Title: TASER Electronic Control Devices (ECDs) -- Legal Update
1TASER Electronic Control Devices (ECDs)
-- Legal Update
- Michael Brave, Esq., M.S., C.L.S.3, C.L.E.T.,
C.P.S., C.S.T. - National Litigation Counsel, TASER International,
Inc. - President, LAAW International, Inc.
2Basics
- TASER International does not create, recommend,
or endorse policy. - Keep up to date
- Information overload
- www.ecdlaw.info (owned by LAAW International,
Inc.) - www.ipicd.com or www.incustodydeath.com
- Learn the science not the myths
- Constitutional standards of force history
- Understand actual legal standards
3ECD Political or Actual Risks?
- Media/Special Interest Group Risks?
- Outcome vs. Process
- Political correctness risks?
- Politically motivated risks?
- Ignorance risks?
- Perceptual risks?
- Actual risks (informed science/logic based)
4What the Courts are Saying?
- Torture?
- How restrained is the person?
- How passive is the person?
- Member of special group?
- Level of perceived risk from the person?
- Lawful objective perceived threat (physical)
- Warning lower threat necessary warning
5Elevated ECD Application Risk Factors
- Presence of flammable liquids/fumes or explosive
environments - Elevated positions
- Person operating moving vehicle or machinery
- Person running (fleeing)
- Pregnant female (fall)
- Swimming pool or other body of water
- Intentional ECD application to sensitive areas
- Frail or infirm individual
- Perceived risk of repeated ECD applications
6Societal perceptions/concerns creating elevated
justification factors
- Children
- Seniors
- Restrained subjects
- Passive subjects who are being seized
7Important URL Addresses
- www.ecdlaw.info
- Electronic Control Devices Legal Resources
- www.ipicd.com or www.incustodydeath.com
- Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths
- Especially the
- Articles page
- Books page
- Calendar page
- IPICD Sudden Death Symposium Nov. 28-30 Las Vegas
8Consider the Consequences?
- If You made statements, made decisions, or took
actions against a person based upon the same
level of ignorance (lack of knowledge),
speculation, unsupported statements, lack of
proof, lack of medical or scientific support,
subject to misinterpretation, rumor, bias,
innuendo, argument, etc. that some media, special
interest groups, and a few medical examiners have
recently used in ICD cases? - What would happen to
You?
9Questions
- Should agency ECD standards be based on
- Scientifically invalid/unreliable speculation?
- Media hysteria and mis-reporting?
- Unsupported special interest group accusations?
- Studies based on inflated standards?
- ME findings lacking ECD causation evidence?
- Illogical statements?
- Statements exhibiting logical fallacies?
- Causal oversimplification fallacy?
10Good Science on Top of Junk Science?
- 2005 Causation speculations unsupported by
scientific validity resulting in
ultra-conservative guidelines. - Resulted in numerous conservative guidelines
- June 14, 2005 Office of Police Complaint
Commissioner - June 28, 2005 - TASER Intl Training
Bulletin/Warnings - August 22, 2005 - Canadian Police Research Center
- August 2005 - IACP Model ECW Policy
- October 2005 - IACP Conference (Miami, FL)
- October 18-19, 2005 -PERF CED Guidelines
- October 2006 - IACP Conference (Boston, MA)
- Fall 2006 - FLETC Journal, Volume 4, Issue 2
- 2007 - Police Quarterly 2007, 2007, 10 (2), p.
170 - May 2007 AELE Monthly Law Journal (FLETC)
11June 14, 2005 OPCC (BC) Published TASER
Technology Report
- Respiratory Impairment/pH Changes in Multiple
Applications Depending on probe location in the
upper torso, it appears likely that the muscular
tetany produced by a TASER deployment could
impair a subject's respiration. ... emphasis
added
12June 14, 2005 OPCC (BC) Published TASER
Technology Report
- Training protocols, however, should reflect that
multiple applications, particularly continuous
cycling of the TASER for periods exceeding 15-20
seconds, may increase the risk to the subject and
should be avoided where practical. - OPCC Report,
page 31. Emphasis added.
13June 14, 2005 OPCC (BC) Published TASER
Technology Report
- Thus, the OPCC Report used key adjectives
including it appears likely, could, and
may. These statements were speculative and not
based on published objective peer reviewed human
medical, scientific, or engineering research.
14June 14, 2005 OPCC (BC) Published TASER
Technology Report
- Also, note that with regard to a persons
experiencing excited delirium on page 31 of the
OPCC Report, it states - A single TASER application made before the
subject has been exhausted, followed by a
restraint technique that does not impair
respiration may provide the optimum outcome. OPCC
Report, page 32.
15TASER Intl June 28, 2005
- Repeated, prolonged, and/or continuous
exposure(s) to the TASER electrical discharge may
cause strong muscle contractions that may impair
breathing and respiration, particularly when the
probes are placed across the chest or diaphragm.
Users should avoid prolonged, extended,
uninterrupted discharges or extensive multiple
discharges whenever practicable in order to
minimize the potential for over-exertion of the
subject or potential impairment of full ability
to breathe over a protracted time period.
16August 22, 2005 CEDs, Technical Report,
TR-01-02006, Canadian Police Research Centre
(CPRC Report)
- The issue related to multiple CED applications
and its impact on respiration, pH levels, and
other associated physical effects, offers a
plausible theory on the possible connection
between deaths, CED use, and people exhibiting
the symptoms of excited delirium. -
CPRC Report, page 4. Emphasis added.
17August 22, 2005 CEDs, Technical Report,
TR-01-02006, Canadian Police Research Centre
(CPRC Report)
- Definitive research or evidence does not exist
that implicates a causal relationship between the
use of CEDs and death. - Existing studies indicate that the risk of
cardiac harm to subjects from a CED is very low. - ED, although not a universally recognized medical
condition, is gaining increasing acceptance as a
main contributor to deaths proximal to CED use.
182007-2008 Research?
- NIJ Study of In-Custody Deaths
- PERF Study of Agency Policies
- The question is If a study is now (2007) being
conducted to determine when an agency will allow
an ECD to be used (what standard), however, the
agencies being studied conservatively inflated
the level at which an ECD could be used because
of scientifically invalid speculations, then will
the current study results be inappropriately
based upon the unscientifically inflated
standards (2005)?
19Some Basic Realities
- 2005 to present The hysterical attacks!!!!!
- Ignorance phobia bias negativity agenda
- No scientifically reliable bases for ECD
causation - (a few) ME and (some) Media Errors
- Ignorance (lack of knowledge)
- Lack of (even basic) understandings of
- ECDs, electricity, force
- Scientific method and scientific reliability
- Standards of certainty
- Logical analyses and logical fallacies
- The costs Homicide or Undetermined?
20To be an Expert?
- What do you know?
- Breadth and depth of knowledge?
- Areas of knowledge and understanding?
- A little knowledge can be VERY dangerous!
- Ability to explain, put forth concepts?
- Misperceptions can cost lives, careers
- E.g. Just below deadly force.
- 50,000 volts!
- Intellectual integrity?
21Primer/Review In-Custody DeathPrelude to Death
the Actual Causes
- Hiding drugs by swallowing/ingesting
- Acute drug abuse
- Chronic drug abuse
- Usually leading to neuro-chemistry changes
- Polydrug toxicity
- Long-term mental health problems
- Neuroleptic drug imbalance
- Over ingestion of drugs
- Failure to take prescribed drugs (or abrupt
cessation) - Self-inflicted injuries or death (e.g. suicide)
22Primer/Review In-Custody Death A Victim
Emerges
- Deceased will likely be considered a Victim
- Someone else is always at fault
- Screams for a Victim
- Family (inner circle)
- Special Interest Groups (incl those with
agendas) - Media
- Rush to judgment regardless of the truth or
accuracy - Sensationalism and hysteria
- Need for controversial headline
- Inaccuracies are the norm not the exception
- Complex science and concepts only time for
sound bites
23Primer/Review In-Custody DeathPost Incident
Onslaught
- Emotion rules over logic
- Panic self protection
- Criticism avoidance
- Anger and rage
- Knee-jerk (over) reactions (appeasements?)
- The importance of deflecting blame
24Primer/Review In-Custody DeathCausation
- Often futile search for single mechanism
- Disbelief, surprise, unexpected, or diversion
- Ignorance (of numerous knowledge areas)
- Conspiracies
- PDPCT (Plaintiffs Deep Pocket Causation
Theories) - He who has the deep pockets caused the death
- He without deep pocket did not cause the harm
- The victim is blameless
25Primer/Review In-Custody DeathInvestigative
Needs
- Need to understand science/standards
- Need to understand issues/concepts
- Need to collect and preserve scene
- Need to accurately record incident
- Need to collect all incident information
- Need to collect medical histories
- Need to collect drug and rehab histories
- Need to timely collect deceased samples
- Need to perform tests and analyses
- Need to collect criminal histories
26Primer/Review In-Custody DeathME/Coroner
Opinion Taken as Fact
- Speculation Taken as Scientific Fact
- Police/Device directly caused the death
- P/D was a direct cause of the death
- P/D was the contributory cause of the death
- P/D was a contributory cause of the death
- P/D was associated with the death
- P/D was temporally tied to the death
- P/D was listed as a descriptor to the death
- P/D could not be ruled out
27(A few) U.S. Medical Examiners
Why we are here?
- Examples
- - (IN) Borden
- - (OH) Holcomb (Summit County ME)
- - (OH) Hyde (Summit County ME)
28Example (IN) James BordenInvestigative
Shortcomings
- Cause of Death
- Consistent with cardiac dysrhythmia
- Secondary to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy,
- pharmacologic intoxication,
- and electrical shock
29Example (IN) James Borden
- Excerpt from CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
Eye on America Investigation Stun Gun Safety
which aired on July 26, 2004 - Dr Roland M. Kohr This is the straw that broke
the camels back The application of the TASER, I
believe, was the trigger factor or the stressful
event which stressed an already damaged heart to
the point where it went into cardiac arrest. - Wyatt Andrews The TASER is what triggered his
heart attack - Dr. Kohr Definitely.
30Example (IN) James Borden
- Excerpt from CBS Early Show Report that aired on
October 12, 2004 - Dr. Roland M. Kohr "This is the straw that broke
the camel's back... The application of the
TASER, I believe, was the trigger factor or the
stressful event that caused an elevation of blood
pressure and an elevation in heart rate which
stressed an already damaged heart to the point
where it went into cardiac arrest."
31Example (IN) James Borden
- Kohrs deposition March 3, 2005
- Page 192 Line 8 to Page 192 Line 15
- Q So if someone were to say that the Taser
definitely caused, was a contributory cause of
Mr. Borden's death, there would be no scientific,
medical, or forensic basis to make that strong of
an assertion, correct? - A Correct.
- Q That would be a reckless statement?
- A In my opinion, yes.
- Page 389 Line 2 to Page 389 Line 5
- Q You were asked by CBS News whether Taser was
the triggering event that caused Mr. Borden's
death, and you answered "Definitely," correct? - A Correct.
32Example (IN) James BordenLegal Consequences
Costs
- Deputy David Shaw 2 Felony Counts
- Law Enforcement Intense scrutiny/criticism
- Society avalanche of anti-ECD criticism
- How many officers were injured?
- How many suspects needlessly injured?
- How many lives/careers irreparably harmed?
- TASER Intl Borden snowballed into a multi-year
litigation avalanche
33Example (OH) Holcomb
- Cause of Death Cardiac arrhythmia.
- Due to Drug induced psychosis.
- Due to (methamphetamine and MDMA/MDA0
intoxication, acute. - Contributory conditions Electrical pulse
incapacitation. - Manner of Death HOMICIDE Used drugs Sudden
death incurred during restraint.
34Example (OH) Holcomb
- July 25, 2005 ME's Media Release
- ... In summary Mr. Holcomb died from the effects
of methamphetamine and ecstasy which sensitized
his heart to the effects of the TASER equipment
that was required to subdue him. But for the drug
intoxication, the use of the TASER would not have
resulted in death. - (emphasis added)
35Example (OH) Holcomb
- July 18, 2006 deposition of Dr. Dorothy Dean
- Page 106
- Q Let me make sure I get the question straight
then. You're unable to tell us, to a reasonable
degree of medical certainty, the mechanism by
which you believe, to some extent, electrical
impulse is delivered by the Taser contributed
to his death, correct? - A That's correct, I cannot tell you.
36Example (OH) Holcomb
- Page 170
- Q And so the temporal proximity is the fact upon
which you rely to link the Taser to Mr. Holcomb's
death, correct? - A Yes.
37Example (OH) Holcomb
- Page 188
- Q You indicated, in response to counsel's
question, that you believe the Taser device
contributed in some way. I think you've
acknowledged that that "in some way" could be as
low as .00000000001 percent? - A Yes.
38Example (OH) Holcomb
- Page 5
- Q If an event happens first and then a second
event occurs some time after the first event, do
you agree that that does not necessarily mean
that the second event was caused by the first
event? - A Yes.
39(OH) Hyde
- January 5, 2005
- Death of Dennis S. Hyde
- Summit County (OH) Medical Examiner
- Cause of Death Probable cardiac arrhythmia
- Due to Acute methamphetamine intoxication and
electrical pulse incapacitation. - Contributing conditions Psychiatric disorder
with agitated behavior Blood loss by rterial
injury. - Manner of Death HOMICIDE Sudden death occurred
during restraint.
40(OH) Hyde
- June 1, 2007
- Deposition of George C. Sterbenz, M.D.
- Dennis Hyde death case
- P 168
- Q ...And you do not contend that the TASER
application was greater than even one billionth
of a percent of the cause of Dennis Hyde's death
because it's an indeterminate contribution,
correct? - A That's correct
41(OH) Hyde
- Pg 170
- Q You've said that the percentage of TASER
ECD contribution to death could be as little as
a billionth of a percent. It could be even
smaller than that, true? - A True.
- Q ... And as you sit here today, do you have an
opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty, as to how the TASER device actually
contributed in any way to Mr. Hyde's death? - A No. I don't.
42(OH) Hyde
- Inflicted Force vs. Therapeutic Force?
- Cause of death (to RDMP)?
- Inflicted Force Contribution to death?
- Manner of Death
- Homicide,
- Accident, or
- Undetermined?
- What it means to involved officers?
43Putting It Into Perspective
- The Litigation Landscape
- Plaintiffs attempts to support speculations
without scientific basis or support
44Plaintiffs House of Cards
- Electricaphobia! -- irrational fear of
electricity - All Electricity is the Same! And, its
DANGEROUS!!!!! (ball example) - Negative Inferences and Innuendo
- Abbreviated Facts Negative Spin
Sensationalism - Sky is falling - Single Incident Equates to Broad
Generality - Inappropriate Attempts at Correlations
- Stretching Causation to the Breaking Point
- Negative Emotion is more important than
scientific proof - Attempting to force defense to disprove the
negative - Blame Shifting - Always someone elses fault
(Plaintiff Victim) - Causation by Deep Pocket Analysis
- Just because I sued you you should give me
money!!!!!
45Scientific Method v. Common Sense
- Scientific Method
- Assessment of relevant existing knowledge of a
phenomenon - Formulation of concepts and propositions
- Statement of hypotheses or answer research
questions - Design research
- Acquire meaningful empirical data or observation
data - Analysis evaluation of data
- Proposal of explanation of the phenomenon
statement(s) of new problems
- Common Sense
- Observation non-scientific
- Bias ( and -)
- Self interests
- View Filtered glasses
- Circle of Protection
- In Circle can do no wrong
- Fault anyone outside circle
- No sampling
- Cause Effect based upon the observation
- Erroneous Conclusions
- The World is Flat
46Acquiring Knowledge
- Science A process that combines the principles
of rationalism with the process of empiricism,
using rationalism to develop theories and
empiricism to test the theories - Empiricism gaining knowledge through
observation - Rationalism developing valid ideas using
existing ideas and principles of logic (cows are
black, this is a cow, this cow is black) - Mystical knowledge from the gods, prophets, and
supernatural authorities - Authority accept the idea because it comes from
a respected source - Intuition e.g. hunches, gut feelings, accept
ideas because they feel true - Tenacity accepting ideas as knowledge because
they have been around for a long time
47Scientific Method Sequential Steps
- Publication
- Communication phase write a report
- Interpretation phase interpret the data
- Data analysis phase analyze the data
- Methodology - Procedures designed to test the
hypothesis or answer research questions - Problem definition phase
- Idea generation phase (observe then ask
questions)
48Consider -- Where on the scale(s)?
- Scientific Standards
- (Scientific Certainty)
- Law
- Theory
- Model, Paradigm
- Constructs (Concept)
- Inference
- Observation
- Idea (Thought)
- Speculation
- Legal Standards - Proof
- Beyond Any Doubt
- --------------------------------------------------
-- - 95 Beyond Reasonable Doubt
- 75 Clear Convincing
- 51 By a Preponderance
- More likely than not
- 49 Probable Cause
- 35 Reasonable Suspicion
- --------------------------------------------------
-- - Mere Suspicion
- Hunch
- Random
- Wishful Thinking
- Begging
49Legal Standards of Care
- Wilful Wanton
- Purposeful
- Intentional
- Knowingly
- Reckless Disregard
- Deliberately
- Deliberate Indifference
- Gross Negligence
- Negligence
- Carelessly
- Due Regard
- Strict Liability
50Common Words Frequency or Foreseeability
- "Absolute" - without exception, law
- "Always" - at all times
- Certain a fact that is true or an event that
is definitely going to take place - "Frequent" - ordinary, common
- Probable almost certainty, as far as one
knows or can tell - Likely - probable or as likely as not
probably - Unusual - not habitually or commonly occurring
- "Maybe"- perhaps, possibly, perchance
- "Unlikely" not likely, improbable, has little
chance of being the case or coming about - Freak a very unusual and unexpected event
- Unexpected - not likely to happen
- "Rare" - uncommon, infrequent, occurring very
infrequently - "Could" - may , might, have the possibility
- "Conceivable" - capable of being imagine or
understood - "Plausible" - seeming reasonable or probable,
appearing to merit belief or acceptance - Conjecture - an opinion or conclusion based on
incomplete information a guess - Guess - suppose (something) without sufficient
information to be sure of being correct - Speculation - based on conjecture rather than
knowledge - "Never" - not ever
51TASER X26 Electrical Characteristics
- Waveform
- Pulse Rate
- Pulse Duration
- Voltage - peak open circuit
- Voltage - peak loaded
- Current - average
- Energy Per Pulse - nominal
- Energy Per Pulse - delivered
- Main Phase Delivered Charge
- Power Rating nominal
- Power Rating -- delivered
- Power Source
- No. of discharges - battery
- Complex Shaped Pulse
- 19 PPS (pulses per second)
- 100 µs (microseconds)
- 50,000 volts
- 1200 volts
- 0.0021 amperes
- 0.36 joules
- 0.07 joules
- 100 µC (microcoulombs)
- 7 watts at main capacitor
- 1.3 watts delivered
- Two three-volt cells
- 195 five-second discharges
52Calculations
- What powers a TASER X26?
- Setting the baseline
- How many photo flashes from cells?
- How many digital photos from cells?
- The TASER X26
- How many pulses per second?
- How many seconds when trigger pulled?
- How many pulses per 5 second trigger pull?
- How many 5 second discharges per battery?
53Calculations
- 10,000 sheet stack of copy paper
- Represents one second of time
- Wall outlet electricity full 10,000 sheets
- TASER X26 100 µs pulse (one piece of paper)
- 19 pulses (per second) 19 pieces of paper
- 5 s 50,000 sheets of paper (X26 95 sheets)
- M26 25,000 or 100,000 pieces of paper
54TASER International, Inc.ECD Basic Liability
Principles
55Lawsuits Product Liability vs. UOF
- TASER International - Product Liability Issues
- Product Defect (defective product)
- Strict Liability (risk utility analyses)
- Mis-represenation (lied about product)
- Failure to Warn (failed to warn of dangers)
- Law Enforcement - Officer or Agency Issues
- Excessive Force (federal and/or state)
- Supervision, Training, Entrustment, Policy
56Lawsuits TASER InternationalProduct Liability
Lawsuits
- In order to prevail, a plaintiff must prove
- Product is defective
- The defect caused the injury or death
- To date
- No court has ruled that a TASER device was
defective - No court has ruled that a TASER device defect
caused a death or injury - No court has ruled that TASER International has
misrepresented
57Are TASER Devices Risk Free?No.
58TASER InternationalLitigation Update
59TASER Litigation Update
- 3 Types of Cases
- Death following TASER ECD presence
- Suspect injuries (blamed on TASER ECD)
- Officers injured during training (exposures)
- What we are seeing in these cases (Plfs)
- Very long complaints based on media
- Little substance
- Endless stalling/time extensions
- Unable to find experts
60TASER LitigationUse of Experts
61EXPERTS
- Experts VERY important!!!!
- -- Certain subjects can be very complicated we
need to have those best qualified to express
opinions reviewing these files/incidents. - We have retained some of the premier experts in
various scientific fields - Call us we are happy to assist in locating
experts.
62TASER LitigationCase Strategies
63Case Strategies
- Strong defense
- Bring out the facts not the rhetoric
- Get beyond the rumors, myths, media
- Over 150,000 pages of documentation
- TASER ECDs are well proven
64How TASER International Can Help You With Your
Cases
65How TASER Intl Can Help You
- Information
- Scientific Medical Information
- Department Statistics
- Disproving Myths, Rumors, Misinformation
- Guidance on Defense Experts
- Information on Plaintiffs Experts
- Simply Answering Your Questions
66Basic Legal ConceptsLaw Enforcement Use of Force
67Law Enforcement Liabilities
- Third-Party Liability
- Workers Compensation
- Employment Practices Liabilities
- Criminal Culpabilities
- Public Scrutiny
- Special-Interest Group Scrutiny
- Numerous Others
68Sudden In-Custody DeathsCauses of Action
- Officers present
- Constitutional use-of-force issues
- Constitutional seizure, detention, incarceration
- State medical or mental emergency
- Shall vs. May
- Degree of certainty required for action?
- Necessity for prior authorization(s)?
- Constitutional medical care/attention
- Liability to intervene for another officers
actions
69Basic Concepts
- How much force is acceptable?
- ----------The Most Simplistic Answer
- A law enforcement officer may use that amount of
force upon a person that the law allows. A law
enforcement officer may not use more force upon a
person than the law allows.
70Basic Concepts
- You must have an acceptable legal basis
(justification) for everything that you do that
negatively impacts a person and/or his/her
property.
71Basic Concepts
- Just because the law allows you to use force,
does not automatically mean that using the force
is the most prudent course of action.
72Basic Concepts
- There are consequences to adopting use-of-force
standards that are more restrictive than the
legal standards.
73Basic Concepts
- The Fourth Amendment addresses misuse of
power, not the accidental effects of otherwise
lawful conduct. - Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596
(1989) Milstead v. Kibler, 243 F.3d 157 (4th
Cir. 2001).
74Basic Concepts
- Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long
recognized that the right to make an arrest or
investigatory stop necessarily carries with it
the right to use some degree of physical coercion
or threat thereof to effect it. - Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).
75Basic Concepts
- ... The test of reasonableness under the
Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise
definition or mechanical application ... - Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989),
citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979).
76Basic Concepts4th Amendment Deadly Force
- Almost every use of force, however minute, poses
some risk of death. Garrett v. Athens-Clarke
County, 378 F.3d 1274, 1280, n.12 (11th Cir.
2004).
77Basic Concepts
- Distinctions Force Standards
- Abuse of authority standards
- Self defense standards
- Risk management analyses
78Basic ECD Intro
- What happened in 2005?
- Up/Down continuum (speculation, not science)
- Criminal
- (IN) Borden Deputy David Shaw
- (VA) Sgt. Ryan Hood
79Police Executive Research Forum - ECD
- October 18-19, 2005
- (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.
80PERF GuidelinesOctober 18-19, 2005
- 1. CEDs should only be used against persons who
are actively resisting or exhibiting active
aggression, or to prevent individuals from
harming themselves or others. CEDs should not be
used against a passive suspect.
81PERF GuidelinesOctober 18-19, 2005
- "Active Aggression - A threat or overt act of an
assault (through physical or verbal means),
coupled with the present ability to carry out the
threat or assault, which reasonably indicates
that an assault or injury to any person is
imminent." - "Actively Resisting - Physically evasive
movements to defeat an officer's attempt to
control, including bracing, tensing, pushing, or
verbally signaling an intention to avoid or
prevent being taken into or retained in custody."
82PERF GuidelinesOctober 18-19, 2005
- 6. That a subject is fleeing should not be the
sole justification for police use of a CED.
Severity of offense and other circumstances
should be considered before officers use of a
CED on the fleeing subject.
83PERF GuidelinesOctober 18-19, 2005
- 7. CEDs should not generally be used against
pregnant women, elderly persons, young children,
and visibly frail persons unless exigent
circumstances exist.
84PERF GuidelinesOctober 18-19, 2005
- 8. CEDs should not be used on handcuffed persons
unless they are actively resisting or exhibiting
active aggression, and/or to prevent individuals
from harming themselves or others.
85TASER CASESLaw Enforcement Force Cases
86TASER ECD Weapons Confusion Cases - firearm used
when ECD intended
- Henry v. Purnell, 428 F.Supp.2d 393 (D.Md. April
21, 2006). Henry v. Purnell, 119 Fed.Appx. 441
(4th Cir. (Md.) 2005). Date of incident - October
20, 2003. - Christofar Atak v. City of Rochester, et. al.,
USDC Minn., Case No. 04-2720 DSD/SRN. - Torres v. City of Madera, Not Reported in
F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1683736 (E.D.Cal. 2005).
87TASER ECD Weapons Confusion Cases - firearm used
when ECD intended
- Yount v. City of Sacramento, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 563,
Cal.App. 3 Dist. (Nov. 9, 2005) - Arrestee's
conviction for obstructing an officer did not bar
his federal civil rights lawsuit for excessive
force by an officer who shot him in the buttocks
with his firearm while the officer intended to
draw and fire his TASER device instead. Petition
for review granted Yount v. City of Sacramento,
129 P.3d 320, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 (Feb 01, 2006). - (Thursday) June 22, 2006 -- Kitsap County (WA)
Sheriff's Office - deputy shot and wounded a man
in a tree when she used a gun instead of a TASER
device. The man had climbed high up a fig tree
and had been there for several hours. Deputies
were unsure whether the man was intoxicated, on
drugs, or possibly experiencing a psychotic
episode. One deputy attempted to discharge a
TASER device at the man, but when it did not work
asked another deputy to fire a TASER device.
Instead of grabbing the TASER device, the deputy
grabbed and fired her gun.
88Use of firearm when confronted by suspect armed
with ECD
- Use of firearm deadly force not unreasonable
against handcuffed (in front) person threatening
officers with ECD (in drive stun) very narrow
holding. Henderson v. Inabinett, 2006 WL 2547435
(M.D.Ala. Sep 01, 2006). - Daniel Rocha incident in Austin, Texas. Officer
believed that Rocha had her TASER ECD and was
about to use it on her Sergeant.
89Accidental ECD discharge
- Officer accidentally discharged TASER device on
his daughter Williams v. City of Daytona Beach,
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 354635, M.D.Fla. (Feb. 15,
2006). - Recent incident of officer accidentally
discharging ECD into daughters eye.
90Threat of ECD device gains compliance
- Threat of TASER device on its way gains
compliance. U.S. v. Yandal, Slip Copy, 2006 WL
517608 (W.D.Ky. March 1, 2006) - Threat of TASER device - 17 year old burglar
comes out of attic. In re J.D., 275 Ga.App. 147,
619 S.E.2d 818 (Ga.App. 2005) - Rattling of electricity from TASER device
causes fleeing man to surrender. People v. Young,
Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2006 WL 1688992
(Cal.App. 2 Dist. June 21, 2006) - Firearm pointing does not gain compliance - TASER
device does. U.S. v. Ackerman, Slip Copy, 2006 WL
224028, M.D.Fla. (Jan. 30, 2006) - Pointing TASER device gains compliance. In re
Francisco B., 2005 WL 2856335 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.
Nov 01, 2005)
91Threat of ECD use without submission is not a
seizure
- Drawing and pointing ECD (on 58 year old man who
had heart surgery 2 months prior) where suspect
did not submit is not a seizure. Policky v. City
of Seward (NE), 433 F.Supp.2d 1013 (D.Neb. May
25, 2006)
92Threat ECD use with submission /compliance is a
4th Amendment Seizure
- Threat with TASER device causing compliance is a
4th Amendment seizure. Pino v. City of
Sacramento, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 193181, E.D.Cal.
(Jan. 19, 2006)
93Passive or Active Resistance
- Qualified immunity for officer, use of TASER ECD
to force man to release grip on basketball pole.
Issue of passive resistance discussed - Eighth
Circuit law draws no distinction between active
or passive resistance in resisting a police
officer's requests. Schumacher v. Halverson, ---
F.Supp.2d ----, 2006 WL 3740804 (D.Minn. December
15, 2006)
94Use of ECD on a belligerent person
- Use of TASER ECD on belligerent driver
appropriate Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270
(11th Cir. 2004) - Summary Judgment Granted to Officers - Car Stop -
3 TASER devices uses on belligerent driver,
including 2 while handcuffed Willkomm v. Mayer
(WI Dells), USDC W.D. WI (Slip Copy 2006 WL
582044) March 9, 2006
95- TASER device to neck used to remove man from car.
Warren v. State of Maryland, 164 Md.App. 153, 882
A.2d 934 (Md.App. 2005) - Summary judgment granted on officers use of
TASER device on man suffering a hypoglycemic
(diabetic) attack. Gruver v. Borough of Carlisle,
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1410816 (M.D.Pa. May 19, 2006)
96Community Care Taker Function
- "Community Care Taker" Function officer's use of
TASER ECD on resisting person in medical distress
in ambulance - Summary Judgment granted to
defendants - Stanley v. City of Baytown, Texas,
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 2757370 (S.D.Tex.), No. Civ.A.
H-04-2106, U.S. Dist. Ct, S.D. Texas, Houston
Division, decided Oct. 25, 2005
97Use of ECD to stop fleeing arrestee
- Summary judgment granted to defendants on
officers use of TASER device on fleeing
arrestee. U.S. ex rel. Thompson v. Village of
Spring Valley, N.Y., Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1889912
(S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2006) - Summary judgment granted for TASER device use -
resisted arrest, attempted to flee. Court gave a
use-of-force risk management analysis (dart to
top of head). Wylie v. Overby, Slip Copy, 2006 WL
1007643, E.D.Mich. (April 14, 2006)
98ECD use threatening, resisting
- TASER device used to control threatening man.
People v. Powers, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,
2006 WL 1737353, (Cal.App. 2 Dist. June 27, 2006) - TASER device used to gain control of resisting
man. Shouse v. State, 849 N.E.2d 650 (Ind.App.
June 20, 2006) - TASER device used to capture struggling,
resisting escapee. State v. Farrar, 631 S.E.2d 48
(N.C.App. June 20, 2006)
99- Summary judgment (qualified immunity) granted to
defendants when TASER device was used on a 14
year old female fighting on school property.
Maiorano ex rel. Maiorano v. Santiago, Slip Copy,
2006 WL 2024951 (M.D.Fla. July 15, 2006) - (Two) TASER device discharges stops fleeing man.
U.S. v. Stephens, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1663351
(E.D.Mo. June 14, 2006
100Raise hands threat or surrender
- Defendants motion for summary judgment denied due
to genuine issues of material fact (1) raised
his hands with his fingers spread apart in a
gesture of surrender or raised them in a
threatening manner, and (2) TASER probe removal
that left scars is controverted de minimis.
Fletcher v. Schwend, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1867890
(N.D.Tex. July 6, 2006)
101- Qualified immunity granted to officers use of
TASER device on kicking handcuffed arrestee.
Carroll v. County of Trumbull, Slip Opinion, 2006
WL 1134206 (N.D.Ohio April 25, 2006) - The appellate court held that the use of a stun
gun to subdue man who was resisting arrest by
kicking and biting was an appropriate use of
force. Hinton v. City of Elwood, 997 F.2d 774
(10th Cir.(Kan.) 1993)
102ECD use on knife wielding man when no longer a
threat
- Officer entitled to qualified immunity despite
his using TASER ECD multiple times on
knife-wielding suspect who was no longer an
immediate threat noting that officer's "actions
were intended to avoid having to resort to lethal
force." Russo upheld a Taser use to avoid having
to resort to lethal force where a lack of
training in dealing with mentally ill may have
caused shooting death of known paranoid
schizophrenic. Russo v. Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036
(6th Cir. 1992)
103Potentially homicidal individual
- Use of ECD to subdue a potentially homicidal
individual did not transgress clearly established
law. The court further held that the use of ECD
against an armed and volatile suspect does not
constitute excessive force and concluded that the
defendant police officers are entitled to
qualified immunity on the Plaintiffs excessive
use of force claim. Ewolski v. City of Brunswick,
287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. (Ohio) 2002)
104Use of ECD to avoid use of deadly force
- The court affirmed Russo v. Cincinnati which held
that the taser, which was deployed in an effort
to obviate the need for lethal force, did not
violate clearly established law. Nicholson v.
Kent County Sheriff's Dept., 839 F.Supp. 508
(W.D.Mich. 1993)
105- TASER device use prevents need to use deadly
force. State of Ohio v. Gentry, Slip Copy,
2006 WL 1461030 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. May 19, 2006) - TASER device used to stop resisting suspect from
reaching for gun on the ground. People v.
Villegas, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2006 WL
1992407 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. July 18, 2006)
106ECD used on suspect with firearm
- TASER device used to apprehend fleeing suspect
armed with firearm. U.S. v. Stephens, Slip Copy,
2006 WL 2009066 (M.D.Ala. July 18, 2006)
107Use of an ECD on a juvenile
- Threat of TASER device - 17 year old burglar
comes out of attic In re J.D., 275 Ga.App. 147,
619 S.E.2d 818 (Ga.App. 2005) - Pointing TASER device gains compliance In re
Francisco B., 2005 WL 2856335 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.
Nov 01, 2005) (NO. F048025) - Summary judgment granted to officers who used a
ECD on handcuffed, struggling, resisting 14 year
old male. Johnson ex rel. Smith v. City of
Lincoln Park, 434 F.Supp.2d 467 (E.D.Mich. June
8, 2006)
108Use of an ECD on a juvenile
- Summary judgment (qualified immunity) granted to
defendants when TASER device was used on a 14
year old female fighting on school property.
Maiorano ex rel. Maiorano v. Santiago, Slip Copy,
2006 WL 2024951 (M.D.Fla. July 15, 2006) - Summary judgment granted Use of TASER device on
suicidal 16 year old male juvenile N.A. ex rel.
Ainsworth v. Inabinett, 2006 WL 2709850 (M.D.Ala.
Sep 20, 2006) (NO. 205 CV 740 DRB)
109Use of an ECD to prevent swallowing drugs
- Florida v. Damion Terrell Johnson, In the Circuit
Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for
Orange County, Florida, Case No.
48-2003-CF-015024-0, Division 17. Court did not
suppress evidence - US v. Jason Malone, United States District Court,
Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division,
Case No. 05-10012. Court did not suppress evidence
110Use of ECD on a handcuffed person
- No objectively reasonable officer would have
thought that striking, kicking, dragging, choking
and repeatedly using a ECD against a
non-resisting, fully compliant citizen would
constitute either "reasonable force in light of
the facts and circumstances" or "a good faith
effort to maintain or restore discipline."
Qualified immunity denied officers for excessive
force during multi-hour mental health detention
transport. Batiste v. City of Beaumont, 421
F.Supp.2d 1000 (E.D.Tex. March 10, 2006). Case
settled.
111Use of ECD on a handcuffed person
- Summary judgment granted to officers who used a
ECD on handcuffed, struggling, resisting 14 year
old male. Johnson ex rel. Smith v. City of
Lincoln Park, 434 F.Supp.2d 467 (E.D.Mich. June
8, 2006) - Qualified immunity granted to officers use of
TASER device on kicking handcuffed arrestee.
Carroll v. County of Trumbull, Slip Opinion, 2006
WL 1134206 (N.D.Ohio April 25, 2006) - Summary Judgment Granted to Officers - Car Stop -
3 TASER devices uses on belligerent driver,
including 2 while handcuffed. Willkomm v. Mayer
(WI Dells), USDC W.D. WI (Slip Copy 2006 WL
582044) March 9, 2006 - Summary judgment granted use of TASER device in
drive stun on handcuffed resisting arrestee.
Devoe v. Rebant, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 334297,
E.D.Mich. (Feb 13, 2006)
112ECD on Person in Restraint Chair
- Restraint Chair - Use of TASER Device on Neck -
Summary Judgment Granted McBride v. Clark, USDC
W.D. MO (Slip Copy 2006 WL 581139) March 8, 2006
1135th/14th Amendment - use of ECD on a pre-trial
detainee
- Summary judgment granted for threat to use TASER
device (laser dot compliance). Price v. Busbee,
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 435670 (M.D.Ga. February 21,
2006)
1148th Amendment - use of ECD on convicted/incarcerat
ed person
- The district court held that taser guns may be
reasonably used to quell disorders and to compel
obedience, but they cannot be used to punish a
prisoner. Hernandez v. Terhume, Not Reported in
F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 1847645 (N.D.Cal. 2000) - The only conduct of the plaintiff was his adamant
refusal to comply with the order. He did not
present any threat of physical violence. The
device was used to shock him three times while he
was on the ground and obviously incapacitated.
Officers motion for summary judgment denied.
Preston v. Pavlushkin, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 686481
(D.Colo. March 16, 2006)
1158th Amendment - use of ECD on convicted/incarcerat
ed person
- The court held that prison officials are entitled
to use physical force, including devices such as
tasers, to compel obedience by inmates. Drummer
v. Luttrell. 75 F.Supp.2d 796 (W.D.Tenn. 1999) - Court affirmed Michenfelder v. Sumner where 9th
Circuit held that ECDs are not per se
unconstitutional as long as they are "used to
enforce compliance with an order that had a
reasonable security purpose. The legitimate
intended result of a shooting is incapacitation
of a dangerous person, not the infliction of
pain. Parker v. Asher, 701 F.Supp. 192 (D.Nev.
1988)
1168th Amendment - use of ECD on convicted/incarcerat
ed person
- The appellate court upheld the holding of the
district court which concluded that the
correctional officers used taser weapons in a
good faith effort to maintain and restore
discipline after the inmate refused orders to be
handcuffed before being moved from his cell.
Jolivet v. Cook, 48 F.3d 1232 (Table) (10th Cir.
(Utah) 1995) - The appellate court held that the use ECD was not
cruel and unusual punishment and a policy of
allowing use of ECDs on an inmate who refuses to
submit to a strip search does not constitute
cruel and unusual punishment., 860 F.2d 328 (9th
Cir. (Nev.) 1988)
1178th Amendment - use of ECD on convicted/incarcerat
ed person
- Court affirmed Michenfelder v. Sumner where the
court held that the threatened use of a taser to
enforce compliance with a search had a reasonable
security purpose and was not unconstitutional.
Walker v. Sumner, 8 F.3d 33 (Table) (9th Cir.
(Nev.) 1993)
118ECD Training - Adequacy of Program
- The court ruled that a police ECD training
program consisting of approximately three (3) to
four (4) hours was not inadequate training.
Mateyko v. Felix, 924 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. (Cal.)
1990)