Technological Innovation and Police Officers' Understanding and Use of Force

• Date: 01 June 2019
• Published date: 01 June 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12383

Technological Innovation and Police Officers’

Understanding and Use of Force

Michael Sierra-Are

´valo

Today, the TASER is a ubiquitous less-than-lethal force technology lauded

for its ability to curb police officers’ use of excessive and lethal force.

Although less injurious than other weapons, concerns exist that the TASER

can still be misused by police officers. This article uses ethnographic observa-

tions and unstructured interviews across three urban police departments to

describe how the TASER affects officers’ understanding and use of force in

beneficial and unintended ways. I find that officers understand and use the

TASER as a device that can enhance safety for themselves and suspects,

including in cases where the TASER is used in lieu of lethal force that offi-

cers believe would have been justified. Despite these benefits, understanding

of the TASER as a safety-enhancing technology also influences the use of

excessive force via TASER by young, inexperienced officers, ultimately con-

tributing to the very problem TASERs were intended to ameliorate.

From data-driven enforcement strategies like hotspots policing

(Manning 2011) to new “big data” surveillance practices (Brayne

2017), U.S. policing experienced unprecedented technological

advancement over the past three decades. The use of force—a

defining feature of the police occupation (Bittner 1970)—is no

exception to the inexorable current of technological change; mod-

ern police officers have access to a greater range of coercive tools

than ever, especially with regard to less-than-lethal weapons

(Alpert et al. 2011). Chief among these advancements is the con-

ducted energy device (CED) or “TASER,” a weapon that incapaci-

tates subjects with 50,000 V that cause involuntary muscle

contractions (NIJ 2008). Today, TASERs are used by more than

17,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies (Axon 2015) and are

The author wishes to thank Matthew Clair, Andrew Papachristos, Colleen Berryessa, For-

rest Stuart, Amada Armenta, Sarah Brayne, Ed Maguire, the editors of Law and Society

Review, and anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on this

research.

Please direct all correspondence to Michael Sierra-Are

´valo, Rutgers School of Crimi-

nal Justice, 123 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07103094; e-mail: michael.

sierraarevalo@rutgers.edu.

John D. and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundation

15-108050-000-USP

Law & Society Review, Volume 53, Number 2 (2019): 420–451

©2018 Law and Society Association. All rights reserved.

420

lauded as safe, effective alternatives to the lethal force that is at

the heart of longstanding judicial and public concerns over exces-

sive force (Obasogie and Newman 2018; PERF 2011).

As with any technological innovation, however, TASERs also

come with the risk of unintended and even counterproductive

consequences. Despite their less-than-lethal benefits, concerns

exist that TASERs are used in ways that nonetheless constitute

excessive force that injures members of the public and damages

the legitimacy of police (Amnesty International 2004; Kleinig

2007). Unfortunately, evidence of the role of TASER technology

in the use of excessive force is sparse and the research literature

on excessive force has not kept pace with the advent of the

TASER that is commonly discussed as a safer alternative

to more injurious force options, such as batons or firearms

(Adams and Jennison 2007). Furthermore, neither the existing

literature on excessive force nor TASER use considers how

patrol officers’ understandings of force with regard to the

TASER contribute to the systemic issue of excessive force

(Kappeler et al. 1998).

In light of the current emphasis on police violence and its

detrimental effect on police legitimacy, public safety, and com-

munity health (Carr et al. 2007; Gau and Brunson 2010;

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 2015), there is

pressing need for empirical accounts of how officers make

sense of this new technology and incorporate it into their

understanding and use of force that—even if less injurious

than other force options—can still constitute excessive force.

1

Drawing on observational and unstructured interview data

from three urban police departments in the United States, I

describe how officers’ understanding of the TASER as a less-

than-lethal force option has both beneficial and unintended

consequences for their use of coercive force. First, TASERs are

understood and used by officers as a force option that can

enhance safety for them and the public, including during

“hidden” TASER use whereby officers threaten electrocution

to ensure suspect compliance without leaving any physical evi-

dence of the TASER’s use. Second, officers understand and

use the TASER as a force option that allows them to refrain

from using their firearm in situations they believe would have

1

In lieu of the term “perceptions” common to policing scholarship, legal doctrine,

and psychological research emphasizing biologically rooted cognition, I use “understand-

ing” to capture the end product of a broader process of “meaning-making”—the lived

interpretation of situations and patterned action in ways that make them intelligible or

“account-able” to individuals and others (Garfinkel 1967: 1; Spillman 2001). In short,

“understanding” is intended to capture how officers see, experience, and make sense of

TASERs and their use in their role as legal agents empowered to deploy coercive force.

Sierra-Are

´valo 421

justified lethal force, particularly when confronting suspects

suffering from mental illness. Despite these apparent benefits

of the TASER, officers also link understanding of the TASER

as a safety-enhancing force option to the use of less-than-lethal

but still excessive force by young, inexperienced officers

already prone to unnecessarily escalate interactions with the

public. I conclude with a discussion of the implications of

these findings for the technological control of excessive force,

as well as for broader sociolegal considerations of the unin-

tended consequences of technological innovation in policing.

The Use of Excessive Force

The authority to use force is a central feature of the police

role that allows police to enforce the edicts of the state, ensure

the safety of the public, and to defend themselves and other

officers from harm (Bittner 1970; Harmon 2008). However,

just as state-sanctioned force can be used appropriately and

within the bounds of the law, so too can it be abused

(Kappeler et al. 1998; Westley 1970). The misuse of force, in

addition to physically harming the public, violates public

expectations of fair impartial legal agents and reduces the

legitimacy of police (Carr et al. 2007; Gau and Brunson 2010;

Kochel 2012). The loss of police legitimacy—the belief that

police have the right to demand citizen compliance and that

the public should defer to police authority (Tyler 2004)—

hinders the cooperation and willing deference of the public

that police depend on to address crime and disorder (Tyler

and Fagan 2008). When cooperation is not forthcoming, police

interactions with the public are more likely to escalate into

competitions for status and respect, in turn increasing the like-

lihood that interactions devolve into violence that can injure

police and the public alike (Sunshine and Tyler 2003: 520).

When the force used by police is perceived as excessive, the

public’s perceptions of illegitimate police are confirmed, con-

tributing to a climate of mutual resentment, distrust, and fear

(Brunson 2007; Werthman and Piliavin 1967).

Given the dire consequences of excessive force, understanding

and mitigating excessive force is of paramount concern to those

interested in protecting the public’s well-being and fostering

cooperation between police and the community (Adams 1999;

Harris 2009). Although the significance of excessive force is clear,

the definition and empirical study of what constitutes “excessive”

force is less so. Indeed, decades of scholarship use a litany of

422 Technological Innovation and Police Use of Force