Fraction of VPD carries Tasers under new rules

"Tasers can still be used on seniors, children, pregnant women and the mentally ill, despite warnings from the manufacturer."

January 27, 2012

CTV BC

With a report from CTV British Columbia's Peter Grainger

The new standards for Taser use are set to come into effect next week, and they mean that just a fraction of Vancouver police officers are carrying the conducted-energy weapons.

The changes to B.C. policy were recommended by retired judge Thomas Braidwood, who led an inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski after being stunned multiple times at the Vancouver International Airport in October 2007.

The Vancouver Police Department is already complying with the province-wide standards, which require officers to undergo training before they can carry Tasers. But the department doesn't automatically send people to be qualified and officers have to volunteer.

Right now, only 107 officers carry a Taser, and a third of those are members of the emergency response team. As of December, there were 1,327 sworn officers in the VPD.

Some of the other new policies include:

• Tasers are only to be used on violent people
• Officers must give verbal warnings before shocking anyone
• They must use, or consider using, crisis intervention first
• They must avoid chest shots
• Shocks cannot last for more than five seconds

However, Tasers can still be used on seniors, children, pregnant women and the mentally ill, despite warnings from the manufacturer.

That is a concern for BC Civil Liberties Association director David Eby, who was the only civilian member of the implementation committee on Braidwood's recommendations.

"This device, still untested on those groups, is still being used by police officers and potentially on those groups. That is a potential major issue given the recent Tasering of an 11-year old in Prince George," he said.
"There may be some mistaken notion that now they're safe, now we know what the effects of them are, now we know when we can properly use them and when we can't. I don't think police officers have that information still."

Vermont State Police to make revisions to Taser policy

October 22, 2011
Burlington Free Press

The Vermont State Police agreed to change its policy regarding Tasers following an incident with a 23-year-old Northeast Kingdom man with a disability.

The policy revision was prompted by a complaint about using a Taser on the uncooperative man April 6, officials said. The state police also agreed to pay a small financial settlement as part of the complaint filed by Disability Rights Vermont, a protection and advocacy organization.

A.J. Ruben, a supervising attorney for Disability Rights Vermont, declined to release terms of the signed financial settlement, which he acknowledged is public record. Ruben said the family asked him not to release the name of the victim or the settlement amount, which he termed "not large." He said the case was more about getting the state police Taser policy modified for people with disabilities and not about the payment to his client.

The Burlington Free Press filed a public-records request Friday afternoon with the state police Friday afternoon to determine the cost to taxpayers. The request is pending.

Ruben said the policy changes will save taxpayers money by avoiding future incidents.

In a joint statement, state police and rights group outlined the following:

Troopers responded to a home April 6 at the request of developmental services and mental health professionals. The man with disabilities including Down syndrome, was told by care providers that he needed to be taken to a new placement. He refused to get dressed and accompany the caregivers. When troopers arrived, they attempted to escort the man from the home, but he pulled away. Trooper Paul Mosher, who is assigned to the Derby barracks, deployed his Taser. Then the man was helped into his care provider's vehicle, evaluated at the emergency room, released uninjured and transported to the new placement.

Changes to state police policy regarding Tasers includes placing people with cognitive impairments in a category that requires special consideration before use of a Taser, and the devices will be used only if the person is armed and presents a risk of harm, or if there are no other reasonable alternatives to maintaining safety or taking the person into custody.

"We are pleased with the outcome and the spirit of cooperation in working ... to create a policy that will help protect citizens with disabilities, while providing more clearly defined direction for our troopers," Col. Tom L'Esperance, director of the state police, said in a statement.

Ruben said in a statement: "The actions taken by the state police, including the change of policy, are progress in the continuing effort to restrict the use of the Taser against individuals with disabilities for non-threatening disability-related behavior."

EDITORIAL: Here's key in taser use: police using good rules

September 28, 2011
The Charlotte Observer

We don't argue with the idea that Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officers should be armed with the safest weapons available. So in that sense, the Charlotte City Council's decision to buy new Tasers that prevent officers from firing high voltages of electricity for more than five seconds at a pop makes sense.

But this move does not end concerns over the use of Tasers, associated with the deaths of two suspects in Charlotte in the past three years. These are not truly the "non-lethal" weapons that they are so frequently advertised to be.

Amnesty International says Tasers contributed to about 351 U.S. deaths between 2002 and 2008. The group also says 90 percent of those tasered were unarmed at the time.

Taser International, which provides most such weapons (and the company supplying the guns to the CMPD), points to a different view in a May study by the National Institute of Justice. In a look at Taser use by six police departments nationwide over a two-year period, the institute's researchers found 99.7 percent of those tasered suffered no serious injuries. Their conclusion: "The risk of human death due directly or primarily to the electrical effects of [Tasers] has not been conclusively demonstrated."

It's hard to reconcile those views. Yet even the study provides fodder for concerns. "Risk of human death ... not conclusively demonstrated" is not the same as no risk. And the study says data have shown significant health risks when Tasers are used against small children, people with diseased hearts, the elderly, those who are pregnant and some others. Researchers also acknowledged that many of the deaths after Taser exposure "are associated with continuous or repeated discharge of the CED..., especially when the individual may be under drug intoxication."

These are crucial caveats. In the March 2008 death of 17-year-old Darryl Turner, a CMPD officer tasered the teen for 37 seconds, a violation of police policy. The city paid the family $625,000 as a result, but admitted no wrongdoing. A federal jury ordered Taser International this summer to pay $10 million to the family. The company said it will appeal but in 2009 it released an advisory urging police not to shoot suspects in the chest, where Turner was shot. It also began pushing a version of its gun that allows only five seconds of current before officers can fire again.

The model the council agreed to has that feature and other safety measures including an audible "pre-warning" that the device is about to be used, said CMPD chief Rodney Monroe. Taser officials tout other benefits including the ability to fire a second time quickly without reloading.

Such features are welcome but they remain no substitute for officers having and following good guidelines about the use of these devices. In the past, that has been a problem for CMPD - and a costly one. If the officer in the Turner case had followed policy, the teen might be alive, the city wouldn't have had to shell out $625,000 to a grieving family, and the council might not be approving $1.83 million for new Tasers. That last cost is acknowledgment that officers could not be depended upon to abide by a policy of not tasering suspects past five seconds, the limit on a Taser blast unless the trigger is held down.

This move won't force officers to show good judgment and abide by strong guidelines. The new Taser allows more blasts in the Taser's battery life, and two blasts in quick succession. Studies show multiple Taser shots pose health risks even in healthy adults.

Tasers have been welcome tools to police officers in protecting the public, suspects and themselves. They have helped reduce the numbers of lethal incidents in which an officer is forced to discharge a gun. But Tasers carry dangers that should not be ignored. Training, officers following sound guidelines and vigilance about health risks are crucial to helping ensure tragedy does not result from Taser use.

Council approves $1.8M in new Tasers for CMPD

September 27, 2011
WSOCTV.com

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Charlotte-Mecklenburg police are getting new, and supposedly safer, Tasers. Although the non-lethal tools have been the focus of controversy over the past few months, police are confident Tasers are not a problem. Just to be safe, they asked city council for $1.8 million to buy the new models.

The X2 version has several new safety features. The shock only lasts five seconds no matter how long the officer holds the trigger. The amount of electricity is now more exact.

Police Chief Rodney Monroe said these new Tasers are the top of the line models. "We don't believe that there is a better model out there," he told council members.

Those safety features could have meant the difference between life and death in 2008 when Darryl Turner died after being shocked by a police-issue Taser, and again two months ago when La'Reko Williams died. Williams' family made an appearance at the meeting Monday night, wearing shirts memorializing the 21-year-old man, but did not speak about the new Tasers.

The lawyer Charles Everage said the council should not have voted on the Taser deal until it figured out why WIlliams died from the shock. "We're not here to express any emotion about it," he said.

Police haven’t been allowed to use their Tasers since Williams died. The weapons have been in a state of review and testing and the department have been reviewing their policies for using Tasers. In fact, for the first time, CMPD officials said officers have deployed Tasers 760 times since 2004.

Police said those are time officers may have been forced to draw their guns instead, but they did not say how many of those suspects were seriously injured.

In light of the new X2 model Tasers, only one Charlotte resident spoke out about the weapons being added to officers' arsenal.

"If they're going to use these instruments that do cause devastation and it does cause death, they should be better trained," he said.

Cardiologists at Presbyterian Hospital in uptown Charlotte said any Taser can be dangerous, regardless of the safety mechanisms built into them because all Tasers hit suspects with thousands of volts of electricity.

"There are plenty of average, healthy people that in very unique situations can have weird electrical cardiac events," said Cardiologist Kevin Sharkey. "You've seen people on the basketball court collapse and die from an arythmia they didn't know they had."

Police have not said when officers will get the new Tasers. Even when they do, they may not use them right away because officers may need new training.

Three deaths in one weekend puts Taser use by cops in crosshairs

"The website Truth Not Tasers claims that 39 people have died in relation to "conducted energy devices (CEDs)" this year in the United States, an average of five per month."

August 8, 2011
Patrik Jonsson, Christian Monitor

A naked man on drugs died in Wisconsin this weekend, after police used a Taser stun gun to subdue him. A student died at the University of Cincinnati after balling his fists and getting tasered by police. A man high on drugs in Manassas, Va., also died this weekend after police tasered him as he escaped, partially handcuffed, after punching an officer and a firefighter.

All three deaths are being investigated. One of the departments, the University of Cincinnati Police Department, has suspended the use of Tasers by its officers.

About 15,000 US police departments, including 29 of the nation's 33 largest cities, use a total of 260,000 Tasers. The devices have been the objects of controversy since first being deployed broadly in the 1990s. Some describe them as an alternative to the nightstick that reduces officer injuries and saves lives. Others see the stun guns as instruments of torture whose growing use make them a symbol of reckless policing.

In some cases, the Tasers are only tangentially related or unrelated to the actual cause of death, and that may be the case in the three incidents from this weekend. But recent studies have shown that the weapons can have an outsized impact on people with health problems or who are very high on drugs and in a state of "excited delirium."

Tasers contributed to some 351 US deaths between 2001 and 2008, says Amnesty International, which adds that 90 percent of those tasered were unarmed at the time they were electrocuted. The website Truth Not Tasers claims that 39 people have died in relation to "conducted energy devices (CEDs)" this year in the United States, an average of five per month.

On the other hand, 99.7 percent of people who are tasered suffer no serious injuries, according to a May report from the National Institute of Justice. "The risk of human death due directly or primarily to the electrical effects of CED application has not been conclusively demonstrated," says the report.

A growing number of police departments have begun to limit Taser use, imposing stricter policies for use or even taking the instruments out of officers' hands. Memphis, San Francisco, and Las Vegas police departments have all opted out of Taser use recently, amid growing questions about the level of threat necessary to justify electrocuting someone with 50,000 volts delivered through barbed bolts.

"Because of the criticism and the deaths, there's been a lot of people backing off of Tasers," says Samuel Walker, a professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, who studies police accountability. "The fact is, a lot of departments are taking some very positive, proactive steps to ensure accountability, and controlling Tasers is one of part of doing that," he says. But in other departments, he adds, "they're using it much too broadly and recklessly, where it isn't appropriate."

The current Taser debate hinges on when, not if, the stun guns should be used. Few disagree with the use of Tasers as an alternative to deadly force, but in some departments, officers can employ Tasers when someone is simply refusing to obey an order.

Tasers are often most used when police officers are dealing with unruly people who themselves are unarmed, but whose failure to comply with police instructions make officers to feel threatened. Most departments use the "billy club policy," which holds that Tasers are appropriate in any situation where an officer would otherwise pull and be ready to use a billy club, or night stick, which tends to lead to more serious injuries than a Taser.

Taser opponents point to the public outrage over the tasering of a fan at a Philadelphia Phillies baseball game, and various lawsuits documenting officers using Tasers on subdued, non-aggressive, or even handcuffed people. Tasers "can be used too much and too often," the National Institute of Justice found in its May report.

At the same time, some law enforcement officials have pushed back against setting higher standards for Taser use.

"Police chiefs are saying, don't write the standards so that it's going to take away decision-making ... when I write my own policies," says John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, in Doylestown, Pa. "The argument that Tasers should only be used when the use of deadly force is authorized is asinine."

After releasing an advisory in 2009 urging police not to shoot suspects in the chest, Taser International is now marketing the old version of its gun, which allows for only a five second blast of current before officers have to make the decision to hit the suspect again. A newer version of the gun allowed officers to apply continuous current, which the NIJ said in a separate May report has been associated with deaths.

In all three cases from this weekend, the victims were acting erratically and, in at least one, in Manassas, Va., the man had already physically assaulted a police officer. But whether the occasions rose to a level where officers would have used deadly force is far from clear. None of the three men were armed.

In Kaukauna, Wisc., police responded to a report of a naked, out-of-control man running across a city bridge. When police reached him, the man appeared to be in the throes of a drug overdose, claiming he was covered in snakes. When he refused to comply with officers, a Taser was used to knock him down.

At the University of Cincinnati, a recent high school graduate, at the university for college-preparatory summer classes, was approaching the police with an "altered mental status" and balled fists when he was brought down with a Taser. The University of Cincinnati Police Department has suspended the use of Tasers as it investigates the case. One newspaper account said the officer who fired the Taser was "very distraught" by the young man's death.

Some police departments, including Kansas City, Seattle, and Madison, Wisc., have begun publishing their Taser policies on their public websites, in an effort to increase transparency and respond to public concerns. None of the three police departments involved in this weekend's incidents publish their policies on Taser use, with one – Prince William County – citing "tactical concerns." Calls to the other two departments were not returned by the time this story was posted.

"This is a very important point of accountability that goes beyond Tasers, a form of openness and transparency," says Professor Walker.

Some battles over Tasers have played out in the courts.

"Tasers and stun guns fall into the category of non-lethal force; non-lethal, however, is not synonymous with non-excessive force," ruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009. "All force – lethal or non-lethal – must be justified by the need for the specific level of force employed."

In July, a North Carolina jury returned a $10 million verdict against Taser International, the maker of the stun guns, for the 2008 death of a 17-year-old in Charlotte, N.C., ruling that company failed to provide police with adequate warnings or instruction. Taser International plans an appeal.

The day of the North Carolina verdict, another Charlotte man died in a Taser-related incident, prompting that city's police department – considered one of the most professional in the nation – to impose a 45-day suspension on the use of the weapons, to review their polices.

"My personal opinion is that when departments become restrictive and take away a tool, it's generally because they're afraid of some sort of public pressure coming from a certain segment of society," says Mr. Gnagey. When public pressure does succeed in restricting or banning Tasers, he adds, "Later on, when things die down, we'll just quietly introduce it back into the population."

EDITORIAL: Zap happy?

July 2, 2011
HOUSTON CHRONICLE

The Taser stun gun has proven to be an effective police alternative to the use of deadly force. Studies document its ability to reduce injuries to both officers and suspects in dozens of cities and counties where it has been deployed. But its safe use requires extensive training and adherence to guidelines to protect both user and target.

As the Chronicle's James Pinkerton reported last week, the use of stun guns by the Harris County Sheriff's Department has frequently diverged from national safety guidelines formulated by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice. Among 621 incidents where Tasers were used by deputies to subdue people from 2009 through early June, Pinkerton documented numerous cases where the application of the 50,000-volt shocks countered the best practices recommendations.

According to the 2011 guidelines, officers should use a Taser for only one cycle, or five seconds, before evaluating whether more shots are needed. According to the DOJ-PERF document, use of one weapon for more than 15 seconds or multiple Taser stuns "may increase the risk of death or serious injury. Any subsequent applications should be independently justifiable, and the risk should be weighed."

In Harris County, deputies stunned 43 suspects three or more times. In 10 incidents, two or more officers used Tasers on a person at the same time. A DWI suspect was Tasered 24 times. In 2006 deputies stunned a mentally ill African-American man, 31-year-old Herman Barnes, 32 times. He subsequently died, and his survivors are suing the county. The Taser manufacturer was dropped from the suit because its training manual for officers included a warning against multiple stuns.

A 17-year-old auto-theft suspect was shocked six times, including a final jolt applied to his groin. That gets us to federal guideline 28: Personnel should not intentionally target sensitive areas (e.g., head, neck, genitalia).

Although the Taser manufacturer warns agencies to avoid applying shocks to the chest because of widespread, and unproven, claims that they can trigger heart attacks, deputies zapped at least 30 people in that area.

Whereas the guidelines advise the use of Tasers only when suspects are actively aggressive or resisting arrest, deputies stunned 79 suspects who were passive or verbally aggressive, including some who were fleeing. According to the guidelines, fleeing should not be the sole justification for stunning suspects, because of the risk of serious injury.

In spite of all these incidents where the use of Tasers seems questionable, only one county deputy has been disciplined, and in that 2005 case it was because the officer hadn't informed superiors that he had stunned a suspect.

Sheriff Adrian Garcia responded to Pinkerton's story by claiming that the department "gives grave consideration and attention" to the federal guidelines. He cited the acknowledgment in the federal report that guidelines are flexible and subject to modification in particular circumstances. There's a huge difference between Sheriff's Department deputies being flexible in specific circumstances and blatantly ignoring safety rules for Taser use outlined by both the federal government and equipment vendors.

Multiple stuns applied in numerous cases, including shocking a teenager's genital area, don't strike us as flexible law enforcement. Words like "inhumane" and "irresponsible" come to mind. The fact that no officer has even been reprimanded in these incidents is an indication that much tighter supervision of county Taser use is needed.

Report Shreds Argument Tasers Result in Less Use of Lethal Force by Arizona Police

June 29, 2011
Kevin Gosztola, Fire Dog Lake

ACLU of Arizona Report Finds Arizona Law Enforcement Lacks Guidelines for Taser Use on Children & Pregnant Women

Law enforcement and correctional agencies in Arizona, the state where TASER International has its corporate headquarters, often use Tasers “preemptively” against citizens, according to a recent ACLU of Arizona report. Even if citizens do not present an imminent safety threat to officers, officers will use the Taser. They’ll also use it “offensively as a pain compliance tool,” a use TASER International anticipates in its training material and agency policies.

The report, which the ACLU of Arizona claims is the “most comprehensive survey of Taser use by law enforcement agencies in Arizona to date,” illuminates the following key findings: Tasers are widespread among law enforcement, providing officers with Tasers does not guarantee lower levels of use of lethal force, officers often receive inconsistent guidance on when it’s appropriate to use a Taser, agencies lack clear guidance on Taser safety including the use of Tasers against vulnerable populations, law enforcement is too reliant on TASER International for training and agencies lack data collection and other mechanisms for monitoring Taser use.

The ACLU of Arizona recommends the implementation of a “strong accountability mechanism” for Taser use that would include data collection. It suggests law enforcement re-assess where the use of a Taser should be on the “use-of-force continuum.” Furthermore, it calls for more regular training on Taser use and the establishment of a statewide body to review Taser use and develop policies and training resources for law enforcement.

The finding that Taser proponents are completely off when they argue in favor of Tasers because deployment of lethal force will decline is perhaps the most significant finding of the report. The report calls attentions to the fact that “TASER’s marketing campaign has always been that Tasers are a safe alternative to the use of lethal force. Indeed, the company’s slogan, ‘Saving Lives Every Day,’ is emblazoned on its corporate headquarters in Scottsdale.”

Taser shocks have most often been used in the place of “less-lethal uses of force, such as baton strikes, chemical sprays, and the like” and situations when “situations where lethal force would not be justified (i.e., in the absence of an immediate threat to officer or public safety).”

After completing an analysis of Phoenix Police Department use-of-force reports, The Arizona Republic found 377 incidents involving the use of a Taser. In nearly nine out of ten of the incidents, the subjects had posed no imminent threat to officers with any weapons. For example: “A shoplifter who stole four cans of soup from a Food City, and fled on a bike who was shocked as officers dragged him to the ground; a 15-year-old boy at Alhambra High School who was shocked in the back as officers attempted to arrest him on a marijuana charge; and an intoxicated man who ignored commands to leave a bar and was shocked in the back as he walked away.”

ACLU of Arizona notes TASER International has insisted its weapons are “non-lethal.” A file released by LulzSecurity, a computer hacker group that recently released data from the Arizona Department of Public Safety, shows since the release of an October 12 training bulletin from TASER International, law enforcement has been aware they should not be aiming Tasers at any person’s chest.

In the bulletin, TASER International suggests the 50,000-volt weapon could possibly lead to someone going into cardiac arrest. Officers in Phoenix adopted the new guidelines immediately, although Mark Spencer of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association did not initially instruct line officers on the development. Instead, Spencer only had praise for Tasers as he said, “It really minimizes harm, not only to officers but to suspects.”

TASER International, after issuing the bulletin, worked to spin the findings saying, “We have not stated that the Taser causes (cardiac) events in this bulletin, only that the refined target zones avoid any potential controversy on this topic.”

To the question of whether law enforcement could still deploy a TASER into a subject’s chest, TASER’s position was that officers should not “intentionally” target “when possible.” The recommendation, according to TASER, would go a long way toward “reducing risk management issues and avoiding litigation.” (What, in emails released by LulzSec, could be characterized as a policy of CYA.)

The TASER weapon’s propellant was changed from gunpowder to nitrogen in 1994, according to the ACLU report. This allowed TASER International to escape regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and made it possible to “aggressively market the weapon as an alternative to lethal force” and escape testing of the product by the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

Vulnerable people, such as children, elderly, pregnant women and those with heart problems, are widely understood to be at risk of death or injury if they are subjected to the voltage of a Taser. The ACLU report shows the alarming reality that much of Arizona law enforcement lacks guidelines on what to do if faced with a “vulnerable” person.

Ten agencies were found to be silent whether to Tase pregnant women. Only four agencies explicitly ban tasing pregnant women. Twelve agencies were found to be silent on the tasing of children or the elderly. Only one agency explicitly prohibited tasing young or elderly people. And, eleven out of ten agencies had no policy on using a Taser on a subject multiple times, an action that has been seen as a key factor behind ECW-induced deaths.

Of particular interest to those who have followed the story of the SB1070 law and the issue of immigration in Arizona is the fact that Maricopa County, where the anti-immigrant Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in charge, has developed no policies or guidelines on when and when not to deploy a Taser in high-risk situations. Maricopa County is the only police department with over 500 sworn officers that did not offer its own training in addition to TASER International’s training. This is especially troubling given the fact that an Amnesty International 127-page report found Maricopa County had the highest number of reported deaths from Taser use in the United States.

Taser use has been posing increased liability for law enforcement. As of September 2010, five deaths from Taser use were occurring on average each month.

Courts have found Tasers constitute the use of “excessive force” and thus violate the Fourth Amendment, provided the Taser was used in an instance when its deployment was unjustified. Victims of Taser use can seek compensation but only if an agency’s use guidelines are deficient and if training is so poor that it could be considered “deliberately indifferent.

Memphis, Tennessee, San Francisco, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, have all opted to ban the use of Tasers.

To date, ACLU’s work on Taser use has been mostly on a state-by-state basis without a federal campaign. The report clearly demonstrates the risks posed by Tasers. More importantly, it shows the growing private influence of TASER International and how law enforcement has become dependent on using Tasers to make police work much easier, even if that means putting a person at risk of death or injury and violating the rights of an individual.

[A side note: A Los Angeles City Council voted in May 2010 to bar official travel to Arizona and consider the termination of contracts with businesses as part of a boycott in response to the SB1070 law. The Council made one exception: it would not cut off business with TASER International because, according to a councilman, “various local public safety agencies need its stun guns and no other company can provide the service satisfactorily.]

ACLU: Rules vary on police Taser use

June 29, 2011
JJ Hensley, The Arizona Republic

A patchwork of policies governing the use of Tasers has left some Arizona police officers reaching for the electronic weapon at the first sign of trouble and others using the weapons when lives are threatened, according to a study by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

The varied regulations mean officers in Phoenix might try to subdue a disobedient suspect with a baton or pepper spray before reaching for the Taser, but a suspect taking the same actions might receive an incapacitating electric charge if confronted by police in another jurisdiction, according to the ACLU report made public Tuesday.

Citing its research, the ACLU is now pushing for more uniformity in police training in use of the weapon.

Steve Tuttle, Taser's vice president of communications, responded, "While we all agree that good policies and recurring training are crucial for successful Taser programs, the position of the Arizona chapter of the ACLU appears to be at odds with U.S. Department of Justice's recently released report which supports the use of Taser devices based upon the study of 24,000 field uses showing Taser technology protects law-enforcement officers, reduces injuries to suspects, and may prevent injuries to bystanders."

The ACLU report examined data from 20 police agencies on their use of force from 2000 to 2008.

The study found:

- Police agencies do not have consistent and clear guidelines on using Tasers on the young, elderly or ill.

- Arizona police agencies are inconsistent when it comes to use of Tasers on handcuffed, threatening or fleeing suspects.

- Arming more officers with Tasers did not equate to fewer deadly encounters with police. Agencies rolled out the product quickly in the early 2000s, and Taser use increased before reaching a plateau and declining in the latter half of the decade as questions arose about its use. The number of encounters that turned fatal for suspects remained the same in many agencies. That raises questions about whether Tasers were deployed in favor of batons or guns, ACLU said.

"Tasers should be placed higher on the use-of-force continuum and should be used as appropriate," said Annie Lai, an ACLU attorney who wrote the report and invited police agencies to work with the ACLU on more uniform training.

"We're not trying to handcuff officers, we're trying to give them more tools," she said.

Establishing uniform guidelines in Arizona would also make it easier for cash-strapped and rural police departments to provide training tailored for Arizona police officers, Lai said, in addition to whatever training comes with the weapon.

But declaring a blanket Taser policy for law-enforcement agencies throughout Arizona might not be feasible because an officer working patrol in Phoenix and handling a domestic-violence call would encounter different scenarios than a state Department of Public Safety officer dealing with an uncooperative driver along the side of a highway, said DPS Capt. Steve Harrison.

DPS officers receive Taser training every other year, Harrison said, from DPS officers who have been certified as instructors through the weapon's manufacturer. The training DPS officers receive is tailored to fit scenarios DPS frequently encounters, Harrison said.

But even the agency's tailored training cannot prepare officers for every situation they encounter, which is why officers are encouraged to look at the "totality of circumstances" before deploying any less lethal use of force such as a Taser, baton or bean bag, Harrison said.

Taser maintenance issue raised in Palo Alto independent police auditor's report

March 19, 2011
Jesse Dungan, San Jose Mercury

Palo Alto's independent police auditor is keeping an eye on Taser maintenance following an incident in which one of the devices malfunctioned when it was used on a combative suspect, according to a report released this week.

"It hasn't risen to the level where we think things have really gotten haywire and no one's taking care of their Tasers, but if we do see a pattern, we may recommend more needs to be done," said Michael Gennaco, one of the report's authors.

The auditor's report details complaints against the police department, changes in policies and Taser use by officers, but it does not provide times or locations of incidents.

The incident that caught the auditor's attention involved a nearly hour-long search for a burglar, which ended with officers and a police dog trying to nab the suspect. He resisted arrest when confronted in a fenced-in area, didn't show any pain when bitten and may have been under the influence of a controlled substance, according to the report.

During the seven-minute scuffle, two officers used their Tasers, including a sergeant whose device didn't produce an electric shock when he fired it at the suspect's back. The other officer fired her Taser at the man's chest and cycled it for 10 seconds, but it had little effect. She then pressed the Taser against the man's back as he continued to struggle.

The officers were justified in their use of Tasers and the police department did a good job of documenting the incident, according to the auditor's report. Another officer used the camera on his Taser to record part of the incident.

But the report noted, "One of the two Tasers deployed did not seem to work at all. After the incident, there were problems downloading the data and getting an accurate time stamp on it. The department has acknowledged these issues from previous Taser uses and we will continue to monitor its efforts to perfect maintenance and infrastructure for this weapon."

Palo Alto police Lt. Sandra Brown said Friday the incident examined by the auditor was an anomaly. The sergeant's Taser experienced some sort of software malfunction, which may have been a manufacturer problem, and the device later had to be rebooted. There is no widespread mechanical problem with the Tasers used by members of the Palo Alto Police Department, she said.

However, the department has taken steps to improve maintenance since Tasers were introduced four years ago, Brown said. For example, officers on Thursday were trained how to take apart and clean their stun guns, she said.

Previously, officers turned their Tasers in to be cleaned periodically, but that practice resulted in less frequent maintenance.

Brown said officers also "spark test" the devices before their shifts to make certain they're in working condition.

According to the auditor's report, no officers have fired a Taser since the police department revised its policy to reflect recent court opinions about stun gun use.

"It would be entirely speculative to conclude whether this is the result of fear of criticism by officers, a misunderstanding of the policy, or simply the absence of appropriate circumstances in the field necessitating the use of a Taser," the report states.

Australia police reduce taser use

March 10, 2011
Patrick Rocca, ABC News

New figures reveal taser usage by Western Australian police has plummeted since changes to the force's policy on their use.

In December last year the Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan changed the taser use policy to stipulate that officers only use the weapons to prevent serious injury.

The change was introduced as an interim measure and will mean officers have to believe they are at risk of serious injury before using a taser.

It came in the wake of video evidence released by the Corruption and Crime Commission showing Kevin Spratt being tasered dozens of times while in police custody.

In the two months to December, tasers were drawn a total of 148 times by police.

But in the two months since the new policy was implemented, the weapons have been drawn just 82 times.

There has also been a drop in how often police have actually discharged the tasers, from 62 in the lead up to December, to just 21 in the two months to the 31st of January.

The Commissioner says the figures show a change in the attitudes and behaviour of police.

"We've seen a 60 per cent reduction in the use of tasers since the introduction of that policy, " he said.

He says the figures show officers are adhering to the policy and adjusting the way they respond to offenders.

"I think police officers are now thinking about their deployment a lot more and we are not seeing an increase or a corresponding increase in the number of assaults on police, " he said.

He says he is not alarmed by the figures.

"We have been seeing this right across Australia since the introduction of tasers, police forces have been adjusting their policy to make sure it's properly controlled," he said.

"At this stage the statistics are quite new statistics so we need to be quite careful about the long term but we have seen quite a significant reduction in the first two months after the introduction of the policy."

Portland police chief wants to know: How should his officers use their Tasers?

January 26, 2011
Maxine Berstein, The Oregonian

A motorist wanted on a felony warrant and driving a stolen vehicle suddenly bails out of the car and is about to scale a fence in a residential neighborhood. Should a pursuing Portland police officer use his Taser on the suspect to stop him?

Should an officer in the city's downtown who is trying to clear the entertainment district at club-closing time use a Taser against a man who is intoxicated and not following instructions, and then balls up his fists at officers?

Police Chief Mike Reese is seeking community input on what the criteria should be for officers to use their stun guns.

Portland's current policy -- which allows police to use a Taser when a person engages in, or displays the intent to engage in physical resistance -- is more permissive than other cities' and model guidelines.

Deputy City Attorney Dave Woboril says Portland's current guidelines are not precise enough and need to be improved to better guide officers. The review also comes in light of recent court opinions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal appeals court ruled in late December that police can be held liable for using a stun gun against an unarmed person who poses no immediate threat.

Woboril is meeting with local citizen groups to gauge their opinions, and threw out the two scenarios to get people talking at a recent meeting of the Community and Police Relations Committee of Portland's Human Rights Commission.

"The Taser directive doesn't quite work for the Police Bureau," Woboril said.

Assistant Chief Larry O'Dea said the chief has asked for input to learn: "What are the community expectations?"

Tasers are considered a "less-lethal" weapon, designed to temporarily incapacitate or restrain a person when lethal force is not appropriate. In 2005, the bureau issued Tasers to all of its officers. They're used in two ways.

They can fire barbs attached to wires that transmit electricity to A suspect. Each press of the trigger activates the stun gun for one cycle, which typically lasts five seconds. If a second cycle is needed, the officer can pull the trigger again to send an additional wave of electricity through the probes attached to a suspect.

The Taser also can be used in a stun mode, where the gun is pressed directly against someone's skin to shock them.

In contrast to other municipalities, Portland's policy allows Taser use when the subject shows only the intent to resist police.

According to guidelines issued by the Police Executive Research Forum, a Taser should be used only on people who are actively resisting, being actively aggressive or to prevent the subject from harming themselves or others, according to a City of Portland audit.

Five of eight police agencies that city auditors studied have the stricter threshold, including Cincinnati, Colorado Springs (Colo.), Denver and San Diego police, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon doesn't think the Police Executive Research Forum's guidelines are tight enough, according to Dave Fidanque, executive director. The ACLU says police should only use Tasers if they encounter active physical resistance where there is a likelihood the situation will escalate to a need for deadly force. The Ashland Police Department is the only one in Oregon to adopt this stricter policy.

"This chief especially puts value on how our policies and procedures reflect what the community wants," bureau spokeswoman Lt. Kelli Sheffer said.

Anyone wanting to provide input about the proper use of Tasers by Portland police may contact the commander of the precinct where they live, and participate in their precinct advisory committee.

Portland has three precincts. The addresses and phone numbers are as follows:
North, 449 N.E. Emerson, 503-823-5700.
Central, 1111 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 503-823-0097.
East, 737 S.E. 106th Avenue 503-823-4800.

Police must have reasonable grounds for using Tasers, 9th Circuit rules

December 1, 2010
Carol Williams, Los Angeles Times

A Coronado, Calif., police officer used excessive force when he shot a Taser dart at a young driver who was stopped for a seat belt violation, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Carl Bryan, then 21, fell to the asphalt after being struck by the dart, breaking four teeth and suffering facial cuts. He later sued the Coronado Police Department and Officer Brian MacPherson.

The excessive-force ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could have consequences for police use-of-force policies across the West, legal experts predicted. Two other lawsuits over Taser incidents are still pending before the appeals court, including a case in which a pregnant woman in Seattle was subjected to the device in a routine traffic stop.

Police must have reasonable grounds for using a Taser on a suspect, the appeals panel said, noting that Bryan was wearing only boxer shorts and tennis shoes and was clearly unarmed. Bryan was standing about 20 feet away with his back to MacPherson when he was hit.

"I think police departments will have to tailor their use-of-force policies to the Bryan decision from now on," said Steven E. Boehmer, the El Cajon, Calif., attorney who represented MacPherson.

The appeals panel, while deeming the Taser use excessive and unjustified, said the officer nonetheless deserved immunity from prosecution because the circumstances in which the weapon could be reasonably deployed weren't clearly defined at the time.

Because of the immunity grant, Coronado, in San Diego County, won't appeal the excessive-force ruling, Boehmer said, and would work with police to establish guidelines for use of the weapon.

Bryan, who now lives in Europe, where he assists his tennis-champion cousins Bob and Mike Bryan, still has state court actions in which he hopes to recover damages, said his attorney, Julia Yoo.

Bryan had been stopped at a seat belt enforcement roadblock at the Coronado Bridge after spending hours on the morning of July 24, 2005, driving between Camarillo and Los Angeles to fetch his keys that had been accidentally taken by a cousin's girlfriend. On the drive home from Camarillo to Coronado, Bryan had been cited for speeding and was agitated when he was stopped a second time by MacPherson, according to court records.

Western Australia police shift policy on Taser use

December 1, 2010
Sydney Morning Herald

Western Australia's police commissioner has announced a policy shift on Tasers, saying the stun guns should only be used when officers believe they are at risk of serious injury.

The change follows recent publicity over incidents in which police were deemed to have overstepped the mark in their use of tasers.

Karl O'Callaghan says the WA Police Professional Standards Division will also review police use-of-force incidents captured on CCTV to determine if officers' accounts of incidents match the tapes.

The policy change comes after charges against a Perth family were dropped after CCTV footage undermined the police case against them. The footage shown in the Perth Magistrates Court on Monday showed no evidence Ryan Walker, 24, had punched a plain-clothes officer, as police had alleged. An assault charge against him was dropped as were obstruction charges against his parents, Ken and Raelene Walker, who had questioned officers over their handling of a melee outside a Perth nightclub on January 16. Ms Walker sustained a broken ankle as she was taken from the scene by officers. The family is seeking an apology from police.

WA Police were heavily criticised earlier this year after video footage was released of unarmed man Kevin Spratt being tasered 13 times in East Perth Watch House in 2008 with nine officers present.

Mr O'Callaghan on Wednesday told reporters the new trial policy on Taser use meant officers had to believe they were at risk of serious injury before deploying the weapons.

That could include officers being attacked with a broken glass or some other type of weapon, he said.

"We are moving forward but what we are doing is making sure all of our processes are correct, because questions have been asked and I don't want those questions to continue; I want to answer them."

WA Premier Colin Barnett has apologised to the Walker family but says he retains confidence in the state's police force.

"These police men and women doing the day-to-day frontline work do need strong support and maybe do feel a little bit isolated at the moment, as there have been some situations that have gone wrong," he told reporters on Wednesday.

"Some mistakes have been made ... and maybe it's time to look at whether they do need to have some extra training in dealing with difficult situations they encounter on a daily basis."

Former WA deputy police commissioner Murray Lampard said the tasering of Mr Spratt was indefensible and the obstruction charges laid against the Walker family showed young officers lacked training.

Professor Lampard, who retired from the force in 2008, stressed the need for negotiation and communication skills training for young officers.

He said they needed to be trained in the importance of "verbal judo", conflict resolution and negotiation.

"When you're dealing with people, the community has an expectation that the police will act responsibly and will act appropriately and basically keep their oath of office to preserve life," Prof Lampard told ABC Radio.

"I think police need to, in certain circumstances, explore a number of options, to negotiate with people before deploying a weapon like a Taser."

Sheriff's Office, feds agree to new Taser rules

When the U.S. Justice Department announced its inquiry into the Orange County Sheriff's Office use of stun guns in 2007, it was a first of its kind review.

October 13, 2010
By Walter Pacheco, Orlando Sentinel

After a three-year Department of Justice probe into the Orange County Sheriff's Office use of Tasers, an agreement has been reached that calls for Sheriff Jerry Demings to implement more than a dozen new policies for Taser stun gun use by his deputies.

The DOJ agreement with the Sheriff's Office, which was formalized in September, lists 19 policy, training and accountability provisions that include new procedures and amendments to their current rules on Taser use.

They include:

*The Sheriff's Office must develop a policy requiring that deputies give a verbal warning before deploying a Taser.

*It must alert medical personnel before deploying Tasers at subjects suspected of being under an extreme state of mental and physiological excitement.

*It must develop a policy that prohibits the use of Tasers on passive subjects, those in handcuffs or otherwise restrained.

*Tasers cannot be used in a "punitive or reckless manner," such as using it to awaken a person or as a "prod."

*Only one deputy can deploy a Taser at a time.

The report also shows tweaks to some of the Sheriff's Office existing training and accountability procedures.

When the U.S. Justice Department announced its inquiry into the Orange County Sheriff's Office use of stun guns in 2007, it was a first of its kind review.

The changes to the Sheriff's Office policies on Taser use stemmed from that federal investigation, into "an alleged pattern or practice of excessive force" by sheriff's personnel, according to a 2008 report from the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

That report included 35 recommendations which have been folded into the recently-crafted agreement.

In the 2008 report the DOJ had warned the Sheriff's Office against using Tasers on someone under the influence of drugs or showing signs of extreme agitation, bizarre or violent behavior and imperviousness to pain, among other symptoms — known as "excited delirium."

It also advised the Sheriff's Office not to stun suspects who are restrained or in handcuffs, or to stun them more than once, which increases the chances of harm.

Those two recommendations are included in the final agreement.

Critics of Tasers contend they are dangerous, particularly when used on suspects who use drugs or suffer from heart problems.

The stun guns have been controversial since Taser International started selling its product to thousands of law-enforcement agencies across the United States in 1999.

The devices, which deliver electrical jolts of 1,200 to 5,000 volts, have been connected to more than 70 deaths across the country, including five who died after being stunned by Orange County deputies.

Several incidents involving the deployment of stun guns placed the Sheriff's Office under scrutiny:

*José Aníbal Amaro, 45, died in Oct. 1, 2008 after deputies shocked him three times with a Taser. Reports show he was foaming at the mouth and running in and out of traffic.

*A deputy sheriff on Oct. 13, 2008 stunned a man who was threatening to jump off a 25-foot embankment onto State Road 408. The deputy, who was standing in a fire-rescue bucket truck, caught the man after shocking him.

*John Mattiuzzi, an out-of-state filmmaker, was stunned twice and struck with a baton on Sept. 21, 2008 after taking pictures of a crime scene with his phone. Police warned him twice to move back, then chased and subdued him after he ran from officers.

*A deputy sheriff working as a resource officer at Moss Park Middle School stunned an unruly 11-year-old girl injuring her nose, after she swung at the deputy in March 2008.

Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida also had launched their own inquiry of Taser use by the Sheriff's Office, but the results of that probe are not known.

Australia: Police work on national Taser guidelines after Sydney death

October 7, 2010 (where it's tomorrow already down-under)
The Australian

NATIONAL rules for the safer use of Taser stun-guns are being drawn up by state and territory police commissioners.

The federal government is pushing for a standard approach to policing with the electro-shock weapon, which was linked to the death of a Sydney man this week.

Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor said yesterday the Australian New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency was drawing up national guidelines for Taser use, to present to the nation's police ministers early next year.

"The Gillard government is keen to ensure that the highest standards are achieved and that all jurisdictions agree to work together to achieve nationally consistent standards on the use of electronic shock devices," he said.

Police unions, too, are drawing up their own version of national guidelines to present to their police commissioners.

Police Federation of Australia chief executive Mark Burgess said national rules would protect the public as well as police. "You won't have conflicting issues from state to state," he said yesterday.

Australia's police forces have purchased nearly 7000 Tasers -- which can deliver a 50,000-volt shock -- in the past three years.

But rules over their use vary dramatically from state to state, with only Western Australia, Queensland, NSW and the Northern Territory issuing them to frontline police.

The use of Tasers is restricted to specialist police units in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT.

In South Australia, the weapon is being rolled out with one for each police car.

Mr Burgess said all frontline police should have access to Tasers, to use under threat of "serious violence". He said they should not be restricted to life-or-death situations.

"It's about when someone is threatened, be it a police officer or a bystander or a person about to inflict self-harm," he said. "Do people expect police to get punched up first before they use these things? They shouldn't have to."

Australian Council of Civil Liberties president Terry O'Gorman called for national rules to prevent police abusing the use of Tasers.

"State and territory police use and misuse it, and there's no federal oversight," he said. "Police ministers will go national when they want to increase their powers, and now it's time for national controls to be introduced to prevent the growing misuse of Tasers."

Tasers no longer 'nonlethal'

October 2, 2010
MATT McKINNEY, Star Tribune

David Smith was buried last week, the seventh person in the past seven years to have died in the metro area after being shot with a Taser.

While the investigation into the mid-September confrontation with police that led to Smith's death continues, a leading police research group and a major manufacturer of the devices are rolling out new safety measures nationally in response to the relatively small but troubling number of deaths linked to them.

And on Friday, Minneapolis police unveiled a new Taser policy that for the first time designates the device a potentially lethal weapon.

The manufacturer, Taser International, sent users a bulletin last year suggesting that they avoid shooting people near the heart.

And after lobbying by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Taser International has agreed to offer by early next year a weapon that shocks for a maximum of five seconds with one trigger pull. Current models deliver voltage as long as the trigger is depressed.

"We think there's a time and a place for them," said Chuck Wexler, PERF's executive director. "They shouldn't be a substitute for talking through an issue with someone. And there's a limitation. There's a point at which we are convinced we have to go through another option."

Perhaps like no other device available to police, Tasers spark an extreme range of opinion.

When things go right, they put a quick end to standoffs that could have led to serious injuries to a suspect or officer. They save lives by preventing bad situations from spiraling out of control, and they save public money by preventing officer injuries, Minneapolis police spokesman Sgt. Bill Palmer said. "They're an effective tool," he said.

Yet in the rare cases when someone dies, the victim's family often wonders what role the device played.

Waiting for autopsy

Results of Smith's autopsy have not been made public by the Hennepin County medical examiner's office. The doctor overseeing the case was unavailable to comment.

A police search warrant seeking Smith's medical records includes a more thorough account of what happened when Smith was shot with a Taser at the downtown YMCA on Sept. 9. The police account says two officers were called to the Y at 30 S. 9th St. about 4 p.m. They had responded to a complaint that Smith had harassed a 13-year-old boy, the warrant says.

The officers noticed that he appeared unwell. They suspected he was either under the influence of something or having a mental health issue. Smith did not speak to the officers or even acknowledge their presence, the officers reported. When they tried to take him into custody, he fought, the warrant said.

He punched one officer in the face; the other officer's back was injured in the scuffle. The officers shot Smith with a Taser and handcuffed him, according to the warrant. Smith then lost consciousness. The officers called for an ambulance and began CPR. Smith, 28, died Sept. 17.

Smith's family said it wasn't like him to harass a 13-year-old. "That's not David's personality," said Larry Smith, an uncle. David had struggled with mental illness, according to his uncle, and after learning from the search warrant that police initially suspected David might be having a mental issue, Larry wondered if a different approach could have been taken.

"Let's call out a crisis team or counselors who could deal with it," he said.

New rules

On Friday, the Minneapolis Police Department unveiled a new Taser policy that characterizes the device as "less lethal," a change from "nonlethal." The change had been in the works for some time as the department sought to bring its policy in closer alignment with PERF guidelines.

The new policy also advises officers to use the stun gun for one five-second cycle and then reassess whether more stuns are needed, saying "... exposure to multiple applications of the [Taser] for longer than 15 seconds may increase the risk of serious injury or death."

Someone actively resisting arrest or exhibiting active aggression becomes a fair target for an officer's Taser, Palmer said. It can also be used to save lives -- to prevent people from killing themselves, for example. The new policy also tells officers to call out that they're about to use a Taser before firing one, the threat sometimes being enough to make people compliant.

"We want the least amount of force that can be used to be used," Palmer said.

Some 250 of the department's 850 officers carry stun guns, said Palmer. They were first introduced there in 2001.

Palmer was a patrol officer in 2000 when he and his partner shot and killed a mentally ill woman in her Uptown apartment after she stepped toward them with a knife. The incident led the department to equip officers with Tasers and to give officers additional training in handling mentally ill people, Palmer said.

Minneapolis police used stun guns 399 times in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics were available. In 59 of those cases the officer performed a "drive stun," meaning they held the device against someone's body; in the rest of the cases, the officer either shot the device's wired darts at the person or used darts and a drive stun together.

Federal study

A 2008 study by the federal government's National Institute of Justice found that stun guns can inflict serious and "potentially lethal" injury, though the study said such cases were rare.

The study examined two years' worth of records from six police departments, covering 962 uses of a Taser. In 99.7 percent of the cases, people were either not hurt or had only minor injuries, mostly skin punctures from the Taser's darts. Three people were seriously hurt: one had bruising on the brain, another had an epidural hematoma (blood between the skull and brain), and a third developed a condition in which muscle tissue was destroyed; the condition, rhabdomyolysis, has been linked to electrical injury, among other causes.

None of the three died, but the injuries in two cases were indirectly tied to being shot with a stun gun. The data in the third case were uncertain, according to the researchers.

Mark Anderson, head of the Barbara Schneider Foundation, a nonprofit group that works with police and others on mental health issues, said stun guns, used properly, can be a good way for police to end conflicts with the mentally ill.

"As an alternative to deadly force, it's wonderful," he said. "My concern is that if the Taser is used too early when in particular verbal deescalation can be used, that's really a problem."

Riverside County (California) sheriff rejects Taser criticism and declines to act on jury recommendations

September 22, 2010
By SARAH BURGE, The Press-Enterprise

Riverside County sheriff's officials, in their formal response to two grand jury reports from late June, have dismissed most of jurors' criticisms and declined to act on most of its recommendations.

The grand jury reports focused on the department's use of stun guns and its handling of harassment complaints by employees at the Lake Elsinore station.

Neither the grand jury reports, nor the Sheriff's Department responses delved into details about the incidents that prompted the grand jury investigations.

One report suggested that deputies might be overusing Tasers and recommended a review of training procedures and written policies to ensure the devices are used properly.

In one incident, a deputy shocked the same person eight times in less than a minute, the report said. A log showing the number, duration and time of day of the Taser shocks was attached to the grand jury report.

Undersheriff Colleen Walker said Tuesday that she did not know which Taser incident the report referred to. She said the department deploys Tasers about 11 times each month and that the grand jury report did not provide enough information to determine which incident the attached Taser deployment log was from.

"We don't know what they were looking at when they crafted their opinions," Walker said.

Sheriff's officials said in July that the Taser deployment records cited in the grand jury report do not give a complete picture of the incident, such as the effectiveness of the shocks and the level of resistance the deputy encountered.

Sheriff's officials said in their written response that they will not change department policy to restrict the number and duration of Taser shocks allowed.

Such a restriction would "result in an unacceptable compromise to public safety," sheriff's officials wrote. Deputies often become involved in violent, unpredictable confrontations and strict limits could prevent them from responding appropriately when there are extenuating circumstances, they wrote.

The response also said the department already conducts the kind of Taser training and detailed reviews of Taser incidents recommended by the grand jury.

Palo Alto police change Taser policy

September 9, 2010
Gennady Sheyner, Palo Alto Online

Recent incidents in which Palo Alto police officers fired their Tasers at suspects would have violated the city's new policy for deployment of the controversial stun guns, Independent Police Auditor Michael Gennaco concluded in his new report.

The report details five recent incidents of Taser use, including one in which an officer fired a Taser at a "young" burglary suspect who tried to run away from the officer. Some of these Taser deployments would have been appropriate under the previous department policy, which permits Taser use when suspects are "actively resisting," which includes such actions as "tensing" or "bracing" to resist arrest. The new policy creates a stricter standard and requires that the suspect "pose an immediate threat of physical injury before firing a Taser is appropriate."

In the case of the unnamed "young man," the officer who fired the Taser appears to have violated even the original, less strict, policy. The officer fired the weapon after the young man ignored an officer's order that he stop and began to run away. The officer missed, but the unnamed suspect, hearing the sound of the Taser, stopped running, lied down on the ground and allowed police to handcuff him. He had a small knife and a screwdriver in his pocket and was arrested for possession of burglary tools, according to the auditor's report.

Though a police supervisor initially determined that the officer's use of the Taser fell within the Department's policy, Police Chief Dennis Burns had "misgivings" about the incident and ordered a new review, which concluded that the officer failed to comply with the existing policy because the officer had minimal evidence at the time about the suspect's intent to burglarize and because the suspect's flight did not constitute "exigent circumstances" or "active resistance or active aggression." The auditor agreed with the review's findings and the officer was forced to undergo new training and receive counseling.

In other cases, officers appeared to have followed the department's previous Taser policy (which was in effect at the time of the incidents) but would not have been in compliance with the revised policy. In one case, officers tried to handcuff a male suspect who appeared "angry, intoxicated and agitated" and who became "verbally confrontational" with the officer. Two officers grabbed the man's hands and bent him forward; a third officer, under direction from his supervisor, fired a Taser at the man's back.

Though the supervisor said the suspect in this case was "actively resisting" by "tensing" during the arrest, both Gennaco and managers in the department had "significant concerns" about this Taser incident. They concluded that the Taser deployment was "minimally within the original policy" but would have been in violation of the new policy.

Gennaco reached a similar conclusion in another case, in which a suspect hit a police patrol vehicle with his car, ran a red light and hit three parked cars and a light post before stopping his car. He then tried to run away, but other officers soon apprehended him. The officer whose car was hit caught up to the suspect while the other officers were handcuffing him. Though one hand was already in a handcuff, the suspect's "muscles tightened" while officers were trying to secure his left arm. The officer whose car was hit then fired a Taser at the suspect, who was then arrested without further incident.

After reviewing the incident, the department and Gennaco concluded that "had this Taser deployment been undertaken under the new revised policy, the application would have been out of policy."

Gennaco wrote that the police department's revised policy also provides guidance on "multiple cycling" of the Taser. Under the new policy, an officer must reevaluate the circumstances and consider whether the suspect still poses an "immediate threat" before a Taser is fired for a second time.

"The new policy restricts use of Taser to more appropriate situations that are consistent with recent legal opinions," Gennaco wrote. "Now that the revised policy has been issued, the Department has begun to provide the necessary training to familiarize officers with the new requirements."

The report also mentions an incident in which an officer's firing of the Taser appeared to be "timely, appropriate and in compliance with the Department's policy, then and now." This case involved two brothers, one of whom the police knew had a history of mental illness (his mother told the police he was "possibly violent, suicidal and delusional"). After leaving his vehicle, the older brother approached a female officer and "raised his arms over his head." The female officer pulled his hands down and other officers moved in to try to restrain the older brother, who began to wrestle with them.

At this point, the female officer fired a Taser at the older brother's back, but the darts "made insufficient contact and were ineffectual." The younger brother joined the fray but was quickly pulled away by an officer. Other officers arrived and tried to place the older brother into the police vehicle but could not do so. Ultimately, paramedics and firefighters arrived, secured the older brother to a gurney and took him to a hospital in an ambulance.

Gennaco said he reviewed tapes of the entire incident from beginning to end and was "impressed by the officer's calm professionalism during the incident and their patience in dealing with a mentally disturbed individual."

Civil liberties group sues Albany over Taser policy

September 1, 2010
By JORDAN CARLEO-EVANGELIST, Times Union

ALBANY - The New York Civil Liberties Union is suing the city police department over its refusal to release a complete copy of its policy for the use of electric stun weapons known as Tasers.

In refusing to release a copy without some information blacked out of the policy, Albany joined Saratoga Springs as the only two of 10 departments polled statewide to do so, the civil liberties group asserts in its suit, filed Wednesday in state Supreme Court in Albany.

NYCLU already sued Saratoga Springs over its refusal and eventually and received an unredacted copy of that city's policy, said Melanie Trimble, director of the NYCLU's Capital Region Chapter.

According to the suit, state Supreme Court Justice Thomas D. Nolan Jr. ruled there was "no basis" for Saratoga Springs' refusal to release its entire policy.

"The public has every right to complete information on the Police Department's use of Tasers," Trimble said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

The group said it made its Freedom of Information Law request in January, which was seven months before Police Chief Steven Krokoff was sworn into his current job. At the time, Krokoff was serving as deputy chief and the department's interim leader.

In partially denying the group's request, the city cited an exemption that allows it to withhold information that might threaten the safety of officers or the public, the lawsuit says.

One of the few exemptions to state FOI law allows records to be withheld if their release "could endanger the life or safety of any person."

Releasing the full policy, the city contended in its denial, "would lead to the perpetrators attempting to evade or thwart a police officers (sic) ability to perform his/her duties."

NYCLU, however, contends the city "did not provide any factual or evidentiary basis for its conclusion."

Assistant Corporation Counsel Jeffery Jamison acknowledged that the city had partially denied the group's request but said he had not yet been served with a copy of the lawsuit.

"We have tried to be as open as we can with every FOIL request, and we have tried to release everything single document that is possible," Jamison said, "but at certain times there are exceptions that apply."

EDITORIAL: Police and Tasers

May 10, 2010
Washington Post

TASERS, IN USE by police departments for more than a decade, are meant to be a weapon of last resort against dangerous suspects who pose a serious threat to police officers or a risk of flight. They are also supposed to subdue suspects, not kill them. But in too many cases, including at least one recent incident in Arlington County, suspects have died after being Tasered. And there is disturbing evidence nationwide that police officers are using them when less drastic, and less potentially deadly, measures would suffice.

Police routinely insist they fire stun guns only in dire situations, and most of the time no eyewitnesses materialize to contradict them. But for an object lesson in Taser misuse -- and a clue as to how itchy-fingered police officers can be -- look no farther than the outfield of Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, where the Phillies hosted the Cardinals last Monday before 45,000 witnesses. What they saw was a scrawny, unarmed teenager who jumped on the field and ran figure eights around huffing and puffing security and police officers. After a few seconds of this, a Philadelphia police officer took aim with his Taser and dropped the youth in pop-fly territory. As he lay face down on the grass, the crowd booed the police lustily -- and with good reason.

Fans who disrupt games should be prosecuted and fined and possibly face jail time; they should not be Tasered unless they appear violent or pose a threat more serious than disrupting a game. Still, the Philadelphia police commissioner, Charles Ramsey, who reviewed video of the incident, said his officer had acted within department guidelines. That's the problem. While Tasers have been useful in protecting officers from dangerous and out-of-control suspects, in too many police agencies the policy on using them is so loosely defined that officers can fire the weapons more or less when they feel like it.

Amnesty International, which has conducted detailed studies of the use of Taser guns, concluded that in about 90 percent of cases involving Tasers, the weapons were used on unarmed suspects. In many of those cases, the suspects may have been disrespectful, strange or defiant but seemed to pose little danger to themselves, others or police.

Most disturbingly, Amnesty found that 334 people had died after being Tasered between 2001 and 2008. And while most of the deaths were attributed to drug and alcohol intoxication, medical examiners and coroners found that Taser shocks caused or may have contributed to at least 50 deaths in that period. Based on that, and numerous studies suggesting that Tasers can have lethal effects on some people, Amnesty has called for a halt to the use of stun guns.

Unsurprisingly, Taser International, a 17-year-old firm based in Arizona, has disputed the studies and Amnesty's conclusions. But if police and the weapons' manufacturers want to avoid a public backlash, they'd be wise to tighten rules to preclude using the weapons on suspects who may be annoying or disruptive but ultimately pose no threat of harm.