skip navigation


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: 228452 Find in a Library
Title: Examination of Legal Cases Involving the Use of Tasers and Stun Guns on Pretrial Detainees
Journal: Corrections Compendium  Volume:34  Issue:2  Dated:Summer 2009  Pages:9-15,23
Author(s): Vidisha Barua; Robert M. Worley
Date Published: 2009
Page Count: 8
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Based on a sample of 19 cases, this study examined jail officers liabilities for using Tasers and stun guns on pretrial detainees, who are presumed innocent and therefore retain their constitutional right to be free from punishment even though they are confined.
Abstract: Eight of the cases involved circumstances in which the courts found the use of Tasers and stun guns by jail officers against pretrial detainees to be inappropriate. Tasering a pretrial detainee in the back when he was only passively resisting jail officers, resulting in permanent injury to his spinal cord, was ruled objectively unreasonable (Harris v. City of Circleville, 2008). Tasering a person without provocation when she was lying on the floor of her cell at night was ruled objectively unreasonable under Section 138 of the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. These are examples of cases in which the use of Tasers and stun guns were held to be objectively unreasonable under the circumstances of the case. In 11 cases, the courts ruled in favor of prison officials. In these cases, courts found officers’ actions to be reasonably related to the legitimate purpose of maintaining order and security in the facility. The use of Tasers and stun guns to induce compliance by difficult inmates during strip searches, for example, was held to be justified by the courts, since it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. The issues of individual officer liability, official custom or policy, and adequate training must be addressed at the policymaking level on the basis of relevant court decisions that show instances where individual officers and the municipality can be held liable. 3 notes and 10 references
Main Term(s): Corrections policies
Index Term(s): Lawful use of force; Legal liability; Pretrial detention; Prisoner's rights; Stun guns; Tasers
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*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.