An Analysis of Written Conductive Energy Device Policies

• Author: Nicholas P. Lovrich,Kyle J. Thomas,Peter A. Collins
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403411412372
• Date: 01 December 2012
• Published date: 01 December 2012
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

23(4) 399 –426

© 2012 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403411412372

http://cjp.sagepub.com

CJP412372

CJP23410.1177/0887403411412372Thomas et al.Criminal Justice Policy Review

1University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

2Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA

3Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kyle J. Thomas, University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2220 LeFrak Hall,

College Park, MD 20742

Email: kthomas@umd.edu

An Analysis of Written

Conductive Energy Device

Policies: Are Municipal

Policing Agencies Meeting

PERF Recommendations?

Kyle J. Thomas1, Peter A. Collins2,

and Nicholas P. Lovrich3

Abstract

Although scholars have recognized the utility of conductive energy devices as less-

than-lethal force tools, there have been concerns over the misuse of the device and

the adverse health effects associated with its use in the field. In an attempt to improve

policy, scholars and policing organizations, such as the Police Executive Research

Forum (PERF), have developed “model” written CED policies as guidelines. It is

expected that adherence to these policies can improve the overall effectiveness of the

device as well as reduce many negative outcomes. This study reviews and compares

the written CED policies of 124 municipal policing agencies to the model policies set

forth by PERF. The findings indicate that municipal police agencies have done a rather

poor job meeting these recommendations. Implications and recommendations for

making broad improvements to CED policies are discussed.

Keywords

conductive energy device, taser, use of force policy

Recent publicized events and reports by human rights groups have called into question

the current state of departmental policies regarding the use of conductive energy devices

(CEDs). Perhaps no document has been as critical or as influential as the Amnesty

Articles

400 Criminal Justice Policy Review 23(4)

International report published in 2004. In this report, the influential human rights orga-

nization highlighted several examples of questionable, although often legally justified,

deployments of CEDs as well as noting numerous cases in which resisting suspects

experienced adverse health effects post-CED application. More important, however,

the report highlighted the lack of uniformity, quality, and specificity in CED deploy-

ment policies across law enforcement departments in the United States (see also Gov-

ernment Accountability Office, 2005; Thomas, Collins, & Lovrich, 2010).

In response to these rising concerns over ill-developed and overly permissive CED

deployment policies, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the International

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) have developed “model” use of force policies

outlining the elements of effective written policies regarding CED deployments (see

also Alpert & Dunham, 2010). These model policies emphasize the importance of

clearly defining the circumstances permitting the use of CEDs (specifically against

individuals exhibiting active resistance), identify officer responsibilities and restric-

tions when deploying the device (issuance of verbal warnings, limiting cycles), and

explicitly prohibit the use of the devices against certain at-risk groups (e.g., pregnant

women, children, the elderly) unless exigent circumstances exist. Finally, these model

policies mandate medical treatment post-CED deployment. The models were devel-

oped after extensive research and consultation with experts from various fields, includ-

ing experienced police use of force researchers and medical authorities (IACP, 2005;

PERF, 2005). Both PERF and the IACP believe that adherence to these model policies

can simultaneously improve the effectiveness of CEDs in law enforcement and

increase the safety of police officers and citizens alike.

To date, no study has systematically reviewed the written CED policies of munici-

pal police agencies to examine the extent to which they are in accord with the model

policies provided by PERF and IACP. This void in the literature is alarming for sev-

eral related reasons. First, as noted above, there has been considerable concern over

the misuse of CEDs in the field, their ability to achieve desired policy goals, and the

adverse health effects associated with their use. These concerns are explicitly addressed

by these model guidelines. Second, previous research has indicated that departmental

policy regarding CED use is influential in a number of use-of-force outcomes (Thomas

et al., 2010; see also Downs, 1967). Third, these professional guidelines have been

developed to guide officer decisions to ensure that CEDs are used in a manner that

achieves maximum effectiveness at minimum risk of harm.

For instance, vague or unclear guidelines on deployment give individual officers

too much discretion, likely leading to a greater number of questionable deployments.

Likewise, the failure to specify the circumstances and high-risk groups against whom

CED deployment is prohibited may lead to increased citizen complaints and may

increase the risk of serious injury or death to arrestees. Finally, requiring medical follow-

up assessments for all individuals who receive a CED shock may reduce in-custody

and arrest-related deaths even further. Indeed, the quality of written CED policies of

policing agencies, and an evaluation of those policies, has several important practical

implications.