD discharges, a second officer had arrived, subject was not attempting to flee and was not an “immediate” threat,” and was not “capable” of following officers’ conflicting commands.

Parker v. City of South Portland, 2007 WL 1468658 (D.Me. May 18, 2007) (NO. CIV 06-129-P-S) (unpublished) (gathering cases in which district courts held use of TASER ECD was not entitled to qualified immunity and holding that use of ECD on unarmed, intoxicated motorist, who did not physically threaten officers or attempt to flee and who was surrounded by three officers, was not entitled to qualified immunity. See also Parker v. Gerrish, 547 F.3d 1 (C.A.1 (Me.), November 5, 2008).

Schumacher v. Halverson, 467 F.Supp. 2d 939 (D.Minn. Dec. 15, 2006) (upholding single use of ECD on intoxicated motorist after officer warned him 3 times that he would use ECD if motorist failed to comply).

AELEAELE Monthy Law Journal TASER ECD Legal Articles:

AELE's Electronic Control Weapons (ECW) Legal Research/Library Portal

(05/11) Second Circuit Panel Allows Stun Mode to Gain Compliance of Chained Protestors, Guest article by Eric P. Daigle, 2011 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 501.

(04/16/07) Civil Liability for Use of Tasers, stunguns, and other electronic control devices Part III: Use Against Detainees and Disabled or Disturbed Persons. 2007 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.

(03/20/07) Civil Liability for Use of Tasers, stunguns, and other electronic control devices--Part II: Use against juveniles, and inadequate training claims, 2007 (4) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.

(02/20/07) Civil Liability for Use of Tasers, stunguns, and other electronic control devices--Part I: 4th Amendment claims for excessive force, 2007 (3) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.

(04/16/07) Electronic Control Devices: Liability and Training Aspects, by Edmund Zigmund, 2007 (5) AELE Mo. L.J. 501.

Assault and Battery: Stun Guns/TASER ECDs. Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE) Law Library of Case Summaries (Civil Liability of Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel).

Other TASER ECD Related Legal Articles:

(10/2011) Douglas B. Mckechnie, DON'T DAZE, PHASE, OR LASE ME, BRO! FOURTH AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE-FORCE CLAIMS, FUTURE NONLETHAL WEAPONS, AND WHY REQUIRING AN INJURY CANNOT WITHSTAND A CONSTITUTIONAL OR PRACTICAL CHALLENGE, 60 U. Kan. L. Rev. 139, Oct. 2011.

(2011) Walker, Joseph G., Tase Me One More Time: An Analysis of the Ninth Circuit's Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, Qualified Immunity, and TASERs in Brooks v. City of Seattle, Bringham Young University Law Review 2011, 2011 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 227.

(2011) Longo, Tim, Defining Instrumentalities of Deadly Force, Selected Excerpts: Practicing Law Institute's Twenty-Seventh Annual Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation Program, Touro Law Review 2011, 27 Touro L. Rev. 261.

(Summer 2010) Harris, David A., TASER USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT: REPORT OF THE USE OF FORCE WORKING GROUP OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, 71 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 719.

(07-10) Fabian Jeff, Don't Tase Me Bro: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Laws Governing TASER [ECD] Use by Law Enforcement, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 763.

(2010) Wright, Ron F., Shocking the Second Amendment: Invalidating States Prohibitions on TASER [ECD] with the District of Columbia v. Heller, 20 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 159.

(2009) Zitter, J.D., Jay M., When Does Use of [TASER ECD] Constitute Violation of Constitutional Rights, 45 A.L.R.6th 1.

(10/29/09) Ryals, Stephen M., Liability for Police Use of the TASER: A Case Study in Overcoming Police Rationalization, 806 PLI/Lit 1005.

(12/09) Donald L. Nevins, III, Municipal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Failing to Equip Police With TASER [ECD]s, 28 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 225. V. Conclusion:

Applying the analysis laid out by Judge McKee and the leading relevant § 1983 cases examined above to a § 1983 claim for not equipping police with Tasers, it appears that municipal liability should attach. The documented benefits of the Taser are known or should be known by municipal policymakers. In a recurring and highly predictable manner, police will come into contact with violent and suicidal subjects. In many of those situations, officers will have to use physical force to apprehend the subjects, and without the Taser, excessive force, up to and including deadly physical force, will be necessary.

Not equipping police with Tasers constitutes that “narrow range of circumstances” where a violation of federal rights will be a highly predictable consequence. [FN257] The result of not equipping police with Tasers in the face of such predictable consequences should, as a logical extension of the leading § 1983 cases, justify a finding that the policymakers' decision not to provide them reflects “deliberate indifference” to the obvious consequence of their choice--namely, *264 violations of the Fourth Amendment. This high degree of predictability should also support an inference of causation--that a municipality's indifference to not equipping police with Tasers will lead directly to the very consequence that was so predictable, namely injured and dead citizens.

In the aftermath of Carswell, the Borough of Homestead Police reviewed its use-of-force policy and came to the conclusion that it needed a mandated less-lethal force option. In 2006, it adopted one and made it mandatory for all police officers to carry: the Taser.

(2009) Spriggs, Matthew J., TASE ME BRO!” AN ARGUMENT FOR CLEAR AND EFFECTIVE TASER REGULATION, 70 OHSLJ 487, 70 Ohio St. L.J. 487.

(02/09) Robinson, Paul H., A Right to Bear Firearms But Not to Use Them? Defensive Force Rules, 89 Boston University Law Review (BULR) 251-264, February 2009.

(12/08) Milazzo, Carl, Mistaken Use of Firearm instead of Electronic Control Weapon, Chief's Counsel, The Police Chief, vol. LXXV, no. 12, December 2008.

(2008) Georgiady, Bryan N., An Excessively Painful Encounter: the Reasonableness of Pain and De Minimis Injuries for Fourth Amendment Excessive Force Claims, 59 Syracuse L. Rev. (SYRLR) 123 (2008).

(2008) Blum, Karen M., Ryan, John J. Recent Developments in the Use of Excessive Force by Law Enforcement, 24 Touro Law Review 569, 2008.

(10/08) Taser Liability: Active vs. Passive Resistance, Feature Articles, by Eric Daigle, Esq., Insighter, leedafbi.org, issue III, pg. 13-17.

(2007) Note: Stunning Trends in Shocking Crimes: A Comprehensive Analysis of TASER, by Shaun H. Kedir, 20 Journal of Law and Health (Cleveland State University), 2007, 357-384.

(10/09/07) Excessive force, civil liability, and the Taser in the nation's courts: Implications for law enforcement policy and practice, Michael R. Smith, Matthew Petrocelli, Charlie Scheer, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 2007 Volume: 30 Issue: 3 Page: 398 - 422.

Findings – The majority of reported cases have resulted in the dismissal of claims against officers and municipalities for alleged Taser-related excessive force violations. In most cases, plaintiffs were unable to show the existence of an unconstitutional policy or custom to support municipal liability. As for the liability of individual officers, most cases were decided in the officer’s favor on summary judgment, particularly when the suspect was exhibiting physical resistance. In a few cases, summary judgment was denied to officers when the plaintiff alleged that he or she was fully compliant when the Tasering occurred

(06/25/07) TASER Device Liability and Litigation Risk, Douglas E. Klint, Vice President and General Counsel, TASER International, Inc.

(05/06) Sudden Death, "Excited" Delirium, and Issues of Force: Part II - Electronic Control Devices, Police & Security News, May/June 2006, Vol. 22, Issue 3, by John G. Peters, Jr., M.B.A., Ph.D., C.L.S.

(2006) MacMain, David, J., Electronic Control Weapons: The State of the Law and Application to Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies.

(02/05) Chief's Counsel: Electronic Control Weapons: Liability Issues. By Randy Means, Attorney at Law, Thomas and Means, LLP, and Eric Edwards, Lieutenant and Legal Advisor, Phoenix Police Department, and Executive Director, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, The Police Chief, vol. 72, no. 2, February 2005.

TASER ECD Sample/Model Policies and Related Documents:

(12/15/10) (MD) Maryland Chiefs of Police Association and Maryland Sheriffs' Association ECD Policy
- Cover letter to Maryland Chiefs and Maryland Sheriffs Association ECD Policy

(10/10) (FL) Orange County (FL) Sheriff's Office enters into Agreement with US Department of Justice regarding ECDs
- (10/10) US Department of Justice and OCSO ECD Memorandum of Understanding
- (10/10) OCSO ECD Action Plan
- (05/29/10) OCSO ECD General Order

(10/07/10) (NJ) Revised New Jersey Attorney General Policy on Conducted Energy Devices.
- (NJ) Attorney General's New Stun Gun Policy Graphic.

(12/18/08) Appleton (WI) Police Department Use-of-Force Policy.
- Appleton (WI) Police Department Supervisory Summary (one page form).

(02/08) New Zealand Standard Operating Procedures Electro Muscular Incapacitation Devices.

(06/13/08) United States Air Force TASER ECD Policy.

(01/10/06) Electronic Control Device, LAAW Sample Policy Set.

(2007) Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board. Policy Development Guidelines for Deployment of Electro-Muscular Disruption Devices
- (03/21/07) Illinois State Senate Resolution No. 51. A standardized Use of Force Model for utilization of Electro-Muscular Disruption technology and for the training of law enforcement and correctional officers in Illinois in utilizing such devices.

(Summer/07) Less Lethal Weapons: Model Policy and Procedure for Public Safety Officers, RISK, Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority Law Enforcement Advisory Committee.

(07/15/05) Electronic Control Weapons General Order, Orange County (FL) Sheriff's Office.

(04-05) Directive: D 05-016 - Department Policy Governing Less Lethal Options: The Taser and the Patrol Less Lethal Shotgun with Beanbag Rounds, Seattle (WA) Police Department.

Cincinnati (OH) Police Department Procedure Manual:
- 12.025 Authorized Weapons (includes TASER X26 - only by naming it)
- 12.110 Handling Suspected Mentally Ill Individuals and Potential Suicides
- 12.515 Nonviolent Demonstration Arrest: Mass Arrest Procedure
(04/10/07) - 12.545 Use of Force (includes TASER X26, pages 4-5)

Colorado Springs (CO) Police Department General Orders:
- (12/09/05) Mentally Ill Persons - General Order 540.
- (12/06/03) Use of Force Continuum - General Order 705.
- (08/02/06) Less-Lethal Force - General Order 710 (includes: SOP P1-171. Conducted Energy Devices).

Florida Highway Patrol - Policy Manual -
- Use of Control 10.01.
- Authorized Weapons - Care and Use 10.02.
- Respiratory Protection Program 10.04.

Florida TASER Advisory Group ECD Sample Policy.

(03/09/07) Use of Force - Equipment and Proficiency, General Order 1.4, Olympia (WA) Police Department.

(11/03/07) Miami (FL) Police Department TASER Policy.

(06/24/05) Leon County (FL) Sheriff's Office Use of Force General Order.

(12/06) Tucson (AZ) Police Department General Orders, Volume 2, General Operating Procedures, 2000 Use of Force, Section 2074 TASER (page 19/21).

(11/01/06) Connecticut Law Enforcement Model Policy: Electronic Control Devices (ECD).

(05/19/06) Policy 4.01A Use of Less-Lethal Force, Peoria (AZ) Department Policy and Procedure Manual.

Madison (WI Police Department Policy Manual, 6-200 The Use of Non-Deadly Force (PDF page 138/299), ECD (pages 140-142).

(06/20/05) Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations, Adopted by the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police Executive Board. Includes sample policy.

(01/05) Town of Madison (WI) Police Department Policy Manual.
- (01/01/05) 022 Conducted Energy Weapon (PDF pages 84-88).

(11/15/04) Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Use of TASER [Device] Procedural Order.

(06/14/04) Arizona Department of Corrections Policy Manual, Chapter 700, Operational Security, Department Order 718: Stun and Stun/Lethal Electrified Fences.

Use of Force Policy, Public Safety OfficePortland State University.

(11/30/04) TASER Use and Deployment Policy, Vallejo (CA) Police Department.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) TASER ECD Related Information:

IACP Model (TASER ECD) Policies: Electronic Control Weapons (ECW):

(04/10) IACP Model ECW Policy

(08/09) IACP Model ECW Policy.

(08/05) IACP Model ECW Policy:

In the IACP's August 2005 Electronic Control Weapons Model Policy Please note the TASER® International, Inc.'s electronic control devices are excluded from this policy based upon the Model Policy's definition of electronic control weapon. For more information about these publications, please visit the IACP.

(01/05) IACP Model ECW Policy:

(08/04) Electronic Control Weapons, Model Policy Draft, IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center.

(04/96) IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, ELECTRONIC RESTRAINT DEVICE: THE TASER® Model Policy.

IACP, National Law Enforcement Policy Center (NLEPC), Concepts and Issues Papers: Electronic Control Weapons:

(04/10) Electronic Control Weapons (ECW), Concepts and Issues Paper, IACP NLEPC.
(08/05) Electronic Control Weapons (ECW), Concepts and Issues Paper, IACP NLEPC
(01/05) Electronic Control Weapons (ECW), Concepts and Issues Paper, IACP NLEPC.
(05/04) Electronic Control Weapons (ECW), Concepts and Issues Paper, IACP NLEPC.
(02/98) Electronic Restraint Device: The Taser®, Concepts and Issues Paper, IACP NLEPC.
(1996) Electronic Restraint Device: The Taser®, Concepts and Issues Paper, IACP NLEPC.

IACP Publications: EMD & Model Policy:

Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology: A Nine-Step Strategy for Effective Deployment has recently been published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Alexandria, Virginia. If you or your agency is thinking about adopting electronic control devices, make sure you get this 18-page Executive Brief.

IACP ECW Related Training Keys:

(583) (2005) IACP Training Key No. 583, Electronic Control Weapons (ECW): Update 2005.
(575) IACP Training Key No. 575, Electronic Control Weapons: Update.
(567) (2003) IACP Training Key No. 567, The Advanced TASER.
(497) (1988) IACP Training Key No. 497, The TASER.

(581) IACP Training Key No. 581, Suicide (Homicide) Bombers: Part I
(582) IACP Training Key No. 582, Suicide (Homicide) Bombers: Part II

(10/05) IACP Legal Officers' Section 2005 Presentation Materials (Miami, FL).
- Electronic Control Device Legislation: General Themes – Eric Edwards.
- Electronic Control Device State statutes – Eric Edwards [PDF].
- Recommendations for the Use of the Taser – by Fabrice Czarnecki, M.D.

(10/04) IACP Legal Officers' Section 2004 Presentation Materials (Los Angeles, CA).
- The Taser° – a visual aid presentation [PowerPoint], Eric Edwards, Phoenix Police Dept.
- Legal Implications of the Use of Less Lethal Force During a Demonstration [PowerPoint], Mark H. Newbold, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Dept., NC.

IACP Use of Force Model Policy and Concepts and Issues Papers:

(02/06) IACP Use of Force Model Policy

(02/06) IACP NLECP Use of Force Concepts and Issues Paper
(02/05) IACP NLECP Use of Force Concepts and Issues Paper
(08/01) IACP NLECP Use of Force Concepts and Issues Paper
(04/99) IACP NLECP Use of Force Concepts and Issues Paper
(10/98) IACP NLECP Use of Force Concepts and Issues Paper
(12/95) IACP NLECP Use of Force Concepts and Issues Paper
(02/89) IACP NLECP Use of Force Concepts and Issues Paper

TASER ECD Deployment and Use Recommendations:

(12/15/10) (MD) Maryland Chiefs of Police Association and Maryland Sheriffs' Association ECD Policy
- Cover letter to Maryland Chiefs of Police Association and Maryland Sheriffs' Association ECD Policy

(10/15/10) Guidelines for the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons, Public Safety Canada.

(Summer 2010) Harris, David A., TASER USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT: REPORT OF THE USE OF FORCE WORKING GROUP OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, 71 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 719.

(10/08/09) Report of the Use of Force Working Group of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Convened by Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., District Attorney of Allegheny County,

(12/17/09) Report of the Maryland Attorney General's (Douglas F. Gansler's) Task Force on Electronic Weapons.

(09/09) Recommended Guidelines for the Use of Conducted Energy Devices, Municipal Police Training Council, Division of Criminal Justice Services, State of New York.

(09/09) Conducted Energy Device Course, Student Guide, Municipal Police Training Council, Division of Criminal Justice Services, State of New York.

(08/09) Conducted Energy Devices: Use in a Custodial Setting, A Collaborative Study By: Police Executive Research Forum, National Sheriffs' Association, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

(2009) Spriggs, Matthew J., TASE ME BRO!” AN ARGUMENT FOR CLEAR AND EFFECTIVE TASER REGULATION, 70 OHSLJ 487, 70 Ohio St. L.J. 487.

(07/09) (Canada, Alberta) Standards and Audits Unit Law Enforcement Branch. Provincial Guidelines for the Use of
Conducted Energy Weapons.
Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security. July 2009.

(07/23/09) (Canada) Braidwood Inquiry. Part I. Executive Summary and Recommendations.

(06/30/09) Smith MR, Kaminski RJ, Alpert GP. A Multi‐Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes: Final Report To The National Institute of Justice. University of South Carolina TASER ECD Three‐Year Study. NIJ. June 30, 2009.

(11/08) (Australia) The use of Taser weaapons by New South Wales Police Force, A special report to Parliament under section 31 of the Ombudsman Act 1974.

(08/20/08) (United States) Letter from U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Special Litigation Section, to Orange County (FL) Sheriff's Office (OCSO), DOJ Investigation of the OCSO use of Conducted Energy Devices.

(06/19/08) (Canada) Breitkreuz, M.P., G. Chair. Study of the Conductive Energy Weapon–TASER®. Report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. House of Commons, Canada, 39th Parliament, 2nd Session.

(06/19/08) (Canada) Kennedy, P. RCMP Use of Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW). Final Report. Including Recommendations for Immediate Implementation. Commission for Public Complaints Against Canadian Mounted Police.

(United States) Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) TASER ECD Information:

(04/07/11) 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines, A joint project of Police Executive Research Forum and Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S Department of Justice.

(08/03/10) Conducted Energy Devices Guidelines for Policy & Practice, Meeting Preparation Materials (for August 3, 2010 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, meeting), Police Executive Research Forum.

(09/09) Comparing safety outcomes in police use-of-force cases for law enforcement agencies that have deployed conducted energy devices and a matched comparison group that have not: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Police Executive Research Forum, National Institute of Justice.

“Overall, the study showed that use of CEDs is associated with a 70-percent reduction in the chances of an officer being injured compared to agencies that do not use CEDs. And the odds of a suspect being injured are reduced by more than 40 percent in CED agencies compared to non-CED agencies.”

“All in all, we found consistently strong effects for CEDs in increasing the safety of officers and suspects,” said Dr. Bruce Taylor, director of research at PERF. “Not only are CED sites associated with greater levels of safety compared to a matched group of non-CED sites, but also within CED agencies, in some cases the actual use of a CED by an officer is associated with a higher level of safety compared to incidents in which officers used other types of less lethal weapons, such as batons.”

(08/09) Conducted Energy Devices: Use in a Custodial Setting, A Collaborative Study By: Police Executive Research Forum, National Sheriffs' Association, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

(02/24/07) Conducted Energy Devices:Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance, The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines, by James M. Cronin and Joshua A. Ederheimer. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

(10/19/05) PERF Conducted Energy Device, Policy and Training Guidelines for Consideration.

(10/19/05) PERF Conducted Energy Device (CED) Glossary of Terms.

Other TASER ECD Related Articles/Presentations:

(06/08) Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption: Interim Report. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.

(06/09/08) Evaluation of the New York Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm-Discharge Review Process, Rand® Center on Quality Policing.

(03/30/08) A Briefing Note on the State of Tasers in Canada: A Select Review of Medical and Policy Review Literature, by Steven Synyshyn, Prepared for: the Canadian Association of Police Boards.

(03/05/08) (Canada) Nova Scotia, Conducted Energy Device (CED) Review, Nova Scotia Department of Justice.

See also: (06/30/08) Nova Scotia (2008) Report of the Advisory Panel to the Minister of Justice on the use of the Conducted Energy Device by Law Enforcement Agencies in Nova Scotia.

See also: (06/30/09) Nova Scotia (2009) Report of the Panel of Mental Health and Medical Experts Review of Excited Delirium, Nova Scotia, Canada.

(06/28/07) TASER® Electronic Control Device (ECD) Training Exposures: What are the Benefits, Non-Lethal Force with Rick Guilbault, The ILEETA Use of Force Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, 2007, pages 13-15.

(04/07) Taser Devices and Other Electro-shock Weapons, (MRSC) Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington.

(01/18/07) TASER Use Guidelines, OLR Research Report (2007-R-0068).

(03/01/06) Wisconsin Law Enforcement Standards Board, Tactical Skills Advisory Committee, Electronic Control Device (Taser®) Update.

(20/20/06) TASERs: Deadly Force? Final Report of the Miami-Dade County Grand Jury, Spring Term A.D. 2005, In the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for the County of Miami-Dade.

(02/06) Minneapolis (MN) Civilian Police Review Authority TASER Policy and Training Recommendations.

TASER®, Position Paper of the Police Training Institute (IL).

TASER ECD Use or Risk/Benefit Analyses Reports:

(07/10) A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, Michael R. Smith, J.D., Ph.D., Robert J. Kaminski, Ph.D., Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D., Lorie A. Fridell, Ph.D., John MacDonald, Ph.D., Bruce Kubu. Some CED related findings, statements include:

Page 8-3: “Across 12 agencies and more than 24,000 use of force cases, the odds of a suspect being injured decreased by almost 60 percent when a CED was used.”

Page 8-3: ” Controlling for other types of force and resistance, the use of CEDs significantly reduced the probability of injuries.”

Page 8-4: “In juxtaposition to these observations, our findings consistently show a significant reduction in the risk of injury to suspects when CEDs or OC spray is used.”

Page 8-4: “In very rare cases, people have died after being pepper sprayed or shocked with a Taser, although no clear evidence exists that the weapons themselves caused the deaths.”

Page 8-5: “According to the survey results, 45 percent of agencies allow for the use of OC spray to overcome passive resistance (suspect sits down and refuses to comply with police commands), while another 20-30 percent of agencies authorize the use of a CED under these circumstances.”

Page 8-5: “If injury reduction is the primary goal, then agencies that authorize OC spray and/or CEDs to overcome defensive resistance are clearly at an advantage based upon the results from the current study.”

Page 8-9-10:” Another important CED-related investigation would be a case study of deaths in custody when the use of a CED was involved and a matched sample of deaths in custody when a CED was not involved. Advocacy groups argue that CEDs can cause or contribute to suspect deaths. Although the medical research to date does not confirm such claims, the subjects in CED experimental settings have all been healthy people in relatively good physical condition and who have not been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Obviously, there is no ethical way to expose overweight suspects who have been fighting and/or using drugs to the effects of a CED, so an examination of cases where similar subjects lived and died might shed some light on the reasons for the deaths. The argument that is made by law enforcement is that most if not all of the subjects who died when shocked by a CED would have died if the officers had controlled and arrested them in a more traditional hands-on fight. At this point, the argument is rhetorical, and research is needed to understand the differences and/or similarities in cases where suspects lived and suspects died in police custody, including deaths where a CED may or may not be involved.”

(08/23/10) TASER ECD Risk Management Injury Reduction PowerPoint Presentation

(09/09) Comparing safety outcomes in police use-of-force cases for law enforcement agencies tha have deployed conducted energy devices and a matched comparison group that have not: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Police Executive Research Forum, National Institute of Justice.

“Overall, the study showed that use of CEDs is associated with a 70-percent reduction in the chances of an officer being injured compared to agencies that do not use CEDs. And the odds of a suspect being injured are reduced by more than 40 percent in CED agencies compared to non-CED agencies.”

“All in all, we found consistently strong effects for CEDs in increasing the safety of officers and suspects,” said Dr. Bruce Taylor, director of research at PERF. “Not only are CED sites associated with greater levels of safety compared to a matched group of non-CED sites, but also within CED agencies, in some cases the actual use of a CED by an officer is associated with a higher level of safety compared to incidents in which officers used other types of less lethal weapons, such as batons.”

(04/09) TASER® Risk Avoidance Program (RAP), Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority, 2003-2008 (PowerPoint).

(12/08) Green, Saul A., Jerome, Richard B., Independent Monitor's Final Report, City of Cincinnati (Ohio).

[Pg 36] "...The Monitoring Team also noted a significant decline in serious force-related incidents at this time. We attribute much of this decrease to the department-wide deployment of the Taser. Our review of use of force reporting and investigative files showed that the Taser replaced other types of force in the majority of incidents. Moreover, injuries to officers and citizens also declined."

(09/08) Mesloh, C., M. Henych, and R. Wolf, Less Lethal Weapon Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect & Officer Injuries: A Five-Year Analysis. 2008, National Institute of Justice

Conclusion: TASERs play an important role in law enforcement. This research and this report show that electric weapons are deployed more frequently than other less-lethal weapons and tactics, but they also appear to enjoy higher success rates in conflict resolution. This success in bringing officer/suspect confrontations to an end is invaluable as it has the effect of reducing injuries to all persons in the conflict. When officer and suspect confrontations continue into multiple iterations, the result is a much higher injury rate for both suspects and officers. This immediately begets the conclusion that the law enforcement community has a duty to use sufficient levels of less lethal force (and in some cases deadly force), at a legally acceptable level (equal or greater to that of the subject’s level of resistance), quickly and decisively at the onset of a conflict. This may cause concern to some, especially if there is community distrust in the police; however, when properly administered in the hands of a legitimate police organization they may in fact be reducing injuries to all parties.

The fact that TASERs offer society the best “set phasers on stun” solution currently available makes them extremely appealing to police in use-of-force situations. Added to this are the many safeguards implemented by TASER International to identify when and where a TASER has been discharged. These electronic and physical tracking safeguards highly discourage improper use. In a police use of force confrontation, the most humane weapon or tactic would be one in which the resultant injury would be the least severe. While TASERs are not injury free (puncture wounds from dart probes, or skin burns from drive stuns), the alternative (broken bones from batons, burning pain from pepper spray, and potential death from firearm) makes them a preferential choice. Clearly this research has shown that electric weapons are very effective at ending conflict situations quickly, this in turn leads to less injuries to both suspects and officers.

(06/08) Conductive Electrical Devices: A Prospective, Population-Based Study of the Medical Safety of Law Enforcement Use. Eastman, Alexander L. MD; Metzger, Jeffery C. MD; Pepe, Paul E. MD, MPH; Benitez, Fernando L. MD; Decker, James; Rinnert, Kathy J. MD, MPH; Field, Craig A. PhD, MPH; Friese, Randall S. MD. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care. 64(6):1567-1572, June 2008.

Conclusion: Police were compliant with policy in all cases, and, in addition to avoiding the use of lethal force in a significant number of circumstances, the safety of CED use was demonstrated despite one death subsequently attributed to lethal toxic hyperthermia. Collaborative nationwide research using similar registries is strongly recommended to document compliance and ensure ongoing safety monitoring.

(09/08) Mangus B, Shen L, Helmer S, Maher J, Smith R. Taser and Taser associated injuries:a case series. Am Surg. 2008;74 (9):862-865.

Conclusion:  Taser devices were introduced in 1974 and are increasingly used by law enforcement agencies. Taser use theoretically reduces the risk of injury and death by decreasing the use of lethal force. We report a spectrum of injuries sustained by four patients subdued with Taser devices. Injuries identified in our review included: 1) a basilar skull fracture, right subarachnoid hemorrhage, and left-sided epidural hemorrhage necessitating craniotomy; 2) a concussion, facial laceration, comminuted nasal fracture, and orbital floor fracture; 3) penetration of the outer table and cortex of the cranium by a Taser probe with seizure-like activity reported by the officer when the Taser was activated; and 4) a forehead hematoma and laceration. The Taser operator's manual states that these devices are designed to incapacitate a target from a safe distance without causing death or permanent injury. However, individuals may be exposed to the potential for significant injury. These devices represent a new mechanism for potential injury. Trauma surgeons and law enforcement agencies should be aware of the potential danger of significant head injuries as a result of loss of neuromuscular control.

(02/26/08) The Impact of the Taser on Suspect Resistance: Identifying Predictors of Effectiveness, Michael D. White and Justin Ready, Crime Delinquency. published 26 February 2008.

(09/24/08) TASER ECDs Field Data and Risk Management, TASER International, Inc.

(Poster)(10/08/07) ACEP 204. Injury Profile of Electrical Conducted Energy Weapons, Bozeman WP, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, NC.

Conclusions: In a review of nearly 1,000 cases [962], 99.7 per cent of those subjected to a TASER ECD had mild injuries, such as scrapes and bruises, or none at all. Only three subjects (0.3%) suffered injuries severe enough to need hospital admission. Two had head injuries suffered in falls after TASER ECD use. A third subject was admitted to a hospital two days after arrest with a medical condition of unclear relationship to the TASER ECD. Two subjects died, but autopsy reports indicate that neither death was related to the TASER device. Earlier partial results involving 597 cases were published in the September issue of Annals of Emergency Medicine.

Earlier Published Conclusions: After CEW use, 99.5% of 597 subjects had no injuries or mild injuries only. The observed significant injury rate was 0.5%, and is unlikely to be greater than 1.4%. No deaths related to CEWs occurred. These preliminary data represent the largest independent injury epidemiology study of these weapons to date and support the safety of CEW use. Data collection will continue through summer 2007; final data will be presented at the fall ACEP meeting.

(10/08/07) (Press Release) Nationwide Independent TASER® Study Results Suggest Devices are Safe, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center®.

(10/09/07) The impact of conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries, Michael R. Smith, Robert J. Kaminski, Jeffrey Rojek, Geoffrey P. Alpert and Jason Mathis, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, 2007, pp. 423-446.

Findings – The use of CEDs was associated with reduced odds of officer and suspect injury and the severity of suspect injury in one agency. In the other agency CED use was unrelated to the odds of injury; however, the use of pepper spray was associated with reduced odds of suspect injury. Among other findings, in both agencies the use of hands-on tactics by police was associated with increased odds of officer and suspect injury, while the use of canines was associated with increased odds of suspect injury.

Pg 437 - "CED use was associated with a 677 percent increase in the odds of suspects not being injured during use-of-force encounters. Thus, whereas hands on tactics significantly increased the risk of injury among both officers and suspects, CEDs significantly decreased the risk of injury to both groups."

"[T]he use of soft-hand tactics,hard-hand tactics, and canines by officers increased the odds of both minor and major injury to suspects, while the use of CEDs significantly decreased the odds of both types of injury."

"The findings from Richland County indicated that the use of OC on suspects was one of the most important variables linked to a reduction in suspect injury, while CED use was not associated with either a decrease or increase in injury."

"The data from the MDPD, whose [438] officers did not have access to OC as an intermediate weapon, showed that the use of CEDs was associated with reductions in injury to both officers and suspects."

Pg 438 - "[T]he analysis of suspect injury severity in the MDPD found that the use of CEDs was associated with reductions of both minor and major injuries, clearly a more desirable outcome than if CEDs were linked to reductions in minor injuries only."

"Why CED use was not associated with a significant reduction in injuries in the RCSD is unclear. However, since the majority of the RCSD deputies had a long history of using OC spray and the introduction of CEDs was relatively recent, the reliance on OC may have mitigated its injury reduction effects. Perhaps, if both sites had a similar history with the same less-lethal weapon options, the findings would have been more comparable."

"Additional research in other settings may shed further light on this, but [439] the results of this study suggest that not every agency’s experience will be the same regarding CED use and injuries. Nonetheless, it is clear that the use of CEDs and OC can have a significant and positive effect on injury reduction."

"To the degree that OC and/or CEDs would be authorized and appropriate for use in such encounters, their deployment in place of soft empty-hand controls may help prevent some injuries, albeit mostly minor ones."

"Although our research did not address specifically the reduction in deadly force,other research and common sense demonstrates that it is probable that the use of CEDs would replace the use of firearms in some limited number of instances where lethal force is justified, and thereby reduce deaths that would occur had a firearm been used (Ho et al., 2006a; Adams, this volume). Further, although rare cases of sudden in-custody death do occur with the use of CEDs, the causal connection remains unclear (Vilke and Chan, this volume) and the number of lives saved appears to far outweigh the number of deaths associated with CED exposure (Ho et al., 2006a). Therefore, given the accumulated evidence to date and the results of the present study, and assuming the existence of appropriate training, policies, restrictions on use and monitoring (Police Executive Research Forum, 2005; ACLU of South California, 1995), it is our conclusion and recommendation that police agencies adopt use-of-force policies and training regimens that permit officers to use CEDs to control threatening or physically resistant suspects. The findings from Miami-Dade and Richland Counties suggest that officers and citizens are at greatest risk for injury when they engage in physical struggles, particularly when the suspect is actively or violently resisting arrest, and that CEDs and OC spray reduce the probability of injury."

Pg 440 - "Given the minor nature of most injuries to officers and suspects, though, the substitution of OC spray or CEDs for hands-on control primarily will result in the prevention of bruises, abrasions, sprains, and the like. Balanced against this injury savings are the pain, irritation, and decontamination requirements associated with OC spray and the minor dart puncture wounds and rare complications associated with CEDs. Nonetheless, every use-of-force encounter carries with it the potential for serious injury and even minor injuries can result in the need for medical treatment or time lost from work. More importantly, the use of less lethal technologies from a stand-off distance may help to prevent the occasional serious injury that might otherwise occur from physical contact between officers and citizens. Consequently, the use of CEDs or OC spray under these conditions makes the control of resistant persons safer for everyone."

(05/19/07) White and Ready, The TASER as a Less Lethal Force Alternative: Findings on Use and Effectiveness in a Large Metropolitan Police Agency, Police Quarterly, 2007, 10 (2), p. 170.

(02/18/07) 2006 Annual Report: Use of TASERs®, Report from William Blair, Chief of Police, Toronto Police Services Board.

(05/06) Beneficial Impact of Conducted Electrical Weapons In the Mentally Ill Population. Jeffrey D. Ho, MD, Donald M. Dawes, MD, Jenny Thacker, MD, Erik Lundin, Mark Johnson,

CEW use appears to play a signficant role on the types of force that is used by law enforcement in contacts with mentally-ill persons. In the database queried, 45.3% (1,111 or 2,452 reports) of CEW uses were in situations where lethal force would have been justified or in situations where the subject posed an imminent lethal danger to himself.

(02/06) TASER Report, Green Bay (WI) Police Department.

(02/21/06) (2005) Use of Force Report, San Marcos, TX.

(03/05) Use of Force, Civil Litigation, and the Taser One Agency’s Experience, By Steve Hougland, Ph.D., Charlie Mesloh, Ph.D., and Mark Henych, Ph.D. FBI Law Enforcment Bulletin, March 2005, Volume 74, Number 3, Page 24.

(01/05) TASER Report, Madison (WI) Police Department.

2005 Reportable Response Resistance Project, Fresno (CA) Police Department.

Other TASER ECD Related Documents:

(02/05/08) Scientific Literature on Human and Animal Exposure to Conducted Energy Weapons

(06/21/06) TASER® Device Risk Management Aspects (Outline).

(10/24/06) TASER® X26 Electrical Demonstration (Ouline).

Other TASER ECD Related Force Articles:

(07-10) Fabian Jeff, Don't Tase Me Bro: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Laws Governing TASER [ECD] Use by Law Enforcement, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 763.

(2010) Wright, Ron F., Shocking the Second Amendment: Invalidating States Prohibitions on TASER [ECD] with the District of Columbia v. Heller, 20 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 159.

(2009) Zitter, J.D., Jay M., When Does Use of [TASER ECD] Constitute Violation of Constitutional Rights, 45 A.L.R.6th 1.

(07/09) Hough, Sr., Richard, M., Tatum, Kimberly M., Examining the Utility of the Use of Force Continuum: TASERs and Potential Liability, pages 37-50, Critical Issues of Use of Force by Law Enforcement (Special Edition), Law Enforcement Executive Forum, Volume 9, Number 3, July 2009.

(07/09) Johnston, Joel, Stuart, Bruce, Lawrence, Chris, Police Use of Conducted Energy Weapons in Canada, pages 51-74, Critical Issues of Use of Force by Law Enforcement (Special Edition), Law Enforcement Executive Forum, Volume 9, Number 3, July 2009.

(07/09) Kasanof, TASER Use Policy, pages 75-87, Critical Issues of Use of Force by Law Enforcement (Special Edition), Law Enforcement Executive Forum, Volume 9, Number 3, July 2009.

Excited Delirium Force Articles:

(07/09) Morgan, Joseph, Allen, Jennifer, M., Use of Force and Excited Delirium Syndrome, pages 95-105, Critical Issues of Use of Force by Law Enforcement (Special Edition), Law Enforcement Executive Forum, Volume 9, Number 3, July 2009.

Other Use of Force Related Documents:

(Winter 2008) Osborn, Elizabeth Hervey, What Happened to "Paul's Law"?: Insights on Advocating for Better Training and Better Outcomes in Encounters Between Law Enforcement and Persons with Autism Spectrum Disorders, 79 U. Colo. L. Rev. 333, Winter 2008.

(2007) Blum, Karen, M. Scott v. Harris: Death Knell for Deadly Force Policies and Garner Jury Instructions? 58 Syracuse Law Review 45, 2007.

(04/08) Florida - (FDLE) New 2008 Curriculum Training Courses, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, see High Liability Texts.

Use of Force Related Outlines:

Outline: History - Federal Civil Rights - Use of Force Standards.

Outline: Use of Force Legal Analysis.

Use of Force Related Articles:

Article: (11/08) Prevalence of Force by Police in Rhode Island Jurisdictions: Implications for Use-of-Force Training and Reporting, Frank J. Gallo, Charles E. Collyer, and Patricia L. Gallagher, Criminal Justice Review. 2008; 33(4): p. 480-501.

Article: How Much Force is Acceptable.

Article: Law Enforcement Jurisdictional Issues.

Article: The Mouth of an Arrestee is NOT a "Sacred Orifice!"

Use of Force Handcuffs/Restraints:

(05/19/09) Seclusions and Restraints, Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers, United States Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Article (AELE) Restraint and Asphyxia: Part One – Restraint Ties, 2008 (12) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.

Article (AELE) Restraint Ties and Asphyxia, Part Two - Compressional Asphyxia, 2009 (1) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.

Article: (AELE) Civil Liability for the Use of Handcuffs: Part I - Handcuffs as Excessive Force, 2008 (10) AELE Mo.L.J. 101.

Article (AELE) Civil Liability for the Use of Handcuffs: Part II - Use of Force Against Handcuffed Persons, 2008 (11) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.

Use of Force Against Prisoners:

Article: (AELE) Staff Use of Force Against Prisoners--Part I: Legal Standard and Individual Liability, 2008 (9) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.

Article: (AELE) Staff Use of Force Against Prisoners--Part II: Governmental and Supervisory Liability, 2008 (10) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.

Article (AELE) Staff Use of Force Against Prisoners--Part III: Use of Chemical Weapons, 2008 (11) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.

Use of Force Related Sample Policies:

Sample Policy: Dominant Department Policy.

Sample Policy: Search of Arrestee's Mouth for Contraband/Evidence, e.g. Drugs.

Sample Policy: General Use of Force Considerations.

Force Continuum Articles:

(12/2011) Lorie Fridell, Steve Ijames, and Michael Berkow, "Taking the Straw Man to the Ground: Arguments in Support of the Linear Use-of-Force Continuum," The Police Chief 78 (December 2011): 20–25.

(07/09) Hough, Sr., Richard, M., Tatum, Kimberly M., Examining the Utility of the Use of Force Continuum: TASERs and Potential Liability, pages 37-50, Critical Issues of Use of Force by Law Enforcement (Special Edition), Law Enforcement Executive Forum, Volume 9, Number 3, July 2009.

(03/19/09) Bostain, John, Training without force continuums: Learn to love the law, PoliceOne.com (news).

(2009) Wallentine, Ken, The Risky Continuum: Abandoning the Use of Force Continuum to Enhance Risk Management.

This article was first published by the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA), 7910 Woodmont Ave., Bethesda, MD. 20814, and is reproduced with the permission of IMLA. IMLA is a non-profit, professional organization that has been an advocate and resource for local government attorneys since 1935. IMLA serves more than 2,500 member municipalities and local government entities in the United States and Canada, and is the only international organization devoted exclusively to addressing the needs of local government lawyers. Further information about IMLA is available at IMLA’s website, www.imla.org.

(04/01/08) Florida drops continuum for new state wide curriculum.

(Fall 2006) Use of Force: Are Continuums Still Necessary? by John Bostain, FLETC Journal, Fall 2006, pages 33-37.

(01/02/06) Force Continuums: Are They Still Needed? Police and Security News, January/February 2006, Vol. 22 Issue 1, by John G. Peters, Jr., M.B.A., Ph.D., CLS., and Michael Brave, Esq., M.S., CLS3, CLET.

(01/06) Force Continuums: Three Questions, Police Chief, January 2006. pgs 8-9, by John G. Peters, Jr., M.B.A., Ph.D., CLS., and Michael Brave, Esq., M.S., CLS3, CLET.

(06/02) Williams, George T., Perspective: Force Continuums: A Liability to Law Enforcement, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, June 2002, pages 14-18.

TASER is a registered trademark of TASER International, Inc.
PowerPoint is a registered trademark of Microsoft, Inc. Rand is a registered trademark of The Rand Corporation.
Westlaw is registered trademark of Thomson, Inc. and cases from Westlaw are placed here with limited permissions from Thomson, Inc.

© 2007 Copyright. All rights reserved by LAAW International, Inc.