TASER® Exposure, Miranda Warnings, and Police Interrogations

• Date: 01 February 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12184
• Author: Michael R. Smith
• Published date: 01 February 2016

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

TASER EXPOSURE AND COGNITIVE

IMPAIRMENT

TASER RExposure, Miranda Warnings, and

Police Interrogations

New Evidence and Implications

Michael R. Smith

The University of Texas at El Paso

TASERsR(conducted energy weapons sold by TASER International, Scottsdale,

Arizona) have become ubiquitous in American policing. In 2013, 75% of state

and local law enforcement agencies in the United States authorized TASERs for

all sworn field/patrol officers and another 10% authorized them for at least some sworn

officers (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013). Conservatively speaking, this suggests that

approximately 500,000 law enforcement officers carry a TASER on a regular basis when

they are working. Studies have consistently documented that most physical force used

by police consists of low-level, hands-on control tactics, but increasingly, the TASER has

supplanted other options (e.g., baton or pepper spray) as the preferred less-lethal weapon

for police (Smith et al., 2010).

With the proliferation of the TASER has come a host of issues and concerns similar to

what occurred when the adoption of pepper spray became widespread (Smith and Alpert,

2000). Human rights and public interest groups, as well as the media, have raised concerns

about the safety of the TASER and whether it has caused the deaths of citizens at the hands

of the police (Amnesty International, 2012). The medical and field-based research to date

has largely debunked the notion that the TASER poses a significant risk of death when

used appropriately, and a National Institute of Justice Special Report on deaths after the

use of conducted energy devices (CEDs) concluded that “law enforcement need not refrain

from using CEDs to place uncooperative or combative subjects in custody, provided the

devices are used in accordance with accepted national guidelines and appropriate use-of-

force policy” (Laub, 2011, p. viii).

Direct correspondence to Michael R. Smith, Center for Law and Human Behavior, The University of Texas at El

Paso, Prospect Hall 224, 500 W. University Avenue, El Paso, TX 79968 (e-mail: Msmith4@utep.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12184 C2015 American Society of Criminology 75

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 1