skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 252727 Find in a Library
Title: Conducted Energy Devices: Policies on Use Evolve To Reflect Research and Field Deployment Experience
Series: NIJ Journal
Author(s): Paul A. Haskins
Date Published: 2019
Page Count: 5
Document: HTML
Type: Issue Overview; Legislation/Policy Analysis; Report (Technical Assistance)
Format: Document; Document (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This is a review of research, court decisions, and law enforcement policies regarding officers’ use of conducted energy devices (CEDs) to stun and render submissive persons being taken into custody.
Abstract: CEDs have been purchased and used by law enforcement agencies over the last few decades as a “less-lethal weapon.” CEDs have generally been used to stun and immobilize subjects, so officers will have less difficulty in subduing them when resistance occurs; however, CEDs have occasionally been linked to long-term physical handicaps and deaths. Although the effects of CEDs have been studied by medical researchers and defendants’ rights group, scientific research has yet to produce conclusive evidence that CEDs, when used properly by trained officers, cause any lasting cognitive or physical damage to individuals who have no pre-existing physical handicaps. The emerging awareness of the danger of CED misuse brought the issue before federal courts to rule on constitutional standards for CED use. This trend culminated in the Fourth Circuit’s 2016 decision in Armstrong v. Pinehurst, which held that CEDs are lawfully used only to counter an immediate danger to officers or others; specifically, these stun guns should not be used on a fleeing suspect. This appellate decision is binding federal law in North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. This “Armstrong” decision challenged police policies that allow the use of CEDs on subjects fleeing or even physically resisting police, but who pose no immediate danger to officers or others. Other courts have since adopted the “bright-line” rule that only a need to protect police or others from a present threat, and not just the desire to control the subject, can justify CED use.
Main Term(s): Police equipment
Index Term(s): Appellate court decisions; Less lethal technologies; NIJ Resources; Police policies and procedures; Police safety; Police use of deadly force; Resisting arrest; Tasers
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=274953

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.