TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... 1
Introduction and summary ..................................................................................... 1
1. GENERAL CONCERNS ABOUT TASER USE ................................................... 4
1.2. Background on Taser Use ............................................................................... 4
1.3. Deployment of tasers in the USA: life saver or routine force tool? .................. 7
1.4. Low on the force scale .................................................................................. 12
Florida ................................................................................................................. 13
Colorado.............................................................................................................. 15
Portland, Oregon.................................................................................................. 16
Chandler, Arizona................................................................................................ 18
Seattle, Washington ............................................................................................. 19
Kansas City, Missouri.......................................................................................... 21
Cases reflect wider pattern................................................................................... 21
1.5. Children ........................................................................................................ 22
1.6. Tasers used against people already restrained or in custody........................... 24
1.6 (i) Tasers used as stun guns ........................................................................ 25
1.6 (ii) Jails and custody facilities .................................................................... 27
1.7. Lawsuits for excessive force or ill-treatment ................................................. 29
1.8. Safeguards and monitoring of taser use ......................................................... 35
1.8 (i) Safeguards against unwarranted injuries ................................................ 37
1.9. Widening taser use........................................................................................ 39
2. DEATHS IN CUSTODY AFTER TASER USE ................................................. 42
2.1. Overview of AI concerns: ............................................................................. 43
2.2. Multiple or prolonged taser discharges .......................................................... 45
2.3. Sample case summaries................................................................................. 46
2.4. Questions regarding time lapse between taser and death or loss of
consciousness in the cases reviewed..................................................................... 53
2.5. Delayed death: metabolic acidosis................................................................. 55
2.6. Impact of other restraints............................................................................... 56
2.7. Taser and pregnancy ..................................................................................... 60
2.8. General concerns about health risks and tasers .............................................. 61
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................... 67
4. APPENDICES..................................................................................................... 71
4.1. Appendix 1: Taser deaths in USA and Canada 2001-2004............................. 71
4.2. Appendix 2: Selected International Instruments............................................. 86
4.3. Appendix 3: Distribution and deployment of tasers by Region and Country .. 89

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International November 2004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty
International’s concerns about deaths and illtreatment involving police use of tasers
Introduction and summary
“I asked Borden to lift up his foot to remove the shorts, but he was being combative and
refused. I dry stunned Borden in the lower abdominal area … We got Borden into the
booking area. Borden was still combative and uncooperative. I dried [sic] stunned Borden
in the buttocks area…” After the final shock, the officer “noticed that Borden was no longer
responsive and his face was discoloured.” (extract from officer’s statement on James Borden,
a mentally disturbed man being booked into an Indiana jail.)1
James Borden was arrested in a disoriented state in November 2003 and died shortly after the
administration of the last of six electro-shocks, delivered while his hands were reportedly
cuffed behind his back. The medical examiner released a statement listing cause of death as a
heart attack, drug intoxication and electrical shock. James Borden is one of thousands of
individuals shocked with stun devices by US law enforcement agents each year as a growing
number of agencies move to adopt such weapons.
More than 5,000 US law enforcement agencies are currently deploying tasers, dartfiring electro-shock weapons designed to cause instant incapacitation by delivering a 50,000
volt shock. Tasers are hand-held electronic stun guns which fire two barbed darts up to a
distance of 21 feet, which remain attached to the gun by wires. The fish-hook like darts are
designed to penetrate up to two inches of the target’s clothing or skin and deliver a highvoltage, low amperage, electro-shock along insulated copper wires. Although they were first
introduced in the 1970s, the take-up rate for tasers has increased enormously in recent years,
with the marketing of powerful “new generation” models such as the M26 Advanced Taser
and the Taser X26. Both fire darts which strike the subject from a distance or, as in James
Borden’s case, can be applied directly to the skin as a stun gun.
The manufacturers and law enforcement agencies deploying tasers maintain that they
are a safer alternative to many conventional weapons in controlling dangerous or combative
individuals. Some police departments claim that injuries to officers and suspects, as well as
deaths from police firearms, have fallen since their introduction.
Amnesty International acknowledges the importance of developing non-lethal or “less
than lethal” force options to decrease the risk of death or injury inherent in the use of firearms
or other impact weapons such as batons. However, the use of stun technology in law
1

Idsnews.com, 20 February 2004.

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International November 2004

2

Excessive and lethal force?

enforcement raises a number of concerns for the protection of human rights. Portable and easy
to use, with the capacity to inflict severe pain at the push of a button without leaving
substantial marks, electro-shock weapons are particularly open to abuse by unscrupulous
officials, as the organization has documented in numerous cases around the world.2
Although US law enforcement agencies stress that training and in-built product
safeguards (such as chips which can record the time and date of each taser firing) minimize
the potential for abuse, Amnesty International believes that these safeguards do not go far
enough. There have been disturbing reports of inappropriate or abusive use of tasers in
various US jurisdictions, sometimes involving repeated cycles of electro-shocks.
There is also evidence to suggest that, far from being used to avoid lethal force, many
US police agencies are deploying tasers as a routine force option to subdue non-compliant or
disturbed individuals who do not pose a serious danger to themselves or others. In some
departments, tasers have become the most prevalent force tool. They have been used against
unruly schoolchildren; unarmed mentally disturbed or intoxicated individuals; suspects
fleeing minor crime scenes and people who argue with police or fail to comply immediately
with a command. Cases described in this report include the stunning of a 15-year-old
schoolgirl in Florida, following a dispute on a bus, and a 13- year-old girl in Arizona, who
threw a book in a public library.
In many such instances, the use of electro-shock weapons appears to have violated
international standards prohibiting torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as
well as standards set out under the United Nations (UN) Code of Conduct for Law
Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law
Enforcement Officials. These require that force should be used as a last resort and that
officers must apply only the minimum amount of force necessary to obtain a lawful objective.
They also provide that all use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed as well as
designed to avoid unwarranted pain or injury.
International standards encourage the development of non-lethal incapacitating
weapons for law enforcement “for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly
restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons” but state
that such weapons must be “carefully evaluated” and their use “carefully controlled”. 3
Amnesty International believes that this standard has not been met with regard to tasers,
despite their increasing use across the country.
Amnesty International is further concerned by the growing number of fatalities
involving police tasers. Since 2001, more than 70 people are reported to have died in the USA
and Canada after being struck by M26 or X26 tasers, with the numbers rising each year.
While coroners have tended to attribute such deaths to other factors (such as drug
2

See, for example, Amnesty International, The Pain Merchants: Security equipment and its use in
torture and other ill-treatment (AI Index: ACT 40/008/2003)
3
Principles 2 and 3 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement
Officials, Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,
Havana, 1990 (U.N.Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112 (1990).
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

3

intoxication), some medical experts question whether the taser shocks may exacerbate a risk
of heart failure in cases where persons are agitated, under the influence of drugs, or have
underlying health problems such as heart disease. In at least five recent cases, coroners have
found the taser directly contributed to the death, along with other factors such as drug abuse
and heart disease. As discussed below, the death toll heightens Amnesty International’s
concern about the safety of stun weapons and the lack of rigorous, independent testing as to
their medical effects.
This report includes a review by Amnesty International of information on 74 taserinvolved deaths, based on a range of sources, including autopsy reports in 21 cases. Most of
those who died were unarmed men who, while displaying disturbed or combative behaviour,
did not appear to present a serious threat to the lives or safety of others. Yet many were
subjected to extreme levels of force, including repeated taser discharges and in some cases
dangerous restraint techniques such as “hogtying” (shackling an individual by the wrists and
ankles behind their back). The cases raise serious concern about the overall levels of force
deployed by some police agencies as well the safety of tasers.
Tasers have been described by many police departments as “filling a niche” on the
force scale. 4 However, Amnesty International is concerned that deployment of tasers, rather
than minimizing the use of force, may dangerously extend the boundaries of what are
considered “acceptable” levels of force. While the organization concedes that there may be
limited circumstances under which tasers might be considered an alternative to deadly force,
there is evidence to suggest that measures such as stricter controls and training on the use of
force and firearms can be more effective in reducing unnecessary deaths or injuries (see
below, page 9).
In its recommendations, contained at the end of the report, Amnesty International is
reiterating its call on federal, state and local authorities and law enforcement agencies to
suspend all transfers and use of electro-shock weapons, pending an urgent rigorous,
independent and impartial inquiry into their use and effects.
Where US law enforcement agencies refuse to suspend tasers, the organization is
recommending that their use of tasers is strictly limited to situations where the alternative
under international standards would be deadly force, with detailed reporting and monitoring
procedures.

4

Many US police departments use a “use of force continuum” setting out the appropriate force options
in response to each resistance level, on a rising scale from “officer’s presence” to use of deadly force.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

4

Excessive and lethal force?

1. GENERAL CONCERNS ABOUT TASER USE
1.2. Background on Taser Use
“I have always stated that the only way to guarantee a knockdown of a human being is to
shoot them in the central nervous system with a bullet. In my opinion the ADVANCED
TASER comes extremely close to doing the same thing, but from a less-lethal perspective.”
Sgt Darren Laur, Control Tactics Coordinator, Victoria Police Department, Canada, writing
in a review article, published in the October 1999 issue of Law Enforcement Technology.
“It just takes your legs out. It’s like a jackhammer going Kaboom, Kaboom, Kaboom!” Sgt
Burt Robinson Chandler, Police SWAT team, Arizona, describing the M26 Advanced Taser on
website of security equipment company, Security Planet Corp.
Named after the hero of a popular science fiction series, 5 tasers were originally
developed by a California-based company in the 1970s. The Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD) became the first major agency to introduce them in 1974. (The videotape of the
LAPD beating of Rodney King in March 1991 shows an officer holding a taser gun he had
fired at King, trying to keep the wires from getting tangled as King rolled on the ground from
police baton blows.) Tasers have been promoted as having advantages over other non-lethal
weapons as they can be applied at a distance (avoiding injury to officers) and, unlike chemical
sprays, are not affected by wind and do not risk contaminating officers or bystanders.
However, the earlier taser models were not always effective, especially in the case of
individuals who were highly agitated or under the influence of drugs such as
phenylcyclohexyl piperidine (PCP).6 During the 1990s, companies started to develop more
powerful prototypes of the taser and other stun weapons.
Thousands of US law enforcement agencies now deploy the M26 Advanced Taser,
which are several times more powerful than the original version used by the LAPD and other
agencies in the 1970s and 1980s. The M26 is one of a new generation of tasers developed by
Taser International, an Arizona-based company, and was introduced for operational use in late
1999. It operates on 26 watts of electrical output (compared to 5-7 watts of earlier models)
and discharges pulsed energy to deliver a 50,000 volt shock designed to override the subject’s
central nervous system, causing uncontrollable contraction of the muscle tissue and instant
collapse. 7 In May 2003, Taser International introduced a new model, the Taser X26, which is
60% smaller and lighter than the M26 but has the same voltage and, according to the

5

It is an acronym of Thomas A. Swift’s Electrical Rifle, based on the child’s novel Tom Swift and his
Electric Rifle by Victor Appleton, published in 1911.
6
Known by the alternative chemical name of Phencyclidine and a range of slang terms such as “angel
dust”.
7
The original taser operated on only 5 watts and was followed by Air Taser on 7 watts. The M18-M26
series of tasers, introduced by Taser International in 1999 and 2000, operate on 18-26 watts of
electrical output.
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

5

manufacturer, an incapacitating effect which is 5% greater than the M26. 8 Both fire two
probes up to a distance of 21 feet and are programmed to be activated in five-second bursts of
electricity, although, as shown below, the electrical charge can be prolonged beyond five
seconds if the officer’s finger remains depressed on the trigger. The shocks can also be
repeated so long as both probes remain attached to the subject. The darts are fired by an air
cartridge which has to be reloaded if a second firing is required. Both models have laser sights,
for accurate targeting (and avoiding hitting vulnerable spots such as eyes or face). They also
have a built-in memory option to record the time and date of each firing (see below for more
on this).
Both the M26 and the X26 can also be used without the air cartridge, as “touch” stun
guns, to apply electric shocks directly to the subject at close range. The duration of the cycle
in stun gun mode is the same as in the dart projectile mode.
According to the literature, the new generation tasers are designed “…to incapacitate
dangerous, combative, or high risk subjects that may be impervious to other less-lethal means,
regardless of pain tolerance, drug use, or body size”. They have been described as “the only
less-lethal weapon that can stop a truly focused, aggressive subject” and as “specifically
designed to stop even elite, aggressive, focused combatants”.9
In meetings with Amnesty International, Taser International has stressed that, unlike
earlier models, the M26 and X26 tasers are not designed to stop a target through infliction of
pain but work by causing instant immobilization through muscle contraction. According to
the company they are one of the few non-lethal weapons effective in causing incapacitation
without physiological injury. They have pointed out that any pain involved is transient, with
no after-effects. However, officers subjected to even a fraction of the normal taser discharge
during training have reported feeling acute pain:
“Bjornstad, who was jolted for 1.5 seconds as part of his training, said all of his
muscles contracted and the shock was like a finger in a light socket many times over.
“Anyone who has experienced it will remember it forever …You don’t want to do
this. It’s very uncomfortable ... and that’s an understatement.” (The Olympian, 14
October 2002)
“It’s like getting punched 100 times in a row, but once it’s off, you are back to normal
again.” (The Olympian 2 March 2002)F
“It felt terrible.” “It hurts. I’m going to think twice before I use this on anyone.” (two
officers quoted in the Mobile Register 8 April 2002).

8

According to company literature, the X26 is 5% more incapacitating than the M26 while using less
energy, due to its advanced Shaped Pulse Technology which sends the hardest, high voltage, short
duration, pulsed energy for the first two seconds, when the darts penetrate clothing, skin or other
barriers, with a reduced rate for the rest of the hit.
9
Taser International literature.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

6

Excessive and lethal force?

“It is the most profound pain I have ever felt. You get total compliance because they
don’t want that pain again.” (firearms consultant, quoted in The Associated Press 12
August 2003)
“They call it the longest five seconds of their life … it’s extreme pain, there’s no
question about it. No one would want to get hit by it a second time.” (County Sheriff,
quoted in The Kalazazoo Gazette, Michigan, 7 March 2004)
Officers were initially exposed during training to only a fraction of the normal taser
discharge of five seconds, yet still testified to experiencing considerable pain. Amnesty
International understands that it is now recommended that officers are subjected to a fivesecond shock, although at least one department no longer allows officers to be tasered at all
during training, following complaints from officers. 10 While the pain is short-lived, this
would not necessarily apply in the case of someone subjected to repeated or prolonged jolts of
the taser darts or stun gun (see below). Amnesty International has been told by an expert who
has experienced shocks from both models that the X26 model is even more painful than the
M26.
Unlike the dart-firing probes, the touch stun function only acts on a small part of the
body, and causes pain and debilitation rather than total incapacitation. A Taser International
training manual states that “If only the stun mode is used, the M26 becomes a pain
compliance technique…” 11 The advice given in the manual for “stun mode areas” is to
“aggressively drive M26 into:
•

Carotid/brachial stun area12

•

Groin

•

Common Peronial13.”

Although, as stated above, the M26 and X26 tasers are programmed to set off an automatic
five-second electrical charge, this happens if an officer pulls the trigger and releases it. The
electrical charge can be prolonged beyond five seconds if the officer keeps his finger
depressed on the trigger. A Taser International training manual states that “holding the
trigger continuously beyond the 5 second cycle will continue the electrical cycle until the
trigger is released”. The following testimony was given by a police training officer at an
inquest into the death of William Lomax, who had a taser in stun gun mode applied
repeatedly to his neck in jolts lasting up to eight seconds each:
“if you hold the trigger down, it will go until the battery life runs out of the tazer
(sic).”
10

According to testimony at the inquest into the death of William Lomax on 25 June 2004, the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Police Department stopped having officers “taze” each other during training after
complaints from officers about having to take a “hit” and complaints about injuries from falling.
11
Taser International, Certified Lesson Plan, Version 8.0, Advanced Taser M26.
12
Neck and arm
13
Outer thigh
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

7

Juror: So it will go continuously until you let go?
Witness: correct.”14

1. 3 Deployment of tasers in the USA: life saver or routine
force tool?
More than 5,000 law enforcement and correctional agencies in 49 US states are currently
reported to be deploying or testing taser equipment, with the take-up rate continuing to grow,
reportedly by around 170 police agencies a month. Several US states which formerly banned
all stun weapons have recently changed their laws to allow local and state police to deploy
tasers.15 In some states they are deployed by police on university campuses and they have also
been used in schools (see below).
Tasers have also been purchased by the US army, including for use in Iraq. 16 The US
Air Force also reportedly deploys tasers aboard aircraft carrying suspected al-Qa’ida members
to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.17 While few details have been provided about the use of tasers by
US military forces, one of the units deploying them in Iraq in 2003 was the 800th Military
Police Brigade, accused of grave abuses in Abu Ghraib prison.18
New generation tasers have also been purchased, or are undergoing testing, by police
or military forces in other countries, including, reportedly, Argentina, Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Spain, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the
UK. 19

14

From transcript of inquest proceedings in case of William Lomax, Las Vegas, Nevada, 25 June 2004
(see more on this case under Deaths in Custody, below).
15
In Michigan the law was changed in December 2002 to legalize tasers for law enforcement use only,
since when more than 100 police agencies in the state have begun using them. Massachusetts became
the most recent state to pass similar legislation in July 2004, leaving New Jersey as the only state still
banning their use in all circumstances.
16
Taser International announced in June 2004 that it had won a $1.8 million contract to provide stun
weapons to US military personnel, following a previous smaller order by the U.S. Army for stun guns
and tasers for use in Iraq. (AP, 30 June 2004).
17
Aviation Daily, 2 August 2002 (available at:www.taser.com/aviation/aviation02.html)
18
“US issuing troops more ‘non-lethal’ weaponry”, Chicago Tribune, 11 December 2003, citing a
report from retired Lt Col Wesley Barbour that members of the 800th Brigade used lethal force several
times to quell detainee uprisings but that such rebellions ended after police “demonstrated” the power
of the taser. A report by Major-General Antonio Taguba in December 2003 found members of the
800th Brigade were among US forces which had engaged in “sadistic, blatant and wanton” abuse of
detainees in Abu Ghraib Prison in 2003 http://news/findlaw.com/hdocs/Iraq/tagubarpt/html.
19
See Appendix 2 for a list of countries reported to have deployed, tested or trialled tasers, or have
taser distributors based there. Amnesty International obtained the information from various sources,
including Taser International’s website listing distributors.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

8

Excessive and lethal force?

Tasers have also been authorized for use by the general public. Forty-three US states
are reported to place few or no restrictions on possession of stun weapons by members of the
public for private use. 20 While promoted as self-defence tools, for private users, they are
easily open to abuse, without the controls or monitoring that apply to law enforcement use.
Amnesty International cites several cases, below, in which parents have been prosecuted for
child cruelty after using stun weapons to discipline their children. Stun weapons have also
been reportedly used during the commission of crimes, or as instruments of torture or abuse,
including of women by abusive partners or former partners.
Amnesty International is opposed to the sale of stun weapons for private use, given
the difficulty in ensuring adequate standards of monitoring and control and the potential for
abuse behind closed doors. While police officers undergo training and are subject to
regulations governing the use of force, no such controls exist for the private sector. Unlike
firearms, there are no licensing requirements in the USA for private use of tasers.21
The latest model for private use in the USA is the Taser X26c Citizen Defense
System, which was introduced for sale on-line through Taser International in September 2004.
According to company literature, the Taser X26c, which can also be used as a stun gun, has a
15 feet stand-off capability and “operates at a slightly lower output than the law enforcement
Taser X26”. Disturbingly, it also operates “with an extended duration of up to 30 seconds per
discharge”.22
In the UK, modern tasers have since 2003 been deployed by a number of police
departments under the same strict guidelines as apply to firearms. They are allowed to be used
only by authorized firearms officers, are kept in the firearms box and are issued only in
appropriate situations where officers are faced with a threat of deadly force and the only other
option would be use of a conventional firearm.
In the USA, tasers are authorized for use in much broader circumstances, as discussed
below. Nevertheless, they are promoted in the USA, as elsewhere, as an important tool in
saving lives and reducing the need for lethal force. Under international standards, lethal force
may only be used by officers in self-defence or the defence of others when there is an
imminent threat of death or serious injury, and “only when less extreme measures are
insufficient to achieve these objectives”. 23

20

Tasers are barred for citizen use in seven US states: Massachussetts, Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan and Hawaii, and in certain cities and counties.
21
Because tasers use compressed air or gas instead of gunpowder to propel the darts, tasers are not
considered as firearms and do not fall under the regulation of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
or Firearms.
22
Taser International press release, 15 September 2004. The release states that the extended discharge
is in order to allow the user “sufficient time to safely get away from a potentially life-threatening
situation”. The company reports that private citizens who purchase the device will receive a 40 minute
training video and a coupon redeemable for a one-hour in-home training course from a local law
enforcement officer trained in taser use.
23
Principle 9 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

9

Taser International has repeatedly emphasized in statements and literature how taser
use has saved lives. For example, in July 2004, the company issued a statement citing a case
in which a woman advancing on officers with an eight-inch knife had been successfully
disarmed with a taser rather than shot with a firearm and another case where a suicidal man
threatening to cut his own throat was similarly disarmed without injury. The company stated
that it had received “over 500 similar reports where officers have used the TASER to save a
life”, estimating that the true figure was likely to exceed 5,000 cases.24 Claims that tasers
save lives may, however, include incidents involving intervention at an earlier stage than a
situation posing an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Taser International states in a
lesson plan for US law enforcement agencies that:
“The Advanced Taser is not a substitute for lethal force. However, many situations
that begin as standoffs have the potential to escalate to lethal force. Early, aggressive
use of a less-lethal weapon like the M26 can prevent many of these situations from
escalating to deadly force levels”. 25
Some police departments have reported a significant fall in police shootings
following the introduction of tasers. In February 2004, the Phoenix Police Department,
Arizona, announced that officer-involved shootings had fallen by 54% from 28 in 2002 to 13
in 2003, with fatal shootings down from 13 to 9 during the same period, the lowest number
since 1990. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said “I am proud that Phoenix is the first city in the
nation to equip all of our police officers with tasers. We are committed to providing our
officers with the latest technology, support and equipment that they need in order to protect
them and the community.”26 A Taser International brochure reported that use of firearms and
impact weapons by Orange County (Florida) sheriff’s deputies fell by 80% following the
introduction of the Advanced Taser in 2000, “reducing injuries and saving lives”.27
Reports of a fall in police shootings in the cities of Seattle and Miami have similarly
been attributed, at least in part, to the introduction of tasers. Both police departments reported
no fatal police shootings for the first time more than a decade in the year tasers were
introduced – in Miami’s case there were no police shootings, fatal or otherwise, for the first
time in 14 years.28 Other departments have reported on specific instances where officers have
used tasers instead of firearms to disarm suicidal or mentally ill individuals armed with
24

“Taser International Strongly Refutes New York Times Article”, statement from Taser International
July 2004, following a critical article in the New York Times. The statement cites company estimates
that less than one in ten police reports on such incidents are received and that “Accordingly, we
conservatively estimate that there are over 5,000 such incidents where the TASER has saved a life or
averted serious bodily injury”.
25
From a Taser International lesson plan on the M26 Advanced Taser.
26
City of Phoenix Police Department news release, 6 February 2004
27
www.taser.com/pdfs/m26brochure.pdf
28
“As Shocks Replace Police Bullets, Deaths Drop but Questions Arise”, New York Times 7 March
2004 – no-one was shot and killed in Seattle for the first time in 15 years. In Miami there were no
police shootings, fatal or otherwise, in 2003, for the first time in 14 years.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

10

Excessive and lethal force?

weapons such as knives, although reports of officers using tasers when confronted with
people with guns appear to be much rarer.
Amnesty International welcomes any reduction in the use of lethal force. However,
claims that tasers have led to a fall in police shootings need to be put into perspective, given
that shootings constitute only a small percentage of all police use of force. In contrast, taser
usage has increased dramatically, becoming the most prevalent force option in some
departments. While police shootings in Phoenix fell from 28 to 13 in 2003, tasers were used
that year in 354 use-of-force incidents, far more than would be needed to avoid a resort to
lethal force.
Use of non-lethal weapons may be only one factor leading to a fall in police shootings
and other serious force. In Miami, for example, the fall in officer-involved shootings may be
due in part to greater oversight following several high profile prosecutions of Miami police
officers for civil rights violations involving wrongful shootings and an ongoing federal Justice
Department investigation into an alleged pattern of excessive force.29
Representatives of Taser International who met with Amnesty International in July
2004 said there had been a significant reduction in injuries to suspects and officers following
the introduction of tasers, according to police reports of operational use across the USA. The
company noted that many other types of force, such as use of batons or police dogs resulted in
higher injury levels than the taser. It was stressed that a reduction in injuries was likely to be
more pronounced where tasers were used below the level justifying lethal force as all use of
physical force, including light hands-on force, could result in some bodily injury.
However, as shown below, many departments allow officers to use tasers in situations
that would not justify the use of batons or other impact weapons liable to cause serious injury.
Reports suggest that, in some departments, tasers are used by officers primarily as a substitute
for pepper or chemical sprays, which may themselves be considered a relatively low-level
force option. Amnesty International has frequently raised concern about alleged misuse of
pepper spray by law enforcement officers, including its use in situations that do not merit this
degree of force. 30 The organization suggests that, rather than substituting electro-shock
weapons for pepper spray or other force options, better training and restraint in the use of
force would be a more appropriate strategy in many situations.
29

Indeed, in a letter to the Miami City Attorney, dated 13 March 2003, the Justice Department
expressed concern that the Miami Police Department’s policy on tasers was insufficiently stringent,
noting that it failed to define what constituted a reasonable use of force or to place tasers on a “use of
force continuum”. The Justice Department recommended the introduction of a force continuum as a
valuable tool which “emphasizes that an officer’s presence, verbal commands and use of soft hands
techniques (using hands to escort rather than control) can often be used as an alternative to other, more
significant, uses of force.”
30
There have been many reported instances of abusive use of pepper spray and chemical sprays by US
law enforcement officials against people in police custody, in prisons and in juvenile detention
facilities, including their use as a front line of control in the case of individuals who fail to comply
immediately with orders. Complaints have been documented in lawsuits, by civil liberties and police
monitoring bodies, and in Amnesty International reports.
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

11

Indeed, improved policies, training and oversight have been shown to be critical
factors in reducing police shootings and injuries to suspects or officers. Such measures are
likely to have a more significant impact overall than use of alternative weapons. In San Jose,
California, for example, the police department obtained its first sizeable batch of new tasers in
2002, a year in which police shootings fell to zero. However, police shootings in San Jose had
been falling since 1999, a development attributed in large part to better training on the use of
force; the introduction of a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) to defuse potentially dangerous
situations involving disturbed individuals; and an independent auditor to monitor the
department. Improved use-of-force policies, investigations and training led to a fall in police
shootings and dog bite injuries in Washington, DC, where the Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD) was once notorious for its high rate of officer-involved-shootings and
injuries to suspects from police canines. 31 Other departments, including the Los Angeles
Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD), have noted
similar trends.32
In fact, in San Jose, police shootings started to rise again after the introduction of
tasers (which were issued to all patrol officers in May 2004), reaching a five-year high in
2004. 33 Their effectiveness in resolving use-of-force situations has been questioned by the
San Jose Independent Police Auditor, who announced a review of the department’s taser use
in September 2004, following concern about two incidents in which police shot disturbed
individuals after tasers failed to subdue them. 34 One case concerned a mentally disturbed man
who became agitated after being asked to stop smoking in a coffee shop and allegedly threw a
chair at officers. He was shot after the taser failed to subdue him. Questions have been raised
as to whether other force tactics might have been more safely deployed in such a situation.

31

Justice Department press release on the MPD, dated June 2001: “In the past two years … MPD has
achieved a significant reduction in the rate at which it uses deadly force and the rate at which its
canines bite suspects”. Officer-involved-shootings fell from 16 fatalities in 1990 to four in 1999 and
two in 2000. The MPD did not have tasers at that time.
32
In the LAPD, for example, police shootings and total use-of-force incidents deceased significantly
between 1990 and 1999, during a period in which an independent monitor noted that there were “better
investigations, better oversight, greater scrutiny on the use of force” than ever before (former Inspector
General Jeff Eglash, quoted in L.A. Weekly, September 2002). The LASD saw police shootings fall by
70% from 1991 to 2000, during a period in which the number of arrests remained constant. The Special
Monitor appointed to oversee the department reported in 2003 that that “excessive force has been
substantially curbed”, and that better reporting and monitoring had contributed to this trend. Civilian
Oversight of the Police in the United States, Merrick Bobb, September 2002.
33
There were eight police shootings in San Jose in 1999; five in 2000; four in 2001; zero in 2002; four
in 2003 and six in the first nine months of 2004. (1999-2003 statistics from IPA 2003 Report.)
34
“Police to review use of stun gun”, Mercury News, 29 September 2004

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

12

Excessive and lethal force?

1. 4 Low on the force scale
Although described by the manufacturer as a suitable tool for “aggressive, focused
combatants”, the taser appears to be a relatively low level force option in many US police
departments. A survey by Amnesty International of more than 30 US police departments
(including 20 of the largest city or county agencies) indicates that tasers are typically placed
in the mid-range of the force scale, below batons or impact weapons rather than at, or just
below, lethal force. 35 Some departments place the entry level for tasers at an even lower
level, after verbal commands and light hands-on force.
For example, a number of law enforcement agencies allow tasers to be used against
“passive resisters” – people who refuse to comply with police commands but do not interfere
with an officer and pose no physical threat.36 Others authorize tasers at an entry level of
“defensive resistance”, typically defined as “physical actions which attempt to prevent
officer’s control but do not attempt to harm the officer”.37 The Miramar Police Department,
Florida, told Amnesty International (in response to concerns raised about the stunning of a
schoolgirl during a minor disturbance) that tasers were available “prior to the use of
intermediate weapons” such as batons. A Philadelphia Police Department directive states that
tasers may be used, among other scenarios, to “overcome resistance to arrest”. Indianapolis
police told Amnesty International that the entry level at which tasers could be used was “at
any point force is needed”. 38 While many departments authorize tasers at the level of “active
physical resistance”, according to a number of policies Amnesty International has seen, this
can be in the form of “bracing or tensing” or “attempts to push or pull away”. These
scenarios hardly depict the “combative” or “aggressive” individuals described in promotional
literature.
Amnesty International believes that electro-shock weapons, which have a powerful
impact on the body and can cause acute pain, should never be considered a “low” or
“intermediate” force option. However, a review of reported cases suggests that some
departments are deploying tasers in routine arrest situations, at the first sign of resistance or in
35

The mid-range on the force continuum is generally where pepper or chemical sprays are placed.
Taser International told Amnesty International that 86% of US agencies placed tasers at this level.
36
Several police departments have recently changed their policies to raise the entry level for taser use
from “passive” to “active” resistance following controversial cases. These include 11 police agencies in
Orange County, Florida. Other departments reportedly continue to authorize such use, either in a
written policy or in practice (they include the Honolulu Police Department, Hawaii; the Portland Police
Department, Oregon, which is reported to allow taser use against people who are non-compliant but not
a physical threat; several agencies in Colorado are also reported, in practice, to have used tasers against
people passively resisting arrest, or refusing to obey a police order.)
37
Examples include the Mesa Police Department, Arizona; the Chula Vista Police Department,
California and the Putman County Sheriff’s Office, Florida.
38
Telephone interview, March 2004
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

13

the face of relatively minor resistance. Incidents include cases of people under the influence
of alcohol or drugs who failed to comply promptly with commands, people who “mouthed
off” at officers and people engaged in minor acts of public disturbance. The use of electroshock weapons in such circumstances appear to breach international standards set out under
the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use
of Force and Firearms. These require that force should be used only as a last resort, in
proportion to the threat posed and the legitimate objective to be achieved. 39
Training materials on tasers suggest that they are safe to use against a wide age range
and that repeated shocks pose no additional risks. Confidence in such claims may explain
why there are reports of tasers being used against elderly people and children, and of people
being subjected to multiple shocks. Tasers have also been used to subdue unarmed mentally
ill or disturbed individuals who were not committing a crime or posing a threat of serious
injury. Given the pain and the psychological impact or fear caused by being stunned or
threatened with an electro-shock weapon, the use or threat of tasers in these and other cases,
even without physical injury, may constitute torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment.
The USA has ratified the UN Convention against Torture and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which prohibit torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The UN Human Rights Committee,
the expert body which monitors compliance with the ICCPR, states that “the aim of the
provisions of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is to protect
both the dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the individual”. The Committee
emphasises that the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment in article 7 “relates not only to acts that cause physical pain but also to acts that
cause mental suffering to the victim.”40
The following accounts, based on press articles, police reports and other sources,
illustrate Amnesty International’s concerns about the way tasers have been used in various US
jurisdictions.

Florida
Local police agencies in Florida were among the first to adopt the new generation tasers on a
wide scale. Twelve (nearly one in five) of the recent US taser-related deaths discussed under
Chapter 2 occurred in Florida, with four in Orange County alone. In addition to those cases,
Florida police have reportedly used tasers to subdue:
39

“Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for
the performance of their duty” (Article 2, UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials); “Law
enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, use non-violent means before
resorting to the use of force and firearms..” and should “exercise restraint in such use and act in
proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be pursued” (Articles 5 and
5(a) of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
40
General Comment 20, 10 April 1992

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

14

Excessive and lethal force?

•

a man who refused to be fingerprinted and wrestled and shoved officers
(Pembroke Pines Police Department, Broward County)

•

a woman who interrupted a seminar at a country club and pushed officers
away, shouting that they were “sick with demons” (Pembroke Pines Police
Department)

•

a man who refused to discard the drink he was drinking in a park and refused
to turn round and be handcuffed (Orange County Sheriff’s Office)

•

a woman who, ordered out of a pool for swimming naked and once dressed,
refused repeated commands to turn round and put her hands behind her back.
(Orange County Sheriff’s Office)

•

a 15-year-old schoolgirl, who was tasered and pepper sprayed after arguing
with officers after she and other children were put off a bus during a
disturbance. (Miramar Police Department, Broward County)

•

a 14-year-old schoolgirl who was tasered after fighting with a school
“resource officer” in a classroom. The officer first used the taser as a “stun
gun” applying it directly to her chest; when she continued to struggle he
deployed the “air cartridge” twice before she was handcuffed. (Putnam
County Sheriff’s Office)41

In May 2004, the city of Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, announced a review of
police taser use after reports that officers had fired two tasers simultaneously at an unarmed
23-year-old man who had turned his back on officers when they called at his house to
investigate a neighbour’s complaint about loud rap music. He was allegedly jolted multiple
times, causing acute pain. A study of police incident reports conducted by a local newspaper
found that Melbourne police had used tasers against 75 people in 18 months, most of whom
were unarmed.42 They included
•

a 14-year-old boy who had allegedly broken a window and tried to run away;

•

a 50-year-old man who refused to give police his date of birth during a disturbance at
a picnic;

•

a woman jolted at least five times with a taser as an officer held her down.

In most or all of the cases cited above, the use of force was found to be in accordance
with departmental policies. In the case of the 14-year-old tasered in the classroom, the Putnam
County Sheriff’s Office informed Amnesty International that “use of the taser in this instance
is in accordance with agency policy”, noting that the girl in question, who weighed 221 1bs
(100 Kg), had a history of assaultive behaviour at the school. While recognizing the
41

Sources include: Miami Herald 14 April 2002; Orlando Sentinel 4 August 2002; Miramar Police
Department; WJXT News4-Jax.com, 8 January 2004; Putnam County Sheriff’s Office, March 2004.
42
Report by J.D. Gallop, Florida Today, June 2004
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

15

challenges posed by such behaviour, Amnesty International remains concerned at the use of
an electro-shock weapon against a disturbed, unarmed teenager.
In July 2004, it was announced that eleven police agencies in Orange County, Florida,
had agreed to restrict their use of tasers following a year-long review which suggested that
some officers were too quick to resort to their weapons. Before the restrictions were imposed,
officers were permitted to shock anyone who prevented an officer “from taking lawful action”,
including people engaged in “passive resistance”: those who disobeyed an officer’s verbal
command without engaging in any threat or act of physical harm. The new rules allow
officers to stun only people who show “active resistance”. However, tasers can still be used
well below the “lethal force” level, including under such broad circumstances as “preventing
an officer from making an arrest”. Some US police agencies may continue to allow tasers to
be used at the level of “passive resistance”. Records from the Orange County Sheriff’s
Department, Florida (the largest county police agency), showed that the agency used tasers in
180 cases in which individuals were engaged in “passive resistance” from 2001 to October
2003, although this policy was reportedly under review.43

Colorado
A study by the Denver Post in May 2004 found that the Denver Police Department, Colorado,
commonly used tasers against people who refused to submit to handcuffing or who walked or
ran away from police officers. In 90% of cases the subjects were unarmed, and most were
cited for minor offences. While in some cases tasers had been used to stop dangerous suspects
and disarm the suicidal, they were more often used to force people to obey police commands
and to shortcut confrontations. The study found that officers had tasered at least sixteen
people who were already handcuffed, and sixteen juveniles (details of the latter cases were
unavailable due to their age).44 Most such usage was found to be within the official policy.
The Denver Police Department is one of more than 100 law enforcement agencies in
Colorado to have adopted tasers and, by August 2003, had purchased enough X26 and M26
tasers to have one in every patrol car.
The Denver Post study was prompted by concerns raised by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado about inappropriate and abusive use of tasers by a
number of local police and county agencies, including two cases where suspects died. 45 In
several cases police subjected people to repeated shocks, sometimes while they were already
restrained; other cases included people abused in local jails (see below). In many instances the
accounts were corroborated by police reports. One of the cases taken up by the ACLU was
43

Source: from statistics in an Orange County Sheriff’s Department document dated October 15, 2003,
under heading Orange County Use of Force Successes. The taser was most widely used in cases of
“Active Physical Resistance”, a level below “Aggressive Physical Resistance”.
44
Police Tasers set to stun, by David Migoya, Denver Post 4 May 2004; the study was based on a
review of court and police records.
45
Concerns outlined in a 10-page letter dated 26 February 2004 to Gerry Whitman, Chief of Denver
Police Department, from Mark Silverstein, Legal Director, ACLU of Colorado

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

16

Excessive and lethal force?

that of a man who died after being tasered at least five times by Glendale police officers as he
lay supine on the floor of his room in a drug-induced stupor (see Glenn Leyba case, chapter 2
below). Other cases involving the Glendale Police Department included the following:
•

A man who was drunk and verbally abusive was tasered in the back for struggling
while police applied handcuffs as he lay on the ground. He was given another jolt of
electricity when he continued to resist as police walked him to a patrol car.

•

Police tried to arrest a man for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend in the street. The
man ran away and an officer followed him slowly in her police vehicle and told him
to “Stop running or I am going to Tase you”, before reaching out of her vehicle, while
steering it with one hand, and firing the taser at him. The man fell to the ground and
was tasered again when he tried to stand up.

•

A man escorted from a restaurant by police officers was touch stunned in the leg for
“refusing to obey verbal commands”.

In September 2004, the Denver Police Department’s Chief of Police, Gerry Whitman,
announced that he had changed the department’s use-of-force policy to allow officers to use a
taser only on suspects exhibiting “active aggression” or “aggravated active aggression”.
Previously, about 20% of the department’s taser incidents involved police responses to the
lower standard of “defensive resistance” by a suspect. Under the department’s policy, “active
aggression” is defined as an assault or imminent assault, while “aggravated active aggression”
constitutes more serious violence that could, in some cases, justify deadly force.
However, a report published by the Denver Post on 20 September 2004 found that
policies among Colorado law enforcement agencies varied widely and that in some
jurisdictions police continued to “shock suspects who do little more than mouth off, pull an
arm away from a handcuff, run or refuse to obey an officer’s orders quickly”. In three local
departments – Longmont, Pueblo and Glendale – police had used tasers at a rate, on average,
nearly four times greater than in Denver. The article cited cases in which suspects were
subjected to repeated jolts or shocked while they were handcuffed. In one case, Commerce
City Police Department officers used a taser on an allegedly drunken man seven times as they
tried to take him to a detoxification centre; six of the electro-shocks were administered while
he was in handcuffs. Of more than 500 cases reviewed by the Post from 15 local police
agencies, only two were deemed by the departments concerned to have been inappropriate.

Portland, Oregon
An investigation by a weekly journal, Willamette Week (WW), into taser use by the Portland
Police Department, Oregon, published in February 2004, reported that, over a 19 month
period, officers had deployed tasers in more than 400 cases, including on 25 people who were
already in handcuffs. 46 The WW report, which was based on a review of police incident
reports, stated that “numerous potentially lethal situations” had been averted using the taser,
46

Series of articles by Nick Budnick, appearing in the Willamette Week, Portland Oregon, on 4, 11 and
18 February 2004
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

17

including suicidal individuals trying to force the police to kill them. 47 However, the WW also
reported on incidents in which tasers were used against people who were not a serious threat
but were merely verbally abusive or failed to comply with police commands. According to
the newspaper, Oregon police had tasered people “after stopping them for non-violent
offenses, such as littering and jaywalking, selling plastic flowers without a license, and failing
to go away when told to”. Police also used tasers on two 71-year-olds, one a woman who was
blind in one eye, and the other a man who was trying to restrain a knife-wielding woman. The
elderly man was shot with the taser after dropping onto his hands and knees instead of lying
flat on the floor, as ordered by police. (See under Lawsuits, below, for details of the 71-yearold woman).
The paper also reported on the case of 20-year-old Dontae Marks, a bystander who
protested when police tried to arrest a friend for being drunk outside a night-club. Police
reportedly pointed a taser at Marks’ chest when he refused an order to leave, then tasered him
in the back as he walked away shouting an obscenity. Six officers then reportedly grappled
with him in a struggle in which Marks was pepper-sprayed and touch-stunned at least ten
times while lying face-down on the ground. He was reported to have sustained 13 taser burn
marks across his back, neck, buttocks and the rear of his legs. He was later acquitted on
charges of affray and has filed a lawsuit. According to the WW report, an internal police
review found the taser use to be justified.
Dontae Marks’ attorney is quoted as saying “They went straight for the Taser because
it was quick and easy for them. He was doing what they wanted him to do, but because they
didn’t believe him, they tased him. And that’s what blew the situation up.” The following
incidents were also cited in the article. All were reportedly found to be within police
departmental policy.
•

An 18-year-old was tasered when he told police responding to an under-age drinking
party to “get the f…out of my house”. He was tasered again when, after complying
with an order to put his hands up, his hands started to drop.

•

A driver pulled over on a bridge, angry that his car was being towed away for lack of
insurance, was tased after repeatedly complaining and turning his head and body
towards an officer.

•

A woman who fell asleep in her parked car was tasered when officers woke her up
when they opened her car door and, according to the police report, she glared at them
and reached for her pocket. According to the WW review, police reports were
inconsistent as to whether or not she was warned before the taser was used.

The Portland Police Department subsequently reviewed its taser use, finding that out of
595 uses since a pilot project began in July 2002, only one had been ruled out of policy.48 In
47

Widely reported incidents, often called “suicide by cop”, in which deranged individuals brandishing
weapons allegedly goad officers into shooting them.
48
Information attributed to Trainng Captain Mike Crebs, reported in Oregonlive.com, 24 May 2004.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

18

Excessive and lethal force?

May 2004, Portland Police Chief Derrick Foxworth reported to the city commissioners that
the department would introduce stricter policies and training on taser use. The new policies
would reportedly continue to allow officers to use tasers against handcuffed suspects but
would instruct officers to consider other methods of control before stunning children,
pregnant women and the elderly. At the time of writing, plans were underway to expand the
deployment of tasers in the Portland Police Department, by issuing one to every patrol officer.

Chandler, Arizona
The Chandler Police Department, Arizona, is one of several agencies to have compiled
detailed statistics about its taser use in a publicly available report.49 The report documented 86
uses of the taser from April through December 2003, 42 of which involved police firing darts
at suspects. In 17 cases the taser was used in touch stun mode and in five cases both the probe
deployment and touch stun mode were used.50 There were also 24 incidents in which the taser
was used in Display Mode only. 97% of dart or stun deployments were in response to “active
physical resistance” or higher on the force scale. “Active physical resistance” is defined in
departmental policy as “acts of fleeing or escaping” or “suspect attempts to resist arrest
without assaulting officer”.
The report included a summary of each incident. Most of the incidents involved
unarmed suspects who were reportedly engaged in aggressive or disorderly behaviour, and
were resisting arrest; many occurred after or during a police chase. A breakdown of taser
usage by “call type” (incident to which the police responded) showed that most police
responses were to reports of domestic violence (19% of cases), followed by “suicide attempt”
(13%). Others ranged from minor offenses to burglary. There is no indication that any of the
incidents were found to violate the Chandler Police Department policy. The reports included
use of tasers to subdue:
•

a female driver of a stolen vehicle being followed by police who, after she crashed the
car and fled on foot and was caught by officers, “would not comply with verbal
commands and made a move towards her waistband”.

•

A trespassing suspect who was tasered when he “resisted being handcuffed”.

•

a female suspect who had broken into her grandfather’s apartment and was tasered
when she “attempted to walk away from the officer” and “pulled away” when he tried
to stop her. The taser was applied five additional times before other officers arrived
on the scene.

•

a burglary suspect hiding in an attic when he “refused to comply with commands”.

•

a suspect who, stopped for driving with a suspended license, ran away from police.

•

an autistic teenager after he assaulted his mother and wrestled an officer to the ground.

49

Chandler Police Department: Advanced Taser Use of Force, 2003 Annual Report, published
February 2004.
50
Tasers were added to every Chandler officer’s arsenal in May 2003
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

19

•

a man standing on the sidewalk yelling and screaming at the sky. He was threatened
with the taser if he did not comply with police commands to be quiet. He refused to
comply and the taser was then deployed. The taser was effective but “as the subject
began to get up, the taser was cycled a second time”.

•

A thirteen-year-old girl was tasered in a public library after she threw a book at
someone and was “yelling obscenities”. The case summary states: “The juvenile
continued to be verbally disruptive and resisted when officers attempted to place her
under arrest. The Taser was displayed and threatened. The juvenile continued to
resist by curling into a ball. As the juvenile was preparing to kick at the officer, she
was touch-stunned in the middle of her back”. 51

The Chandler Police Department study reported on 17 instances in which the taser was
used solely as a touch stun gun. In most of the cases, it appears to have been used in order to
gain compliance and included the following cases:
•

An “out-of-control” high school student “continued to resist in the patrol car”. The
Taser was used on the leg as a touch stun to gain compliance.

•

A suspect was stopped for “driving under the influence” and refused to comply with
commands to place his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. The taser was
displayed and he started to comply but placed his hands against his chest. The taser
was then used in touch stun mode.

•

During another arrest for “illegal consumption of alcohol”, the “suspect resisted and
the Taser was used in touch stun mode to gain compliance”.

•

The stun gun was used to gain compliance from a suspect in custody who was
refusing to have blood drawn as per a court order. The taser was used a total of four
times against the suspect.

Seattle, Washington
The Seattle Police Department (SPD) has issued two reports reviewing the first three years of
the department’s use of the M26 Advanced Taser: from January 2001 through December
2003. 52 During this period, the department recorded 428 taser applications. The SPD
reported that tasers were used in a “wide variety of incidents”, with “violent crimes and
drug/alcohol incidents” together comprising nearly 40% of the situations in which tasers have
been used. In only 23% of cases were the taser subjects armed, mostly with knives. Nearly
two-thirds of taser subjects (65%) were impaired, often severely, by alcohol, drugs or a
mental illness or delusion. The reports cite instances in which lives were saved through
police use of tasers against armed, mentally impaired, individuals. In other cases the subjects
51

A 15-member Citizen Review Panel ruled unanimously in January 2004 that use of the taser in this
case, which occurred in September 2003, was within policy and did not constitute excessive force.
52
SDP Special Reports: The M26 Taser, Two Years’ Experience, March 2003; SPD Taser Use 20012003 Key Findings, May 2004.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

20

Excessive and lethal force?

did not appear to have engaged in life-threatening behaviour, but were combative or disturbed.
Some of the incidents appear relatively minor. Interestingly, the proportion of dart
deployments fell in relation to touch stun use over the three-year period. By the end of the
third year, tasers had been deployed in dart projectile mode in 53% of incidents (compared to
56% in 2002 and 60% in 2001) and in touch stun mode in 34% of cases.
According to the above data, in 14% of cases tasers were deployed against subjects
aged 20 or younger, and included at least one minor. This was a case in which an intoxicated
male was observed near the fraternity houses of a university district, stumbling and walking
into a lamp post. The report’s summary of the case states: “when contacted, the subject
refused to stop or cooperate, became extremely belligerent and verbally abusive, and then
attempted to flee. After several commands to stop, the officer deployed a taser, which gained
the subject’s compliance”. 53
The SPD provided a racial break-down of individuals subjected to tasers through to
May 2004, which showed that 45% of subjects were African American and 42% Caucasian.
In a report published in April 2004, the Office of Professional Accountability Review
Board: OPARB, the police complaints oversight body for the SPD, recommended that “SPD
Taser policy be refined to provide more detailed guidance and training delimiting officer
discretion in light of growing Taser experience”. The recommendation followed a critical
review in the OPARB’s annual report of two complaints involving police taser use. In one
complaint, a young African-American male (described as “a domestic violence assault
suspect”) alleged that he was tasered 14 times – a claim disputed by the officer who said he
had tasered the suspect “only” four times. The OPARB questioned the police finding that the
complaint was “unfounded”, noting that, despite the disparity in testimony, the complainant
was “undisputably tasered multiple times”, an issue which it said raised questions about
appropriate use. The other complaint included a claim that a suspect was tasered
simultaneously by two officers in touch stun mode while lying handcuffed on the ground.
The OPARB criticized the decision of the police department’s Office of Professional
Accountability to exonerate the officers without determining clearly how many times the
complainant (who had photographic evidence of burn marks) had been tasered. 54 The SPD
said it would review the OPARB recommendation and their policy and training.
In September 2004, a 17-year-old teenager zapped with a taser four times on the back
of the neck during a traffic stop received $25,000 in damages in settlement of a claim that
Seattle police used had used excessive force and improper procedures. The incident happened
in July 2003, when the youth, then aged 16, was riding in a car which was pulled over for a
53

SPD Special Report: The M26 Taser, Two Years’ Experience, March 2003
According to the OPARB report, while one officer stated he had used his taser four times on the
complainant, the data retrieval device on the other officer’s taser had been inadvertently “corrupted”
and it was unclear how many times he had pulled the trigger (OPARB 2003 Year End Report, April 30,
2004).
54

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

21

faulty headlight. The police report said he appeared to make furtive movements in the back
seat. He was tasered when police searched him outside the car and, according to officers, he
struggled and resisted. His attorney has reported that scars were still visible on the back of his
neck one year later. In agreeing to an out-of-court settlement, the City of Seattle did not
admit wrongdoing on the part of the police, but ordered the officer who had used the taser to
55
receive additional training.

Kansas City, Missouri
In June 2004, a Kansas City police officer electro-shocked an unarmed 66-year-old African
American woman in her home, as she resisted being issued with a ticket for honking her car
horn at police. The incident started when Louise Jones honked her horn while parking behind
a police car. The police officers, who were responding to an unrelated disturbance in the street,
returned to Ms Jones’ house and tried to issue her with a ticket for unlawful use of her horn.
She protested and a tussle ensued, during which an officer shocked her twice with his taser.
Kansas City Police Department’s policy, introduced in April 2004, allowed officers to
use tasers on subjects who displayed “passive resistance”: people who refuse to follow police
instructions but do not physically resist an officer. Following publicity about the Louise Jones
case, the department set up a task force to review its taser policy. It also raised the threshold
for when police could deploy tasers, allowing their use only against those engaging in some
form of “active resistance”. Two officers involved in the Louise Jones incident were later
reported to have been disciplined in the case, although the type of disciplinary action was not
made public.
The Task Force issued preliminary recommendations to the Kansas City Police
Department in September 2004, stating that officers could keep tasers but the department
should continually evaluate their use and conduct an independent study into their safety.

Cases reflect wider pattern
Amnesty International considers that using powerful electro-shock technology against unruly
children; disturbed, intoxicated but non-dangerous individuals; and people who are noncompliant but who do not pose a probable threat of serious injury to themselves or others, is
an excessive use of force which may also constitute torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment.
There are no national standards on police use of tasers and practice varies between
departments, and even (as shown above) within states. However, it appears that many of the
situations described above are not confined to a few departments but reflect a wider pattern
across the USA. Reports suggest that tasers are commonly used to secure compliance in
routine arrest and non-life-threatening situations.

55

Information from the Seattle Times, 21 September 2004

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

22

Excessive and lethal force?

A statistical analysis of 2,050 taser field applications across the USA, produced for
Taser International in November 2002, for example, showed that in 79.6% of cases the
suspects were unarmed; of the other cases, 15.6% had an “edged weapon” and 4.8% a firearm;
in 4.9% of cases the “suspect weapon” category was “blunt force”. An analysis of the
“suspect force level” in which a taser was deployed gave the most common category (37% of
cases) as “verbal non-compliance”. This was followed by “active aggression” in 32.6% of
cases; “defensive resistance” in 27.7% of cases and “deadly assault” in only 2.7% of cases. 56
The survey also provided a “call-out” analysis (the type of incident to which police
had responded) which listed 29.8% of cases as “violent” and 27.5% as “resisting arrest”. The
other categories were “suicide”14.7%; “civil disturbance”11.9%; “Barricade” 5.8%; “serve
warrant” 5.6% and “officer assault” 4.7%57

1. 5 Children
Several of the cases described above involve use of electro-shock weapons against unarmed
children, including use of a taser against a child in school and another in a public library.
Amnesty International considers that the use of electro-shock weapons against recalcitrant or
disturbed children is an inherently excessive and cruel use of force, contrary to international
standards recognizing that children are entitled to special care and protection.58
While no national statistics are available, such cases may not be isolated. Amnesty
International has received reports of tasers being used by police in schools to break up fights
or when dealing with other incidents. In some cases, police reportedly fired their tasers when
juveniles walked or ran away from officers. A review of cases published by a California
newspaper found that few police agencies in Northern California had any minimum age
restrictions on use of tasers, a situation that may be similar in other jurisdictions.59
According to the field study statistics cited above, 7.69% or 148 of the 2050 taser
applications involved people aged from 12 to 18, although no breakdown was given of
56

Advanced Taser M26 Field Report Analysis, Taser International, November 2002. Amnesty
International has also received a copy of a later analysis prepared for Taser International of 2,690 taser
field uses, dated May 2003, in which 83% of cases the suspect was unarmed, with the remaining
percentages broadly similar to the figures given in the November 2002 report.
57
Amnesty International recognizes that this breakdown may not provide a complete picture of which
incidents involved some form of violent or threatening behaviour, as these were the initial call-out
categories.
58
Such standards include the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed but not ratified by the
USA. As a signatory to the treaty, the US is bound not to do anything to undermine the object and
purpose of the treaty. The treaty further enshrines the right of those under 18 to protection “from all
forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse ...”. A child is defined under international
standards as a person under 18.
59
Concerns arise over dangers youths face being zapped by San Jose police; “Chief defends officers’
practices”, Mercury News, 16 September 2004
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

23

children under 18. A later analysis of 2,690 taser field uses shows 183 applications (7.4%)
involving children aged 10 to 18.60 Taser International has informed Amnesty International
that it has records of four children under ten who were subjected to police tasers: one sevenyear-old, one eight-year-old and two nine-year-olds, two of whom it says were armed with
knives and one with a machete. However, there may be other cases.61
Most of the children whose cases are described above were involved in relatively
minor incidents for which other measures could have been taken to de-escalate the situation.
While one child (the schoolgirl tasered in Putnam County, Florida) had a reported history of
disturbed or assaultive behaviour, children suffering from mental health or behavioural
problems are more appropriately dealt with by health professionals trained in control, restraint
and other techniques to deal with potentially violent situations. Rather than helping to control
a child’s behaviour, the infliction of electro-shocks is liable to increase mental stress and
suffering as well as causing physical pain.
Disturbing cases continue to be reported. In May 2004 a police officer from South
Tuscon, Arizona, used a taser on a nine-year-old girl who was a runaway from a residential
home for severely emotionally disturbed children. According to reports, the child was already
handcuffed with her hands behind her back and sitting in the back of a police car when the
taser was used as an officer struggled to put her into nylon leg-restraints. The officer is
reported as saying that the girl was “screaming, kicking and flailing, and would not listen”.
Reportedly, the officer had requested the taser because he was aware of the girl’s combative
behaviour from past incidents. Fred Chaffee, president and chief executive of the children’s
home, was quoted as saying that a lot of children from the home “no matter what they’re
diagnosed with, have poor self esteem, poor impulse control and poor judgment, a learnt set
of behaviours that aren’t terribly socially acceptable”. 62 The officer in the case was cleared
of criminal wrongdoing but faced an administrative review at the time of writing.
There are also several reported cases in the USA in which parents have disciplined
their children with legally available stun guns: such incidents have been characterised as child
abuse and sanctions taken against the parents. For example, in May 2003, in Texas, Theodore
Moody was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on conviction of injuring and endangering
a child, for having repeatedly jolted his eight-year-old stepson with a stun gun to hurry him
along to school. Reminiscent of arguments used for adopting stun weapons in law
enforcement, both parents reportedly told officers that they did not consider stun gun jolts
60

Analysis produced for Taser International, dated May 2003, cited at note 47, above.
As noted earlier, Taser International has estimated that it receives only about a tenth of all reports of
taser use from police. An article in the Arizona Daily Star on 26 May 2004 reported that ten children
under 10, nine aged from one to six years, had been hit by tasers, some inadvertently. The information
was reportedly based on a print-out received from Taser International. Taser International told Amnesty
International that the statistics cited were inaccurate and that the data had been misinterpreted (five
uses, it said, were of animals). Amnesty International has not seen the print-out in question and at the
time of writing was seeking further clarification from Taser International.
62
Associated Press, 1 June 2004
61

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

24

Excessive and lethal force?

harsh punishment, noting that they left fewer injuries than other forms of discipline such as
the “strap”. 63 In June 2003, a woman was arrested in Florida for placing a stun gun near to
the ear of her 13-year-old daughter to frighten her for disobeying an order not to use a
computer.64 While US law enforcement policies specifically prohibit using instruments of
restraint as punishment, the distinction can become blurred when stun weapons are used as a
“compliance” or “control” tool.

1. 6 Tasers used against people already restrained or in
custody.
While dart-firing tasers are promoted primarily as incapacitating, “stand-off,” weapons which
can stop an attacker from a distance, there are reports of people being stunned or threatened
with repeated cycles of electro-shocks while already restrained and under police control.
Amnesty International considers that using 50,000 volts of electro-shock against people who
are restrained and pose no serious threat, is an excessive use of force, amounting in some
cases to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The capacity to inflict repeated and
extended shocks65 at the push of a trigger makes the taser open to abuse in both dart and stun
gun mode.
In some cases, individuals have been shot with taser darts, then threatened or stunned
with repeated jolts of electricity while the darts remain in place during transportation or
custody. For example:
•

A handcuffed man tasered during his arrest, who still had the barbs attached, was
stunned three more times by police officers for not cooperating when being walked to
a police car to be taken to hospital, and for yelling and lifting his foot in the police car.
While he was on a gurney (stretcher) in the hospital, an officer shocked him two more
times “until he settled down”. (Pueblo Police Department, Colorado)66

•

An intoxicated man, arrested at a residence after complaints of loud noise, refused to
allow police to attend to a cut on his eye and was taken out of the house in handcuffs
and leg restraints. He was placed on a gurney to be taken to hospital. When he
resisted having his hands tied to the gurney, an officer shot him in the chest with a
taser. After going limp, the man again began to “thrash about” on the gurney and the
officer “pulled the trigger for another five seconds”. After the man became compliant
and was placed in the ambulance, the officer handed his taser to one of the

63

Houston Chronicle 26 September 2002
St Petersburg Times, 11 June 2003
65
As described above (1.2), the electrical charge can continue beyond the default five seconds, for as
long as the officer’s finger remains depressed on the trigger.
66
According to a report in the Denver Post on 20 September 2004, a third of the 112 people tasered by
Pueblo police since January 2003 were handcuffed.
64

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

25

transporting officers “in case she needed to use it again”. When the officer went to
retrieve the taser later, the transporting officer told him that “she had to use the Taser
for one five-second cycle while on the way to hospital because J again became
resistive”. The suspect was in full restraints at the time. 67 (Lakeland Police
Department, Colorado)
In some US jurisdictions, high security prisoners are made to wear electro-shock stun
belts during transportation, hospital visits or court hearings. Amnesty International has
condemned such devices as inherently cruel and degrading because the wearer is under
constant fear of being subjected to an electro-shock at the push of a remote control button by
officers for the whole time the belt is worn. 68 A similar concern arises in cases such as those
described above, where individuals in custody are under threat of repeated cycles of electroshock at the pull of a trigger for as long as the barbs remain attached.
1. 6 (i) Tasers used as stun guns
While tasers appear to be used most often as dart-firing weapons, in a significant proportion
of cases they are used close-up as stun guns. The statistical analysis of taser use, cited above,
showed that just over 18% of taser applications were in stun mode. 69 Some departments have
reported a higher percentage. For example, in Seattle, from January through December 2002,
tasers were used as stun guns in 32% of cases, and both darts and stun guns were used in 12%
of cases; stun gun use rose to 34% of cases in 2003.70 In Oklahoma City, in 2003, nearly a
third of all taser strikes against suspects were in touch stun mode.71 In Portland, Oregon, 43%
of taser use was reportedly in touch stun mode. 72
A Taser International training manual states that the M26 can function in stun mode
after the probes have been fired, as a back-up weapon. The training manual also states that, if
used only in touch stun mode, the taser becomes a “pain compliance” tool and officers are
instructed to apply it “aggressively” to sensitive areas, including the neck and groin. 73
Company representatives have told Amnesty International that the primary intent of the stun
gun mode is to act as a back-up to the dart-firing function, in case the darts fail to hit their
target or become dislodged when the target remains a threat and there is no back-up team or
time to reload the cartridge. This is reportedly the only way in which they are permitted to be
deployed in the UK. However, it appears that some US agencies frequently deploy tasers in
stun gun mode, without using them primarily as a back-up to dart failure in stand-off
situations.
67

Police incident report
See United States of America: Cruelty in Control? The stun belt and other electro-shock equipment
in law enforcement (AI Index: AMR 51/054/1999)
69
Advanced Taser M26 Field Report Analysis, op cit.
70
Seattle Police Department Taser Use 2001-2003, Key Findings, May 2004
71
The Oklahoman, 6 July 2004
72
Willamette Weekly, op. cit.
73
Taser International Certified Lesson Plan, op cit.
68

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

26

Excessive and lethal force?

Tasers in stun gun mode are particularly easy to use because there is no need to load
or reload a cartridge. Their use may be less easy to monitor than the dart-firing function,
especially if, as has been reported, the in-built memory chip fails or is not regularly
downloaded (see safeguards).74 As they are applied through touch stunning the subject’s skin
or clothing, they tend to be used against individuals who are already in custody or under
police control in some way. Amnesty International believes that these factors, together with
the capacity to inflict severe pain to sensitive areas of the body, make the stun gun
particularly open to abuse. Tasers in stun gun mode have been used to shock or threaten
individuals restrained in police cars, hospitals and in local jails. In some instances they appear
to have been used to punish prisoners for non-compliance or for simply yelling or “mouthing
off” at officers.
Amnesty International is disturbed to note that some departments consider stun guns
to constitute a low level of force, on a par with other “pain compliance” techniques such as
wrist locks and control holds. There are reports of stun guns being used for minor resistant
behaviour, such as prodding someone into a police car, or for getting individuals to comply
more quickly while being booked into jail.
The Colorado ACLU has reported on several cases in which individuals were touch
stunned while already restrained. Some of the details are confirmed in police reports seen by
Amnesty International.
•

a man was shocked in the genitals for continuing to resist while he was handcuffed
and sitting in the back of a police car. The officer admitted to applying a “drive stun
to the groin”. (Westminster Police Department, Colorado)

•

Police responded to a report of a possible overdose and took an apparently intoxicated
and possibly suicidal man to hospital. A police officer applied a taser to the man
while he was restrained on a hospital bed, screaming for his wife. According to the
police report, “Officer Furney repeatedly told Andre to be quiet and when he did not
comply placed the Taser against Andre’s chest and tased him once”. (Pueblo Police
Department)

•

A prisoner was strapped into a restraint chair for three hours for yelling and mouthing
off. According to the ACLU “Officers periodically approached the prisoner, held a
stun gun to his chest, and threatened to shock him. The prisoner has an enlarged heart
and may be particularly vulnerable to adverse effects from electroshock weapons”. 75
(Broomfield Detention Center, Colorado)

Similar cases have been reported elsewhere. In Baytown, Texas, a man who had
reportedly suffered from two epileptic seizures was touch stunned in an ambulance when,
confused and disoriented, he resisted while being strapped onto a stretcher (see 1.7,
below). In Minneapolis, Minnesota, an unresponsive, ill man, who was handcuffed behind
74

The cartridge also releases confetti-like identification tags when fired (see Safeguards below).
Letter from Mark Silverstein, Legal Director, ACLU of Colorado, to Denver Mayor’s Task Force on
police, 15 March 2004.

75

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

27

his back, was touch stunned twice in the back as police tried to lift him into the back of a
police car. The man never regained consciousness and subsequently died (see case of
Walter C Burks, under 2.6. below).
Some people have been hit with taser darts and then jolted with stun guns while being
taken under arrest, as illustrated by the case of Mark Dontae, who was struck ten times
with a stun gun as he lay on the ground being handcuffed by police officers (see Oregon
cases, above). Most of the 25 people shocked by Portland police while in handcuffs had
the taser applied in “touch stun mode”. 76

1. 6 (ii) Jails and custody facilities
Although there are no national statistics on the number of custody facilities which currently
deploy stun weapons, according to Taser International at least 1,000 US jails and prisons have
adopted the new generation M26 or X26 Tasers, where they are deployed in both dart
projectile and stun mode. They join an array of other electro-shock devices, including stun
belts, stun shields and stun guns, used for some years in various US custody facilities. While
in some facilities stun weapons are deployed only in response to specific incidents (such as
disturbances, or movement of high-risk prisoners) in others they are more widely deployed.
Amnesty International is concerned by reports that tasers have been used to gain compliance
in the case of emotionally disturbed, intoxicated or uncooperative individuals in the booking
section of jails. One inmate was reportedly shocked for clenching his fist instead of opening
the palm to be fingerprinted; another for refusing to provide a blood sample. Other cases
include

76

•

An inmate of Creek County Jail, Colorado, was tasered with escalating jolts of
electricity when he refused to pick up a food tray he had thrown onto his cell floor.
The inmate was not combative in any way and the taser appears to have been used to
punish him for repeatedly ignoring an order. According to the jail incident report,
after throwing his food tray onto the floor, he was asked to step out of his cell and
told “he would be tazed (sic) if he would not comply”. He came out of the cell, as
instructed, and sat on a bench. When he ignored orders to go back into the cell to pick
up his food tray, he was shot with a taser and subjected to three separate two-to-three
second cycles of electricity before a “full five second burst” was applied.

•

James Borden, a mentally disturbed man arrested for a parole violation, died in
November 2003 after being shocked at least six times with an M26 Taser for being
“uncooperative” while he was being booked into Monroe County Jail, Indiana. He
was reportedly face-down on the floor with his hands cuffed behind his back when a
custody officer applied the shocks. A statement released by the county Sheriff’s
office after the incident said “standard procedures by trained officers to control
combative or uncooperative individuals” had been used. However, a jail officer was

Willamette Week report, op cit

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

28

Excessive and lethal force?

later charged with battery in the case, after a judge found that Borden, while
uncooperative, had not engaged in threatening or violent behaviour. (see Section 2 for
further details of the case).
•

During 2003, nearly a dozen inmates of Greene County Jail, Missouri, were allegedly
threatened or abused with tasers for failing to comply with orders. They include a
woman allegedly tasered for failing to remove an eyebrow ring while being booked
into the jail; and a distraught woman tasered when she failed to quieten down. (See
lawsuits, below). More recent allegations from the jail include disturbed inmates
being shocked with tasers while strapped down on restraining beds.

Reports of abusive use of electro-shock weapons in US jails and correctional facilities
are not new. Amnesty International and others have in the past reported on cases of prisoners
being tortured or ill-treated with stun guns, stun shields and stun belts.77 In some cases abuses
have been linked to guards routinely carrying such devices.
For example, in 1994 in Maricopa County, Arizona, most jail custody staff were
equipped with Nova 500 stun guns as part of a pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of
non-lethal weapons. A federal Justice Department investigation subsequently found a serious
problem of excessive force in the Maricopa County jails, including misuse of stun guns,
which they attributed, in part, to the “easy availability of these weapons.” 78 The Justice
Department’s report noted with concern that stun guns were used to gain compliance from
passively resisting inmates or against prisoners who were already restrained. Amnesty
International also reported on similar complaints. 79 The Justice Department’s expert
consultant found that part of the problem was due to a change in jail policy to permit stun
guns to be used against inmates engaging in “passive resistance” as a “preferred alternative to
hands-on force”. He believed this policy, which was in place for two years until changed in
1997, to be “the primary contributor to Detention Staff using these ‘tools’ in ways and under
conditions that could well be, and have been, defined as ‘excessive force’.” 80 In order to
avoid a federal lawsuit, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office agreed to implement a more
restrictive use of force policy which stated that “neither passive nor active resistance” alone

77

See, for example, Amnesty International reports USA: Cruelty in Control? The Stun Belt and other
Electro-shock equipment in Law Enforcement (AI Index AMR 51/54/99); USA: Cruel and inhuman
treatment in Virginia supermaximum security prisons (AMR 51/065/2001); USA: A briefing for the UN
Committee against Torture (AMR 51/56/00); Combating Torture: a manual for action (Amnesty
International Publications 2003, pp 35-36).
78
US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, letter to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, 25
March 1996.
79
See Amnesty International Report USA: Ill-treatment of inmates in Maricopa County Jails, Arizona
(AMR 51/51/97).
80
Report of Corrections Consultant on the Use of Force in the Marricopa County Jails, Phoenix,
Arizona, prepared by George E Sullivan, Salem, Oregon May 14, 1997.
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

29

were sufficient to justify use of non-lethal weapons such as Electronic Restraint Devices (stun
guns) and prohibited their use “solely to gain compliance”.81
In Virginia, routine deployment by guards of stun weapons in Wallens Ridge and Red
Onion supermaximum security prisons led to widespread allegations of prisoner abuse
between 1999 and 2001, including use of stun guns on inmates as punishment for minor acts
of non-compliance. Several lawsuits were filed against the department for excessive force and
in May 2001 the Ultron 11 stun gun was suspended for use in Virginia prisons, following an
autopsy report questioning the device’s role in the death of a prisoner.82
Amnesty International is concerned that, despite the experience in Virginia and the
Justice Department’s findings in Maricopa County, use of electro-shock weapons as a routine
force tool appears to be on the increase as thousands of officers – in jails and on the streets –
are issued with new, advanced tasers. The organization believes that this may similarly
increase the potential for abuse of such weapons.

1. 7. Lawsuits for excessive force or ill-treatment
Tasers have been promoted as reducing liability against police departments for excessive
force, on the grounds that they are less likely to cause injury than other more dangerous or
lethal weapons. However, Amnesty International is aware of a number of lawsuits in which
individuals claim to have sustained serious injury or trauma as a result of being tasered, in
some cases in grossly inappropriate circumstances. In several cases, the officers’ actions
appear to have resulted from a lack of clear guidelines or training on the risks involved in
using tasers in certain situations. In other cases, the alleged actions appear to amount to
deliberate ill-treatment. Substantial damages have been awarded in several cases. Cases
include the following:

Arizona: tasered man falls from tree

An $8m claim was filed against the City of Mesa Police Department, Arizona, in the case of
Bruce Bellemore, after he was allegedly left paralyzed in February 2004 when a police officer
fired a taser at him as he stood in a tree. The shocks from the taser caused him to fall out of
the tree onto his head. Bruce Bellemore was an unarmed suspect who had run from a house
into a neighbouring garden, where he climbed the tree in order to escape from four guard dogs.
At the time he was shot, he was already surrounded by four police officers, one of whom was
pointing a gun at him, with the other three pointing tasers. Bruce Bellemore claims he told
officers he was having difficulty climbing from the tree due to an injured wrist. Despite this, it
is alleged, the fourth officer shot him once with a taser some 20 seconds after arriving on the
scene and fired a second taser shot some 15-20 seconds later while Bellemore was
81

United States of America v County of Maricopa et al, US District Court for the District of Arizona,
Proposed Order 18 November 1997.
82
Autopsy report in case of Lawrence Frazier, see below, under 2.7.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

30

Excessive and lethal force?

convulsing from the first shot. The whole incident, from the time of the arrival of the first
officer on the scene, to the time police called paramedics after Bellemore was on the ground,
reportedly lasted no more than three and a half minutes. In a letter to the city authorities,
Amnesty International said that use of the taser in the case appeared to constitute a grossly
excessive use of force, amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Amnesty
International also expressed concern at the speed at which the officer resorted to the taser,
contrary to standards which require that force be used only as a last resort after non-violent
measures have been exhausted, and in a manner designed to minimize damage and injury.
Bellemore’s lawyer told Amnesty International that he was concerned that there
appeared to be no specific warnings or guidelines in police training manuals he had seen
about the inherent risks involved in firing tasers at someone in a dangerously elevated
position. An investigation into the incident by the Maricopa County Attorney’s office
concluded in July 2004 that the officer involved “did not commit any acts that warrant
criminal prosecution”. The incident was reportedly under police administrative review at the
time of writing. 83

California: pregnant woman loses baby.

The City of Chula Vista, California, recently paid $675,000 to settle a damages claim in the
case of Cindy Grippi, a woman, six-months’ pregnant, who lost the baby she was carrying
after she was shot with a taser. The incident occurred in December 2001 when Cindy Grippi
reportedly went to enter her house against instructions of police officers during a domestic
dispute involving her violent husband. According to her lawyer, she was not engaged in
criminal or disruptive behaviour of any kind and no-one was fighting or arguing when police
arrived. A police officer reportedly shot her in the back with a Taser as she was walking away
from him, some ten seconds after he had got out of his car. She fell belly-down onto the
concrete driveway and says she felt a sharp pain in her abdomen as the taser struck her. She
was taken to hospital, where a check-up reportedly registered foetal heartbeats and she was
discharged. However, some 12 hours later, she was diagnosed with a foetal demise. She
underwent delivery of a stillborn child two days later.
According to the initial autopsy report, the 26-week-old female foetus was of normal
gestational weight with no evidence of natural disease or trauma. The Medical Examiner
could not find a cause of death, but suggested it might be linked with the mother’s
methamphetamine use. Two experts consulted by Cindy Grippi’s attorney reached a different
opinion, both finding the most likely cause of the foetal demise to be the electro-shock. One, a
perinatalist, suggested that the foetal movement detected, after some difficulty, in the
Emergency Room may in fact have been the mother’s heart-beat. 84 Cindy Grippi had
reportedly experienced a normal pregnancy, with regular check-ups and foetal movement up
83

The City of Mesa authorities informed Amnesty International that, following the decision not to
prosecute the officer, the case would be reviewed by a Mesa Police Department Board of Inquiry to
review the incident for possible violations of its policies and procedures.
84
Information provided through conversations with Cindy Grippi’s lawyer. Amnesty International was
unable to obtain the transcripts of the expert testimony.
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

31

until the time she was tasered. The mother reported that there was no foetal activity
beginning from the time of the taser incident. Furthermore, she had reportedly not taken any
drugs during the seven days prior to being exposed to the taser.
The Medical Examiner’s report was reviewed by an independent pathologist for
Amnesty International, who noted that foetal movement some two hours after the taser
incident would appear to suggest no clear link with the taser. However, she also raised a
question as to whether the foetal heart tones really had been detected by the Emergency Room,
and wondered whether Grippi had been thoroughly examined, given her claim of lack of
foetal movement. 85
Training manuals on taser use state that they are not advised for pregnant women,
mainly because of the risk of trauma to the foetus from the mother falling. Otherwise, the
company claims that there is no evidence that the electro-shock from a taser could damage an
unborn child. However, Amnesty International is concerned by the absence of thorough,
independent research into the medical effects of tasers and other electro-shock weapons on
pregnant women. One past study has suggested an association between between electrical
injury from a taser and miscarriage during pregnancy (see 2.7. below).
The officers in Gindy Grippi’s case reportedly claimed that they were unaware that
she was pregnant at the time the taser was deployed, although Cindy Grippi’s relatives have
stated that they shouted out that she was pregnant. If the officers’ claims are true, this
demonstrates a risk of tasers being deployed unwittingly against vulnerable subjects – a risk
that could increase if tasers continue to be used as a routine force tool.
Illinois: Pregnant woman sues police
In September 2004, a lawsuit was filed against police from Evergreen Park Police Department,
Illinois, by Clarence Phelps and his pregnant daughter, Romona Madison, alleging that they
were tasered and subjected to excessive force outside their home. The incident took place on
18 September 2004 at the daughter’s wedding reception, when police arrived in response to a
complaint about loud music and people dancing in the driveway. According to police
accounts reported in the media, Phelps was uncooperative, refusing to produce identification,
and was stunned with the taser after he allegedly pushed two officers. The police claimed
Madison struck and shoved several officers and ran into the house. She was discovered hiding
in a clothes cupboard and, after being warned, was shot twice in the abdomen with a taser
when she refused to come out. Lawyers for the family claim that neither Phelps nor Madison
had fought with officers and that Madison was followed into the house by overzealous
officers who tasered her despite being told by several guests that she was two months
pregnant. Madison was taken to a police station and released the same night, after being
charged in connection with the incident. She received no medical attention while in police
custody, apart from having taser darts removed by paramedics. She went to a hospital
85

Report to Amnesty International by Sidsel Rogde MD, PhD, Professor of Forensic Medicine,
University of Oslo, Norway.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

32

Excessive and lethal force?

immediately on her release and, according to her lawyer, was told her baby’s vital signs were
weak. Her situation was still being monitored at the time of writing.

Portland, Oregon: elderly, bind woman paid damages

In April 2003, the City of Portland, Oregon, agreed to pay $145,000 to 71-year-old Eunice
Crowder in an out-of-court settlement of an excessive force claim. The claim arose from an
incident in June 2003 in which City employees arrived at her home with a warrant to remove
rubbish and debris from her yard. Police were called when Ms Crowder, who was blind and
hard of hearing, failed to follow orders not to enter a trailer where items from her premises
were being placed. The lawsuit claimed that two officers struck Ms Crowder in the head with
a taser, dislodging her prosthetic right eye from its socket. It also claimed that she was tasered
in the back and on the breast as she lay on the ground.
In legal briefs filed by the City, police reportedly acknowledged that Ms Crowder was
“pushed onto the dirt next to the sidewalk” when she ignored their orders not to enter the
trailer. The police also reportedly admitted that Ms Crowder’s eye became dislodged; that
they pepper-sprayed her (when she reportedly refused to stop kicking them) and stunned her
three times with a Taser (twice in the lower back and once in the upper back). The City
argued that the officers’ actions were “lawful, justified and privileged” and that they used a
“reasonable amount of force to defend themselves”. 86 Nevertheless, City commissioners
voted to approve the settlement rather than defend the case in court. The case is believed to
have been one factor in a decision by the Portland Police Department to review its policies
and impose restrictions on use of the Taser in the case of vulnerable people such as the elderly,
children and pregnant women (see above).

Texas: disabled woman one of several to sue Baytown police

Several lawsuits have been filed against officers from the Baytown Police Department, Texas,
for alleged abusive use of Tasers. Naomi Autin, a 59-year-old disabled Latina woman, was
reportedly tasered three times by police officer Micah Aldred in July 2003 for banging on her
brother’s door with a brick. According to a lawsuit filed by Autin, she had gone to her
brother’s house to collect mail while he was away, and became worried after failing to get an
answer from the house-sitter and seeing a truck parked in the driveway. She called the police
and officer Aldred arrived on the scene. Autin, who is 5 feet 2 inches tall and suffers from
severe arthritis, was allegedly tasered in the back by Aldred after she continued to try to gain
entry to the house; the officer also allegedly threw her against a post, causing a severe cut to
her head. A grand jury indicted the officer on charges of using excessive force, but he was
acquitted at trial. Reportedly, police officers corroborated his account that the use of force
was justified. Amnesty International understands that no disciplinary action has been taken
against the officer.

86

City Pays Excessive Force Claim, OregonLive.com 23 April 2004

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

33

The same officer is a defendant in another lawsuit in which an unarmed woman
wanted on an outstanding arrest warrant was allegedly “shocked numerous times about the
back, face, neck, shoulders and groin”.87
A lawsuit is pending against another Baytown officer for alleged excessive force
during an incident in July 2003, in which the officer used a taser as a stun gun on a man who
had just suffered epileptic seizures. The officer reportedly stunned 30-year-old Robert Stanley
Jr at close range in an ambulance as medical personnel struggled to strap him down as he
struggled in the throes of post-seizure confusion. An Internal Affairs investigation into the
incident found that the officer had not violated any policies, and a grand jury investigation
reportedly supported police accounts that Stanley had been sufficiently combative to warrant
use of the taser.88

Washington: immigrant woman tasered in front of sons

A lawsuit has also been filed in the case of Olga Rybak, a 5 feet 4 inches tall Russian
immigrant woman who was tasered multiple times by an officer from the Washougal Police
Department, Washington, in August 2003, after she refused to sign a citation for a dog
violation. The officer had gone to her house with the citation after her dog had bitten an
officer the previous day. Rybak, who spoke little English, at first refused to sign it, asking for
a translator. While attempting to arrest her, the officer shocked her at least 12 times in 91
seconds in front of her two young sons – first using the weapon as a stun gun, then stepping
back to insert a cartridge and twice firing darts at Rybak who was writhing around on the
front porch. When the boys (aged 11 and 12) tried to help their mother, the officer reportedly
threatened to taser them as well. Rybak’s attorney has informed Amnesty International that
the boys have been receiving psychiatric treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a
result of the incident.
According to the attorney, the shocks caused extreme pain and left 27 red burn marks
on Olga Rybak’s body. The officer who used the taser (who was a taser Training Officer for
the department) did not record the number of jolts in his report. The taser chip was tested only
after photos of Ms Rybak’s injuries were presented, and this recorded that the taser had been
discharged 12 times during the incident.89 In April 2004, Washougal’s police chief, Robert D
Garwood, reported that the officer had been demoted for using “poor judgement” in the case

87

Aldred was also one of five officers involved in the arrest and death of Luis Torres, a migrant worker
from Mexico, in January 2002. A medical examiner ruled Torres’ death a homicide during a police
struggle, caused by compression of his airways. However, Aldred and others were cleared of using
excessive force in the case.
88
Source: attorney for plaintiff; Houston Chronicle, 27 October 2003
89
There remains some discrepancy between the injuries and the taser strikes recorded, unless the
probes jumped around as they were fired into her body. However, it is clear from the record that the
trigger was pulled (in dart and stun mode) at least 12 times.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

34

Excessive and lethal force?

even though he had acted “within proper legal boundaries”.
department would review its policy on taser use.90

Garwood said that the

Greene county jail, Missouri

A federal lawsuit was filed in February 2004 against the Sheriff and officers of Greene
County Jail, Missouri, alleging a pattern of serious ill-treatment of jail inmates, including
abusive use of tasers. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of 11 former inmates, most in
temporary custody pending the posting of bail. The allegations of abuse ranged from physical
brutality and excessive force to acts of humiliation, including guards forcing female inmates
to take off their clothes in the presence of male staff and exposing them to the gaze and
ridicule of guards and male prisoners. They include the following accounts from the alleged
victims:
•

An African American woman was asked to remove her jewellery on being booked
into the jail in June 2003. She removed everything except an eyebrow ring, which
was difficult to remove. When she asked for a mirror she was allegedly sprayed in the
face with pepper spray and, when she put her hands up to protect her face, was shot
with a taser, causing her to fall to the ground and lose control of her bladder. While
on the ground, a male officer forcibly removed her eyebrow ring with pliers. She was
left in her urine for several hours without being given anything to clean herself with.

•

A man being taken to the “drunk tank” was slammed to the ground face-first. As he
lay on the ground bleeding, a guard allegedly fired a taser gun at him, causing acute
pain, although he was not moving or struggling. He was taken to hospital where he
had stitches to his mouth. On return to the jail, when told he had failed to shampoo
his hair satisfactorily, an officer threatened him with a taser gun, saying “you don’t
want this again”. On his release, the jail tried to get him to sign “reprimand papers”
stating that he was shocked with a taser because he had attempted to run to the jail
entrance; according to the lawsuit, he refused to sign the papers because the facts in it
were not true.

•

A man who said he might be allergic to soap in the shower was threatened with a
taser gun and told to use the soap provided.

•

A man booked into the jail on an outstanding traffic warrant was allegedly assaulted
and subjected to an “overly invasive bodily search” and repeatedly called a “faggot”91.
He was allegedly tasered while he was prostrate and in handcuffs.

•

A woman booked into the jail in March 2003 was placed in a cell by herself in a
distraught condition. A jail employee said he would taser her if she did not be quiet
and calm herself. It is alleged that, while she was attempting to calm down, two
guards entered her cell and one attached two taser clips to her shirt in the chest region;
the other guard then activated the taser gun. According to the lawsuit, she suffered

90

Sources: The Vancouver Columbian, 26 April 2004, citing police reports; Oregonian, 9, 23 April
2004.
91
A term of abuse for gay males
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

35

“severe burns and permanent scars to her chest and stomach” as a result of being
tasered.
•

A woman instructed to strip front of male guards hesitated after removing all her
clothes except her underwear; she was pushed into the shower by a male guard and
saw an officer pointing a taser at her as she emerged from the shower. It looked like a
firearm and she was very scared, begging the officer “don’t do this”. She was given
nothing to dry herself with and she was escorted from the room by male guards while
wearing a small paper garment resembling a “diaper” and forced to walk past male
inmates waiting to be booked into to the jail.

The lawsuit alleges that the complaints formed part of a pattern of abuse and poor training
at the jail. According to Amnesty International’s information, no charges have been filed
against any of the officers involved and they remain on duty at the jail. The lawsuit was still
pending at the time of writing.

1. 8. Safeguards and monitoring of taser use
One of Amnesty International’s concerns is that electro-shock weapons can easily be used to
ill-treat people without leaving substantial visible marks or injury. This can make it difficult
for victims of abuse to obtain redress through complaints or lawsuits: one way of holding
officers or police departments or authorities accountable. It remains essential - all the more so
when deploying techniques that may not leave substantial marks or physical injury - for police
and oversight agencies to ensure there are stringent safeguards in place to prevent abuse.
The new generation M26 or X26 type tasers are promoted as having a number of inbuilt safety features intended to guard against abuse and provide an audit trail to monitor each
taser deployment. When darts are fired, confetti-like identification tabs are ejected which are
printed with the cartridge’s serial number, allowing departments to determine which officer
fired the cartridge. Both the M26 and X26 tasers also have an on-board microchip memory
function which records the date and time of each firing (trigger pull); this applies whether the
taser is used in dart or touch stun mode (although the microchip cannot distinguish which
mode the weapon is in). The data can be downloaded onto a computer which, according to the
company, downloads to text in the case of the M26 but is encrypted in the case of the X26 to
protect the integrity of the data.
The X26 Taser also records the duration and battery strength of each firing. This is
important safeguard in monitoring how much force has been applied because, as shown above,
the cycle of electricity can be prolonged beyond the five-second automatic discharge and can
continue for as long as the operator’s finger remains depressed on the trigger (reportedly, until
the battery runs out). Officers may also cut off the flow of electricity before the standard fivesecond burst by switching the safety switch. However, the ability to record the duration of
each firing is not contained in the M26 Taser, which remains widely used (possibly by a
majority of US police agencies).

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

36

Excessive and lethal force?

When asked by Amnesty International if there was a cut-off point for the duration of
the cycle, Taser International replied that “there is no automatic cut-off” and “Given that
these devices may be used in life-threatening situations, we believe it would be dangerous to
build in an automatic weapon failure point”, adding that “This is an area where we must rely
upon the professional judgment and training of the officer”. 92 However, Amnesty
International is concerned that the ability to inflict prolonged electro-shocks increases the
weapon’s potential for abuse, particularly in the case of the M26.93 The fact that, in practice,
tasers are used in a wide range of non life-threatening situations adds to the organization’s
concern. According to the testimony of a police taser training officer in one department,
officers were trained to use the taser “as many times as it takes to gain compliance.”94
The microchip function provides an important tool of accountability, especially in the
case of the X26. However, it is not failsafe. In certain instances a “corruption” may occur
during the firing cycle which prevents the software from recording the firing record, and the
internal clock may not always be set accurately. 95 Amnesty International was told that the
clock has to be re-set whenever the device is stored without batteries. Most importantly, such
safeguards need to be backed-up by monitoring and regular downloading of information, as
well as detailed use-of-force reports filed by all officers at the scene. There are a number of
concerns about the adequacy of safeguards and monitoring of taser use in practice, including
the following
•

While most departments require officers to fill out a written use-of-force report
whenever they fire their tasers, sources have reported that not all departments
automatically download the microchip data to match against the police reports (to
check, for example, how many times the charge was triggered). It is also unclear how
many departments regularly download the microchip data for general monitoring
purposes. The organization believes it is essential that all relevant data on taser use
be regularly reviewed and analysed.

•

The quality of information provided in police reports varies. It appears that not all
departments, for example, explicitly require officers to record when tasers are drawn

92

email from Rick Smith, Taser International, 7 October 2004
There is no maximum cycle and the duration of the charge could last until the battery is depleted,
which Amnesty International has been told could, in theory, be just over four minutes, although no
such instance has been recorded.
94
Testimony of a Las Vegas Metropolital Police Department taser training officer at the inquest of
William Lomax, 25 June 2004 (see under Deaths in Custody, below).
95
Amnesty International has seen several cases in which officers’ reports on the number of trigger pulls
are inconsistent or contradict witness statements. In one case, the record could not be verified as the
data on the officer’s unit had become “corrupted”; a police review board quotes an instructor as stating
that such data corruption is “not unusual” due to inability to insulate the data retrieval instrument from
the high voltage components of the device (Seattle Office of Professional Accountability Review Board
Annual Report 2003). This is listed as a potential occurrence in Taser International’s website which
states that “there is no correction available for this problem” but that “new data will be recorded
normally”. In another case, the various clocks involved failed to record the time sequences accurately
due to inaccurate settings (see ref to Glenn Leyba death in custody case, Glendale, Colorado, below).
93

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

37

and displayed, when not fired. According to Taser International’s website, it is quite
common for officers to “spark” their tasers or direct the laser beam at someone to
secure compliance without actually firing the weapon. As this is a significant threat of
force, such incidents should be recorded on the use-of-force form so that the
appropriateness of the force level can be reviewed. All police officers should also be
required to record every trigger pull; this has not always happened, according to
reports Amnesty International has seen.
•

Because often they do not leave substantial marks or injuries, police taser use may not
be subjected to the same levels of scrutiny as weapons such as batons or flashlights
which trigger investigations when injuries result. Tasers receive far less scrutiny than
police firearms use, where incidents are usually reviewed at a higher level within the
department (such as a Firearms Review Board) as well as by outside review bodies.

•

There is little public scrutiny of taser use either nationally or within police
departments. Police use-of-force reports are generally not made public and most
police departments have not released detailed public reports about their taser use to
date. Amnesty International believes it is essential for police departments and
authorities to provide detailed, public reporting on use of electro-shock weapons
given their capacity for misuse. Public concern about reports of inappropriate use
have led some departments to review their policies (see Portland, Oregon, for
example).

•

There are no national standards and no official statutory, national, reporting system
on taser use, or any independent mechanism for collecting and evaluating field data.
While Taser International maintains its own database of use, the company estimates
that only one in ten deployments of Advanced Taser are reported to the company by
police forces.96

1. 8 (i) Safeguards against unwarranted injuries
While tasers are promoted as causing less injury than other impact weapons, serious injuries
can arise if the barbs strike certain parts of the body or the subject is in a vulnerable location.
Officers are trained not to fire the dart projectiles at sensitive areas such as the head, throat,
eyes or groin, and both the M26 and X26 models have laser trained beams designed to ensure
accuracy when the darts are fired.
Secondary injuries can also occur when the subject collapses and falls to the ground.
The manufacturer’s safety guidelines warn of the risks of death or serious injury if someone is
tasered while at risk of falling from a high building, although it is unclear to the organization
how far law enforcement policies include a more general warning about the dangers of firing
tasers at people in elevated or other vulnerable situations. One man in Arizona, whose case is

96

See note 24, above

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

38

Excessive and lethal force?

described above, was paralyzed after being tasered out of a tree. 97 In June 2004, in Louisiana,
Jerry Pickens, aged 55, died after falling and hitting his head on concrete when police shot
him with a taser. Pickens, who was drunk and unarmed, was shot in the back as he tried to
walk back inside his house following a domestic argument. His family questioned why police
had resorted to the taser in his case.
The taser darts can puncture skin and cause burns at the barb sites. These are reported
to be minor in most cases. However, several cases have been reported in which scars from
taser burns have remained visible many months after the incident. Some US departments
require all persons struck by taser darts to be taken to hospital to have the barbs removed but
not all agencies have this requirement.
Although maintaining that tasers are “medically safe” (an issue discussed below),
Taser International has warned in training literature that it is “not advisable” to use the
Advanced Taser on a pregnant woman or an elderly person, unless all other means short of
lethal force have been used, because of potential risks in such cases.98 However, it is unclear
how far such warnings are incorporated into police agencies’ guidelines. As described above,
two women were stunned despite alleged warnings by others present that they were
pregnant.99 Several elderly people have been tasered despite posing no serious threat. At least
one agency, the Portland Police Department, Oregon, had no guidelines restricting taser use
against pregnant women or the elderly, until the policy was changed earlier this year. It has
recently been reported that the warning against using tasers on the elderly is no longer
included in Taser International training manuals, as the device is no longer considered
harmful in such cases. 100 Amnesty International was seeking clarification of this with the
company at the time of writing. Meanwhile, the organization remains concerned about the use
of tasers against elderly people, given their enhanced risk of suffering injury from falls as well
as an increased risk of underlying health problems.
The company also issues a warning not to use tasers in flammable or combustible
environments because of a risk of ignition from the sparking action. However, in Colorado, a
police officer reportedly fired a taser at a man parked next to gasoline pumps at a convenience
97

See Bruce Bellemore case, under 1.7 above. Bellemore’s attorney told AI there appeared to be no
specific warnings of the dangers of firing tasers at people in elevated positions in the department’s
policies. The officer was cleared of criminal wrongdoing. The officer’s actions were under police
administrative review at the time of writing.
98
Certified Lesson Plan, Version 8 (op cit). The company maintains that the electrical output of tasers
is not harmful to a fetus , but that secondary injuries from falling are a possible issue for pregnant
women. The question of whether electro-shocks from tasers could trigger miscarriage remains a matter
of some dispute (see 2.9, below).
99
Cases of Cindy Grippi, and Romona Madson (see above, under Lawsuits). Amnesty International
was unable to obtain information on whether the force used in the Cindy Grippi case was within police
policy, as the results of police internal investigations are “privileged information” and not available to
the public under California law. Amnesty International was seeking more information on the recent
Madson case (Illinois) at the time of writing.
100
“City’s use of taser similar to others”, The Charlotte Observer, 31 October 2004
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

39

store, despite this being a high-risk environment. 101 In California, a man was touch-stunned
while lying on a garage forecourt (see case of Roman Gallius Pierson, at 2.3, below).
In Joplin, Missouri, there was concern that a gas explosion that killed a suicidal man
and fatally injured a police officer in August 2004 may have been triggered by police use of a
taser. The disturbed man had turned on the gas in his home before police arrived and the
house exploded after one of the officers fired his taser at him. The final report of the
investigation into the 11 August incident, made public in October 2004, found there was not
enough conclusive evidence to determine the cause. Police said that electric light switches, a
pilot light, an electric fan or static electricity on the suicidal man’s clothes could have ignited
the gas.102
Company literature includes a warning never to use a taser on someone who has been
exposed to alcohol-based pepper sprays, which are highly flammable. Some police agencies
are reported to have switched to non-flammable water-based pepper sprays following the
introduction of tasers. However, flammable sprays remain on the market, available for both
law enforcement and private use. Several people have been pepper sprayed and then struck
with tasers (see 2.6, below). In one recent case, a man’s hair is reported to have caught fire
after he was pepper sprayed and tasered.103 Amnesty International was seeking information on
the solution contained in the sprays used in this and other cases, at the time of writing.
Amnesty International believes that all tasers should be subjected to safety tests to
ensure that they will not cause unwarranted injuries or fatalities because of their design and
technological functioning in real-life situations. All agencies which deploy tasers should issue
detailed safety guidelines, with clear warnings and restrictions on their use in high-risk
situations. Amnesty International also believes it is advisable to take tasered subjects to
hospital to have barbs removed and to check for other possible adverse effects.

1.9 Widening taser use
In many of the police taser incidents described in this report, officers appear to have breached
international standards requiring that law enforcement officials must apply only the minimum
necessary force after exhausting non-violent alternatives. However, in most such cases, the
officers’ actions were not found to have violated police use-of-force policies. Amnesty
International believes that no safeguards can be effective without tighter policies and
measures to limit the circumstances under which tasers are authorized.
Some US law enforcement agencies, including the New York City Police Department
(NYPD), issue tasers only to specialised units such as emergency response teams. However,
many departments, far from limiting taser use, are moving towards routinely arming all their
101

Reported in the Denver Post, 20 September 2004.
Associated Press, 12 October 2004, “Police baffled by cause of fatal explosion”.
103
Robert C Trouth was “sprayed repeatedly with pepper spray and zapped with a Taser that set his
hair on fire” before he was fatally shot after reportedly taking an officer’s gun (Washington Post, 18
August 2004).
102

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

40

Excessive and lethal force?

patrol officers with such weapons. As of June 2004, more than 700 US police agencies,
including those in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Reno, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose and the
Orange County Sheriff’s Office (Florida), are reported to have purchased Taser products for
every front line patrol officer, a trend which appears to be increasing.
Data from the Orange County Sheriff’s Office in Florida showed that, by May 2002 –
just over a year after they were first deployed – tasers had become the most prevalent force
option for the department, constituting 68% of all use-of-force incidents (see chart, below).
Taser use reportedly rose to 77.6% of all force incidents in 2003.104
However, the data also reveals that, while police use of chemical sprays, police dogs,
physical force and firearms dropped by about 21% in the year after tasers were introduced, the
overall number of times force was used by Orange County deputies actually increased by
37%.105 A brochure on Taser International’s website reports a staggering 72% increase in use
of force by Orange County deputies from 1999 to 2002, in line with increased taser use. 106
Similarly, in May 2004, a local news agency reported that the use of force against suspects in
the city of Orlando, Florida, had “nearly doubled in the last 14 months since Tasers were
issued to police”, although they arrested fewer suspects.107 According to the same source,
while police injuries in Orlando decreased significantly, injuries to suspects stayed the same.
Use-of-Force Breakdown for the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, Florida
1999

2000

2001

2002*

Chemical Force

300

263

221

64

Physical Force

78

75

52

29

Firearms

5

13

4

0

K9

62

60

48

29

Impact Weapons

27

21

13

5

Impact Rounds

0

1

2

0

TASER

0

3

228

201

Total
Use-of- 410
Force incidents

383

527

295

104

Orlando Sentinel, 29 April 2004
“Taser Works So Its Use Increases”, Orlando Sentinel, 29 July 2002 (based on data obtained from
the Orange County Sheriff’s Office).
106
www.taser.com/pdfs/m26brochure.pdf. The brochure states: “Deputy injuries in Orange County,
FL dropped by 80% from 1999 to 2002 despite a 72% increase in use of force over the same period –
from 410 force incidents in 1999 to an annual rate of 708 incidents in 2002”.
107
“Police Taser Use Grows, Controversy Continues, Local 6 News (local6.com), 4 May 2004
105

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

41

* Data through May 2002 only. Source: Orlando Sentinel, 29 July 2002.108
The above data suggests that officers may be using tasers in situations which would
previously have been resolved without the use of force. Amnesty International is concerned
that issuing such weapons to all patrol officers may increase officers’ readiness to resort to
such force, given the ease with which tasers can be used, and the temptation to use them preemptively at the first sign of resistance. This may lead to an increase in cases of excessive
force and ill-treatment, especially given the broad range of circumstances in which tasers may
be authorized.
In addition, Amnesty International is concerned about the potential risks of
unwarranted injuries and deaths if tasers are used against a widening pool of the population,
many of whom may have underlying health conditions which could make them vulnerable to
adverse reactions from electro-shock. The potential health risks are discussed in chapter 2
below.

108

The data lists type of force used. The total is thus higher than the total number of incidents, as more
than one type of force was used in some incidents.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

42

Excessive and lethal force?

2. DEATHS IN CUSTODY AFTER TASER USE
Since June 2001, more than 70 people have died in police custody in the USA and Canada
after being struck with tasers, with the number of reported cases rising each year. Amnesty
International’s data shows two deaths reported in 2001, 13 in 2002, 20 in 2003 and 38 from
January to mid-October 2004.109 These figures are higher than the total number of taserrelated deaths reported in the previous 25 years.
The manufacturers of stun weapons claim that their products are medically safe, an
issue discussed in more detail below. Taser International, which told Amnesty International
that it tracks reports of deaths, has issued a number of public statements asserting that in no
case has the taser been found to be a “direct cause” of a fatality. The company has pointed out
that the deaths are similar to thousands of other in-custody deaths in the USA from drug
induced causes or other factors unrelated to taser use. They claim that the increase in taserrelated fatalities is due to the fact that tasers are now more widely deployed and will
inevitably be used in some cases where people are in the throes of toxic overdoses or other
fatal conditions. In several cases their own medical experts have reviewed the evidence and
specifically excluded the taser as a cause of death.
Amnesty International acknowledges that coroners have usually attributed cause of
death to factors unrelated to taser use, such as drug intoxication or heart disease. However,
some medical experts believe taser shocks may exacerbate a risk of heart failure in cases
where people are agitated or under the influence of drugs or have underlying health problems.
In at least five recent cases, coroners have found the taser contributed to the deaths (see
below). The rising death toll heightens Amnesty International’s concern about the safety of
such weapons and the lack of rigorous, independent testing of their medical effects. While
there have been some limited studies of earlier stun weapons, there has been no peer-reviewed
medical literature published on the medical effects of the new more potent M26 or X26
Advanced Tasers deployed in the cases described in this report.
Amnesty International has reviewed information on 74 deaths reported since June
2001, including autopsy reports in 21 cases.110 Nine of the deaths occurred in Canada, with
the rest in the USA. The deceased were males aged between 18 and 59 years of age, of
109

There are no official national figures for the number of deaths in custody involving taser use. The
list of cases comes mainly from news reports, backed up where possible by other data.
110
In many of the more recent cases, autopsy reports were not yet available. In some other cases
Amnesty International’s requests for autopsy reports were denied as state law prevented them from
being made publicly available. Other information includes media reports, statements issued by
coroners’ offices, paramedic reports, lawsuits and information from lawyers acting for the deceased’s
family. In some cases Amnesty International sought additional information, including copies of police
incident reports, from the police agencies involved; however, this latter information was often not made
available due to ongoing investigations or pending litigation. In three cases, Amnesty International’s
sole source was information provided in a list of deaths published by Taser International on 5 April
2004, in response to a CBS Evening News report on stun fatalities broadcast on the same date.
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

43

varying racial or ethnic origin, with the exception of one case involving the death of a female
foetus after the pregnant mother was tasered.111 Most cases are believed to involve use of the
M26 Taser which was the version most widely deployed during the period in question. While
detailed information was not always available, the cases nevertheless highlight some
disturbing concerns which Amnesty International believes should provide the basis for a full,
independent inquiry and further research.

2. 1. Overview of AI concerns:
Many of the deaths involved individuals who had apparently high concentrations of drugs in
their system or other risk factors for fatal arrhythmias. Drug intoxication, sometimes
combined with other factors, was overall the most common cause of death reported (although
coroners’ reports were still pending in many of the more recent cases). Violent struggle,
“positional asphyxia” following restraint, and “excited delirium”112 were cited in some cases
as a sole or contributory factor leading to sudden cardiac arrest. However, Amnesty
International believes that questions remain about the role of the taser in at least some of the
fatalities: whether the electro-shock could have exacerbated breathing difficulties caused by
factors such as violent exertion, drug intoxication or use of other restraint devices, triggering
or contributing to cardiac arrest. At least 15 of the victims had underlying heart disease which
some medical experts believe may cause more susceptibility to electro-shock. Concerns have
also been raised about the potential risk of adverse effects from taser currents in people under
the influence of certain drugs.113
These concerns are supported by the fact that, in five cases (James Borden, William
Lomax, William Teaseley, Jacob Lair and Keith Tucker), medical examiners found that the
taser had directly contributed to the deaths, along with other factors, including heart disease,
restraint and/or drug intoxication. In another case (Gordon Randall Jones), a coroner is cited
as stating he believed the taser played a role in the death. The short time lapse between taser
use and cardiac or respiratory arrest in some cases also raises issues of concern, and in one
case (Alvarado) the coroner noted a temporal link between the taser and cardiac arrest and
said he was unable to exclude the taser use as a possible cause. In another case (Clever Craig),
the coroner also may have indicated a link with the taser given his autopsy finding of cause of
death to be: “cardiac dysthythmia during an episode of excited delirium following electrical
111

In many cases the deceased’s race was not reported.
A condition known as “excited delirium”, sometimes also referred to as “in-custody death
syndrome”, has been attributed by some US coroners to a number of deaths in custody, especially in
the case of persons on drugs or suffering from psychosis. It is a combination of signs and symptoms,
including dangerously elevated body temperature levels, leading to sudden death. The theory relating to
such a syndrome is controversial and disputed by some medical experts.
113
See, for example, reference below (2.7) to the UK Defence Scientific Advisory Council
subcommittee on non-lethal weapons’ recommendation that further research should be undertaken into
cardiac hazards associated with use of the taser on certain at-risk subjects, including “possible hypersusceptibility to taser currents arising from drugs commonly used illegally in the UK, acidosis and preexisting disease”.
112

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

44

Excessive and lethal force?

shock”. In several cases death was given simply as “sudden cardiac arrest”, with no clear
underlying causes (see, for example, the case of Frederick Jerome Williams, below and also
the case of Richard Baralla, under 2.6). These cases also raise questions as to whether the
taser may have been a factor. A chart attached as Appendix A lists the 74 cases, giving
(where information was available) cause of death; contributory factors cited in coroners’
reports; number of taser discharge cycles; time lapse between taser shock and cardiac or
respiratory arrest.
Dr Sidsel Rogde, an independent forensic pathologist who reviewed 16 autopsies for
Amnesty International, also raised concern about a possible link between the taser and deaths,
giving her opinion that it could not be ruled out as a contributory factor in at least seven
cases. 114 (It should be noted that the autopsy reports were not available to Amnesty
International in three other cases where coroners reportedly found the taser played a role in
the deaths – William Lomax, William Teaseley and Jacob Lair – so these cases were not
included in Dr Rogde’s findings.). Dr Rogde also questioned the findings relating to drug
toxicity in some autopsies, noting that high blood concentrations post mortem may reflect a
redistribution of blood during, for example, resuscitation, and do not necessarily reflect toxic
levels of drug concentration before death. There were also several cases in which death was
attributed in the autopsy report to drug intoxication where the drug levels were not necessarily
fatal. Dr Rogde stated: “In my opinion, death can be attributed to drug overdose only when
other causes are excluded”. Dr Rogde’s comments are included in some of the individual case
summaries, below.
Amnesty International is also concerned about the overall levels of police force used
in the cases reviewed which, in many instances, appears to have gone beyond what was
warranted by the threat posed. In only eleven cases were suspects reported to be armed. While
most of the deceased had been engaged in disturbed or agitated behaviour, and some were
reportedly combative during arrest, few appeared to pose an immediate threat of substantial
physical harm at the time force was used. Yet they were subjected to high levels of force
which sometimes involved multiple restraints, including use of chemical spray, taser and
dangerous techniques such as “hogtying” (see below). Two people died in Gwinnett County,
Georgia, after being tasered and strapped into restraint chairs. In several cases the taser
appears to have been deployed against individuals passively resisting arrest or refusing to
comply immediately with an order. In one case, for example, a mentally disturbed man was
reportedly tasered after refusing to step out of his shorts while being booked into a jail;
another man was tasered as he lay supine on the floor of his home in a drug-induced stupor.

114

Report to Amnesty International from Sidsel Rogde MD, PhD, Professor of Forensic Medicine,
University of Oslo, June 2004. Cases where Dr Rogde found the taser to be a possible contributory
factor were: Eddie Alvarado, Richard Baralla, James Borden, Dennis Hammond, Glenn Leyba, Gordon
Randall Jones and Michael Sharp Johnson. In some of the 16 cases reviewed there was insufficient
information to assess the possible or likely role of the taser. Dr Rogde also reviewed autopsies in two
cases of individuals who died from other stun weapons, cited later in this report (Garcia and Frazier); in
those cases she concurred with coroners’ findings that the stun weapons played a role in the deaths.
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

45

Another man stopped on suspicion of driving while intoxicated was tasered after he had fallen
into a ditch and, according to a police spokesperson, “was resisting, but he wasn’t fighting”.115
Based on the available information, Amnesty International believes that in many
cases the police use of force was excessive, contravening international standards and
amounting in some cases to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In only one case (Borden)
was an officer criminally charged with excessive force; in most cases officers’ actions were
found not to have contravened either criminal statutes or policies, although a number of cases
remained under investigation.
Several lawyers representing families of the deceased expressed concern to Amnesty
International at what they believe was undue force in the case of individuals who were ill or
mentally disturbed and should have received treatment rather than a response more
appropriate, as one lawyer put it, to a “crime in progress”. At least a third of those who died
had histories of mental illness or showed signs of mental disturbance at the time of their arrest.
Others were ill through drug intoxication or other causes (e.g. epilepsy). One person was
observed to have seizure activity before he was shocked (see Alvarado case, below). Many of
these individuals were not involved in criminal behaviour at the time they were taken into
custody. Amnesty International believes that the appropriate response in such cases should
have been to seek medical attention or the assistance of services such as a mental health crisis
intervention team rather than a law enforcement response. Although paramedics were often
called to the scene, in some cases there were delays, or the deceased were taken to jail rather
than to hospital.
In some of the above cases officers’ actions appear in breach of Article 6 of the UN
Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials which states that “Law enforcement officials
shall ensure the full protection of the health of persons in their custody and, in particular, shall
take immediate action to secure medical attention whenever required.” Article 6 (b) states
that where medical personnel are attached to a law enforcement operation “… law
enforcement officials must take into account the judgement of such personnel when they
recommend providing the person in custody with the appropriate treatment through, or in
consultation with, medical personnel from outside the law enforcement operation”.

2. 2. Multiple or prolonged taser discharges
Amnesty International is further concerned that, in more than half the cases, the deceased
were subjected to multiple taser discharges (cycles of electro-shock), in one case as many as
12 or 13 jolts and in some others six or more discharges. 116 In most such cases each cycle
would normally last for the full default five-seconds (or in some cases, longer, see below).
Information on these cases suggests not only that the taser was not immediately effective on
115

Star-Telegram, 13 September 2004, reporting on case of Samuel Wakefield.
There were reports of multiple taser discharges in 41 of the 73 cases reviewed. However, the true
number is likely to be higher as in 28 cases the number of discharges was not reported in the
information available.
116

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

46

Excessive and lethal force?

the first shock but that it may have caused the subject to become more agitated in some
instances, leading to further use of force. A training manual on the Advanced M26 Taser
produced by Taser International, advises officers to “be prepared to deliver more than one
cycle from the Taser, and be prepared to use strikes, impact weapons and other uses of force
in conjunction with the Taser to gain compliance”. 117 The company maintains that it is safe to
use repeated cycles as the amperage (current) remains the same and the charge is not
multiplied. However, Amnesty International believes that questions remain about the harm
and stress caused by subjecting someone already in an agitated state to multiple electroshocks, especially in conjunction with other force.
According to a field study of 2050 taser uses, most incidents involved only one taser
discharge. 118 It appears that the reported fatalities cases may therefore involve a
disproportionate number of multiple discharges (as well as other force), an issue which
Amnesty International believes requires urgent review.
The ability to prolong the electrical cycle beyond five seconds, for as long as the
officer keeps his finger depressed on the trigger, is also of concern as this may dangerously
increase stress levels. In one case, an officer applied repeated jolts of the taser in stun mode
to the neck of a disturbed man high on drugs who was being pinned down by four security
guards trying to handcuff him. One jolt lasted for eight seconds; another for six seconds. The
man subsequently went into cardiac arrest and later died. An inquest jury attributed cause of
death, in part, to the taser (see case of William Lomax, below). The psychological and
physiological effects of prolonged, as well as repeated, taser shocks also requires urgent
review by relevant independent experts, including those in the field of cardiology and
electrophysiology.

2.3. Sample case summaries
•

James Borden, aged 47, died in Monroe County Jail, Georgia, on 6 November 2003,
after being stunned at least six times with an M26 Taser. Police had arrested him
earlier that evening for violating a home detention order (Borden had been spotted the
previous day acting in a confused and disoriented state near a local convenience
store). 119 According to a subsequent lawsuit, at the time of his arrest Borden
“exhibited slurred speech, was unstable on his feet and was physically weak”. An
Emergency Medical Team (EMT) ambulance was called and medical personnel
indicated that he needed to go to hospital but he was taken to jail instead. He was
tasered on arrival at the jail, reportedly for “thrashing around” and talking

117

Certification Lesson Plan, op cit.
Advanced Taser M26, Field Report Analysis, November 2002 (Taser International) According to
the data, one five-second discharge or less was used in 68% of incidents, with 32% of incidents
requiring more than one cycle. In 521 incidents the duration and number of cycles is listed as
“unknown”, suggesting possible shortcomings in the reporting of data from the agencies involved.
119
According to his family, Borden, who was diabetic and also suffered from bipolar disorder, was
confused because he had not taken his insulin for several days.
118

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

47

incoherently as he was being removed from a police car. Once in the jail, still with his
hands cuffed behind him, the same officer (Shaw) shocked Borden several more
times for being “uncooperative” and failing to comply with a command to step out of
his shorts or pyjama pants which had fallen around his ankles. In one statement,
Shaw is reported to have said:
“... I asked Borden to lift up his foot to remove the shorts, but he was being
combative and refused. I dry stunned120 Borden in the lower abdominal area …We
got Borden into the booking area. Borden was still combative and uncooperative. I
dried stunned Borden in the buttocks area”.
Borden was then reportedly pinned to the floor of the booking area and shocked again,
after which he turned blue and lost consciousness. An ambulance was called and he
was taken to hospital where he was pronounced dead. A statement released by the
county jail authorities just after Borden’s death said that “standard police procedures
by trained officers to control combative or uncooperative individuals” had been used.
The autopsy report gave cause of death as consistent with “cardiac dysrhythmia,
secondary to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [abnormal thickening of the heart muscle],
pharmacological intoxication and electrical shock”, with manner of death
“accidental”.
A Special Prosecutor was appointed to investigate the case and, in May 2004, the
officer who had used the taser on Borden was charged with two counts of battery
(battery with a deadly weapon and battery causing serious bodily injury). Each charge
carries up to eight years’ imprisonment. Another officer present, who had pinned
Borden to the ground as the last electro-shock was applied, was not charged. The trial
was still pending at the time of writing.
The forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for Amnesty International found
that, although the concentration of the drugs ephedrine and prometazine were
“apparently high”, many drugs are redistributed after death, especially after
aggressive resuscitation, and that “high blood concentrations of a drug do not
necessarily mean that death is caused by intoxication”. 121 Noting the short time frame
between the cardiac arrest, struggle and use of the taser, she gave the opinion that
“death might be related to the use of the taser, in combination with his heart disease”.
She noted that “people with heart disease might also die in connection with such a
stressful situation without the use of a taser”. She found the “excruciating pain”
invoked by the taser might also be a factor in the death of a person with serious heart
disease who “may have an increased risk of death during stressful situations,
including physical as well as mental stress”.

120

This means the taser was used as a stun gun; it may have meant “drive stun”, the common term for
taser use in stun-gun mode.
121
Report of Dr Sidsel Rodge, op cit.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

48

Excessive and lethal force?

•

Eddie Alvarado, aged 32, died in June 2002 in Los Angeles after being tasered five
times while handcuffed behind his back. The autopsy report states that “According to
the history, the decedent exhibited violent and irrational behavaiour. He was observed
to have seizure activity and collapsed prone on the floor”. The taser was used when
he continued to exhibit “irrational behaviour, growling and yelling, thrusting upper
torso and kicking firefighters and LAPD officers”. He was placed in a “hobble
restraint” (a form of hogtie) and was subsequently found to be in pulmonary arrest.
Cause of death was given as “sequelae of methamphetamine and cocaine use, status
post restraint, including taser use.” 122 The coroner also noted a “temporal
relationship” between restraint, taser application and his cardiopulmonary arrest but
found the manner of death “undetermined” (see below).

•

Glenn Richard Leyba, aged 37, died in Glendale, Colorado in September 2003.
According to a report on the case by the District Attorney’s office, paramedics arrived
at Leyba’s apartment after his landlady called for an ambulance, and found him
“laying face-down, rolling from side to side … making moaning and whimpering
sounds”. A police officer twice used her taser on him as a stun-gun when he failed to
respond to attempts to roll him over and became “physically resistant”. The police
report is cited as stating that the second stun mode discharge “increased his level of
agitation”. The same officer then fired a taser dart into Leyba’s back, resulting in
Leyba “moaning, screaming and ‘flailing’ his legs and in an increase in his level of
physical agitation. It did not, however, gain Mr Leyba’s compliance”. Altogether,
Leyba was electro-shocked in stun or dart mode at least five times, after which he
“stopped all physical resistance” and was handcuffed behind his back. The report
states that “while being wheeled to the ambulance, the paramedics noticed that Mr
Leyba’s skin color was grayish, that he had stopped breathing, and that he had no
pulse”. Efforts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful and he was pronounced dead in
hospital. 123
The coroner gave cause of death as “cardiac arrest during cocaine-induced delirium”.
The report from the District Attorney’s office noted that there were inconsistencies in
the various police and witness reports as to the mode, placement and time of taser
discharges.124 There was also disagreement about the level of Leyba’s resistance. The

122

From autopsy report on Eddie R. Alvarado, the Department of Coroner, Los Angeles, California, 15
June 2002.
123
From Officer Involved Use of Force Report, by Brian K. McHugh, Chief Deputy District Attorney,
18th Judicial District, Colorado, July 7 2004. The report reviewed written reports of the police
investigation, officer and witness statements and other materials.
124
The in-built memory chip downloaded from the taser showed that the trigger had been pulled seven
times, but collectively people at the scene observed only five discharges, so the report concluded that
the two additional trigger pulls must have been within the five-second default period. However, there
were inconsistencies in reports of when, for how long and how many times the taser was used in stun or
dart mode. There were also discrepancies in the time line due to the “variance in the accuracy of the
various clocks involved”.
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

49

four paramedics on the scene separately testified that he was not trying to hurt anyone
and was “delirius” and kicking his feet “in no particular direction”. One paramedic
noted that he appeared to be very scared and was “combative from altered mental
status, not combative as if resisting”. One wrote in a “Patient Care Report” that he
and another paramedic disagreed with the officer’s use of the taser “at least when it
was being used in the stun mode” and that the stun discharges “only served to further
agitate Mr Leyba”(AI emphasis). Despite these findings, the District Attorney’s
office concluded that the officer’s actions did not violate any Colorado criminal
statute and “constituted both a legitimate defense of others and a legitimate effort to
prevent Mr Leyba from causing himself serious bodily injury”.
•

Roman Gallius Pierson, aged 40, died in October 2003 in Yorba Linda, California.
Police had responded to reports that a disturbed man had been running in and out of
traffic. According to press reports, Pierson had run into a gas station forecourt and
was rubbing ice onto his face, complaining of being hot and thirsty, when the police
arrived; he was shot with a taser when he ignored an order to lie down on the
pavement; while on the ground, he was tasered again when he began “grappling with
police”, according to a police spokesman. He went into cardiac arrest at the scene
and died in hospital. The autopsy found cause of death due to acute
methamphetamine toxicity, and notes a history of coronary artery disease.

•

Gordon Randall Jones, aged 37, died in Orange County Florida, in July 2002, after
reportedly being jolted at least 12 times with a taser. 125 According to media reports,
the taser was used after Jones became disruptive outside a hotel and “refused to leave
and pulled away from deputies”. He walked with deputies to an ambulance but died
on the way to hospital. Cause of death was given in the initial autopsy report as
“positional asphyxia, secondary to the application of restraints in the setting of acute
cocaine intoxication”. The autopsy findings noted “history of recent electrical
trauma” and the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner William Anderson, who conducted
the autopsy, has been quoted in press reports as stating that he believed the taser
shocks contributed to Jones’ death, making it harder for Jones to breathe.126 However,
county officials requested a second expert opinion from forensic pathologist Dr Cyril
Wecht who concluded that Jones had died primarily from a cocaine overdose. The
independent forensic pathologist who reviewed the first autopsy for Amnesty
International noted that “the concentrations of cocaine are fairly high but not
necessarily lethal”, citing her previously stated concerns about the reliability of

125

Orlando Sentinel 5 August 2002 and 2 October 2002 – one report states he was jolted 12 times,
another states he was struck 13 times. The autopsy refers only to “Taser usage” by police and notes two
areas of circular abrasions with underlying dermal thermal effect.
126
Pathologist William Anderson, cited in media reports at the time and more recently in “Taser Safety
Claim Questioned”, Arizona Republic, 18 July 2004

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

50

Excessive and lethal force?

accurately measuring toxic drug levels post mortem. She gave her opinion that
“cocaine, taser and restraint may all have played a role in his death”.127

127
128

•

Dennis Hammond, aged 31, died in Oklahoma City, in October 2003. Officers had
responded to complaints by residents that Hammond was walking up and down the
street and screaming at the sky. They found him sitting on top of a mailbox in a
delusional state, bleeding from the legs, chest and feet. Police reportedly used a taser
on him when he refused to listen to their commands. He was jolted five times in total
but he pulled out the darts. He was then struck with a beanbag device before officers
were able to handcuff him. Paramedics from an emergency ambulance team called to
the scene were bandaging his wounds when “he turned blue and stopped breathing”.
The autopsy report noted a blunt force head injury and multiple injuries to his
abdomen, thighs and back, multiple abrasions and superficial cuts. Cause of death
was given as “acute methamphetamine intoxication”.

•

Michael Sharp Johnson, aged 32, died in Oklahoma City in November 2003. Officers
responded to reports of a burglary in progress and found Johnson sitting in the living
room, yelling. When he would not calm down or follow orders to get on the ground,
officers shocked him five times with a taser and three others helped gain control to
handcuff him. The autopsy report states: “During the brief struggle, he was ‘tasered’
multiple times before they were able to handcuff him. Approximately two minutes
later he stopped breathing and EMSA 128 was called. He was transported to the
emergency room in full cardiorespiratory arrest and was placed on the ventilator. …
He died approximately 22 hours and 30 minutes later”. The autopsy report gave
cause of death as “acute congestive heart failure due to cocaine induced cardiac
arrest,” with manner of death “accident”.

•

William Lomax, aged 26, died in Las Vegas, Nevada in February 2004, after
allegedly fighting with police and security guards at a housing complex. At an inquest
in the case, the security guards testified that they had approached Lomax because he
appeared to be overdosing on drugs, “dazed and confused”, walking in circles, lifting
his shirt and sweating. A struggle followed, during which a Las Vegas police officer
jolted Lomax seven times with an X26 taser in stun gun mode. Some of the jolts were
applied as he was pinned face-down on the ground by four security guards who were
trying to handcuff him and again when he was face-down on a gurney (stretcher).
According to inquest testimony, at least three of the jolts were applied to the side of
his neck, a procedure authorized during police training. When asked if the Las Vegas
Police Department placed a limit to the number of shocks which could be applied, a
taser training officer said:

Report of Dr Sidsel Rogde, op cit.
Emergency Medical Services Agency

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

51

“What we tell and train our officers is, you can use this as many times as it’s
going to take to get compliance”.129
Data downloaded from the taser’s microchip revealed that the seven shocks were
applied over a period of 9 minutes, 55 seconds, in cycles lasting, respectively, two
seconds, four seconds, two seconds, six seconds, eight seconds and six seconds. A
paramedic called to the scene testified that “the Taser didn’t seem to have any effect.
It made him angry”. 130 After Lomax was placed face-down on a stretcher, officers
noticed he had stopped breathing. Paramedics got his heart beating again in the
ambulance and he was placed on a ventilator. He died the next day without regaining
consciousness.
At the inquest, the Medical Examiner, Ronald Knoblock, testified that “cause of death
was a cardiac arrest during restraining procedures”, with Phencyclidine (PCP)
intoxication and early bronchial pneumonia contributing factors. The pathologist
found that Lomax’s obesity and the fact that he was placed face-down with pressure
on his diaphragm had restricted Lomax’s breathing, which would already have been
affected by the drugs and the physical struggle. When asked if the taser had played a
role in the death, he responded:
“Yes. The tazer (sic) was used in this instance as a restraining device, and in
the cause of death I incorporated that into the restraining procedures during
which the cardiac arrest took place.”
Dr Knoblock also observed that, while the levels of PCP in Lomax’s system raised his
metabolic rate, the amount of drug was “not an extremely toxic level”. He added that
he could not establish that the taser of itself caused the death or that Lomax would not
have died without it. The inquest jury’s verdict was that:
“the means by which the deceased met his death was a combination of drugs,
restraining force, and the use of the tazer (sic)”.
The jury also found the guards and officer’s actions in restraining Lomax to be
“excusable” and cleared them of wrongdoing. The Las Vegas Police Department was
reported to be re-evaluating its training policies in light of the ruling.
•

129
130

Frederick Jerome Williams, aged 31, died in Gwinnett County Jail, Georgia, in June
2004, after being shocked with a taser while being strapped into a restraint chair.
According to media reports, police went to his home after receiving a call from
Williams’ nine-year-old son saying that his dad was “talking crazy” and not taking
his epilepsy medication. The boy reportedly asked for an ambulance “because my
dad is saying all sorts of stuff and he is hitting my mom with a belt”. When police
arrived, Williams called the officer “the devil” and grabbed the officer’s baton and
threw it at him. Despite the son’s request for a “hospital truck”, police arrested him

From transcript of testimony at inquest held in Las Vegas on 25 June 2004
transcript of inquest op cit.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

52

Excessive and lethal force?

and took him to jail. He was reportedly struck twice with a taser while being strapped
into a restraint chair and was noticed to have stopped breathing seconds later. He
died later in hospital.
The autopsy is reported to have found that Williams had died of brain damage caused
by “lack of oxygen and/or blood to the brain” from a heart attack triggered during the
altercation. The forensic examiners reported that “There is no evidence the Taser
directly caused or contributed to his death”, but were unable to determine the reasons
for the heart attack.
Williams was the second person to die in Gwinnett County Jail after being tasered
and strapped into a restraint chair. Ray Austin, aged 25, died in September 2003 after
fighting with deputies, being shocked three times with a taser, restrained in a chair
and given psychotropic drugs. He had a history of mental illness and disciplinary
problems.
Following William’s death, two Georgia police agencies (Macon Police Department
and Forsyth County Sheriff’s Department) said they were suspending their use of
tasers and a third (College Park Police Department) was reported to have shelved
plans to purchase them.
•

Jacob Lair, aged 29, died in June 2004, following an altercation with officers in
Sparks, Washoe County, Nevada, when police entered his residence to question him
about an alleged theft. In September 2004, the Washoe County Coroner, Vernon
McCarty, reported that Lair had died of “acute methamphetamine intoxication with
associated cardiac arrhythmia while engaged in a physical struggle with law
enforcement officers involving a Taser gun, pepper spray and restraints”. McCarty
said that the Taser was “part of the scenario” which had contributed to his death,
observing that, while Lair had methamphetamines in his system, the levels “were not
as high as you would normally expect” and that the death could not be called a drug
overdose. 131

•

Willam Teasley, aged 31, died in Anderson County Detention Center, South Carolina
in August 2004. According to media reports, officers used a taser to subdue him after
he became violent while being booked into the jail and “shortly after he was shocked
[he] stopped breathing”. A preliminary autopsy reportedly showed he had died from
cardiac arrest. The deputy county coroner, Charlie Boseman, is quoted as saying the
taser contributed to Teasley’s death, combined with a medical history that included
heart disease. 132 Teasley reportedly had other health problems, including severe brain
damage resulting from an accident in 2003. The preliminary autopsy report was
passed to the State Law Enforcement Division investigation team, with a final
determination of manner of death pending the results of this inquiry.

131

sources: “Nevada Man Dies in Struggle with Authorities, Taser Involved”, Associated Press, 16
September 2004; Arizona Republic, 17 September 2004. Amnesty International was seeking a copy of
the autopsy at the time of writing.
132
“Pathologist says Taser contributed to jailed man’s death”, Associated Press, 23 August 2004
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

•

53

Keith Tucker, aged 47, died in August 2004 in Las Vegas, Nevada – his was the
second taser-related death in the city in six months (see Lomax case, above).
According to media accounts, police responded to a 911 call from a roommate that
Tucker was acting strangely. They found him talking incoherently and used batons
and a stun gun after he allegedly punched an officer. He went into cardiac arrest at the
scene and died later in hospital. In October 2004, the Clark County coroner
determined that Tucker suffered a cardiac arrest brought on by the attempted restraint,
including the batons and the taser. An inquest was scheduled for 22 October 2004.

2. 4. Questions regarding time lapse between taser and death
or loss of consciousness in the cases reviewed
A major cause of sudden cardiac arrest is severe disturbance of the heart rhythm known as
ventricular fibrillation: rapid contractions of the heart caused by irregular electrical signals in
the ventricles, preventing blood from being pumped from the heart. The condition causes loss
of consciousness in seconds, and death (or brain death) usually within minutes if the patient
cannot be successfully resuscitated. Ventricular fibrillation can be caused by a myocardial
infarction (heart attack), electrocution or drowning and, in the case of electrocution, would
usually follow immediately after application of the shock. 133
In February 2002, Dr Robert Stratbucker, Medical Director for Taser International,
reviewed three cases in which people had died after being struck with M26 tasers and held
that the time delay between the application of the Taser and the deaths clearly ruled out the
Taser as a cause of death. Dr Stratbucker asserted: “The only plausible cause of death from
electrical injury not leaving tell-tale skin lesions – clearly not present in any of the cited cases
– is ventricular fibrillation, a fatal disturbance of heart rhythm which ensues immediately
upon shocking the heart with greater-than-threshhold, non-Taser-like electric current pulses.
Specifically, if the Taser output were to cause cardiac arrests, it would be immediate.”134
In a letter to the ACLU of Colorado in February 2004 on deaths of people struck by
police tasers, Taser International reiterated Dr Stratbucker’s findings, stating: “If the electrical
stimulation of the TASER device were to play a causal role in the death, the death would be
immediate (this has never happened).”135
However, there are several cases in which cardiac or respiratory arrest appears to
have occurred immediately or very shortly after the taser discharge, or after the last of
multiple shocks. This may indicate a causal link between the taser and the death or cardiac or
133

There have been several cases reported of the onset of ventricular fibrillation hours after a low
voltage shock (e.g.Journal of Critical Illness, March 2002 “Electrical injuries: an emergency
department approach; Cardiac monitoring and an ECG are essential”; Cardiac fibrillation,
http://radsafe.berkeley.edu/lsm1101appj.html.)
134
Reported in Taser International News Bulletin, Topic: In-Custody Deaths, February 2002.
135
Letter to ACLU, Colorado, op cit.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

54

Excessive and lethal force?

respiratory arrest. Amnesty International does not have complete information on the cases
and the exact time lag is not always clear in autopsy reports (which rely on police reports
which themselves may not always give an exact time sequence). In some cases, autopsy
reports or investigations are still pending. However, Amnesty International believes that a
temporal link between the use of the taser and loss of consciousness cannot be ruled out in a
number of deaths and that this issue raises a serious concern that requires further careful
review and investigation by independent medical and scientific experts.
For example, in the cases cited above:
•

According to reports, after the final shock, an officer noted that James Borden was no
longer responsive and his face was discoloured. An ambulance was called and
attempts at resuscitation failed. He was pronounced dead on arrival at hospital.

•

The autopsy report in the case of Eddie Alvarado states that: “After the 5th taser
application, he moved away from the mirror and prone on the floor (sic). He was then
hobble-restrained. Subsequently, he was found to be in pulmonary arrest … and was
pronounced dead on arrival to the hospital”. Although cause of death was given as
drug intoxication, the autopsy report stated:
“The circumstances indicated a temporal relationship between restraint, including
taser application, and his cardiopulmonary arrest. However, this autopsy does not
provide sufficient medical evidence to conclude or exclude that taser use contributed
to the death. It should be noted that after taser, the decedent was noted to have a weak
pulse and agonal EKG change. Hence, the manner of death is undetermined.”

•

In Glenn Richard Leyba’s case, a paramedic on the scene reported that Leyba “is limp
after the last taser” and appears to be unconscious; after being lifted onto the stretcher
he “became apnic (sic)” (non-breathing) and a monitor “confirmed pulselessness”.
Attempts to resuscitate him failed and he was pronounced dead on arrival at hospital.
The forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for Amnesty International found
that, although the coroner had ruled out the taser effect, there might well be a
connection between the last taser and the handcuffing behind the back, with cocaine
also being a major factor.

Several other individuals are also reported to have gone into respiratory or cardiac
arrest at the scene. According to media reports, Roman Gallius Pierson, for example, was
handcuffed after the second taser shot and “after about a minute, officers noticed he was not
breathing”. 136 Terrence Brian Hanna, who died in Canada, was tasered and “subsequently
went into cardiac arrest at the scene.” Frederick Williams was shocked while being strapped
into a restraint chair and “seconds later” his heart stopped. William Teasley was shocked with
a taser and “shortly after he was shocked, he stopped breathing”.

136

“Man Dies After Brea Police Shoot Him With Stun Gun”, Los Angeles Times 8 October 2003. This
reports only when the officers noticed he had stopped breathing
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

55

2. 5. Delayed death: metabolic acidosis
There has been some discussion in the medical literature of the possible effect of tasers on
metabolic acidosis – a potentially fatal disturbance of the body acid-base balance. 137
Metabolic acidosis can occur in individuals who are severely agitated and this can lead to
ventricular arrhythmia, especially in the presence of certain toxic drugs.
Taser International has suggested that the taser is not only safer than many weapons
but can actually work to prevent metabolic acidosis because its instant incapacitation of the
subject cuts short the duration of struggle and any dangerous build up of acid. 138 However,
one federal study suggested that “deaths following Taser use may be related to the ability of
these devices to cause increased muscle activity and decreased breathing”139 and other studies
have suggested that further research into the effects of tasers in acidosis is required (see 2.7,
below). As noted above, in several of the cases reviewed by Amnesty International, the
deceased continued to struggle and exhibit agitated behaviour, sometimes after repeated
stunning.
An article on the effects of stun guns and tasers, published in the medical journal, the
Lancet, in September 2001, addressed the risk of acidosis and ventricular dysrhythmias in
people in states of severe agitation or physical aggression, particularly when under the
influence of drugs such as phencyclidine (PCP) or cocaine. The article noted:
“The taser itself may affect acid-base balance by briefly increasing skeletal muscle
activity and decreasing respiration.”140
The authors reviewed one earlier study in which three people (high on drugs) went into
cardiac arrest between 5-25 minutes after being hit with tasers and stated:
“By this time, taser-induced muscle contractions would no longer be present, and one
would expect the individuals to be relaxing and able to breathe in a way that would
compensate for a metabolic acidosis. Such may not be the case if the individuals
remained agitated or were prevented from breathing freely” (AI emphasis).
Amnesty International believes that these concerns should be examined in the light of a
number of recent taser-related deaths, particularly in cases where individuals were tasered and

137

Metabolic acidosis is a condition in which the acid level within the blood is higher than normal; this
can have a number of causes, including ingestion of toxic substances. If metabolic acidosis becomes
severe, the person may develop: weakness; confusion; shock; heart problems such as arrhythmias.
138
This was noted in a letter from Taser International to Mark Silverstein of the ACLU, Colorado,
dated 26 February 2004, in response to concerns raised by the ACLU about the possibility of tasers
contributing to deaths caused by metabolic acidosis.
139
J.M. Kenny, W. Bosseau Murray, Wayne J. Sebastianelli, W. J. Kraemer, R. M. Fish, D.T. Mauager,
T. L. Jones, “Human Effects Advisory Penal Report of Findings: Sticky Shocker Assessment”,
National Criminal Justice Reference Service Doc. No. 188262 (1999).
140
Fish RM, Geddes LA, “Effects of stun guns and tasers”, Lancet, September 2001.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

56

Excessive and lethal force?

continued to fight or struggle, and were then hogtied or subjected to other restraint after
application of taser.

2. 6. Impact of other restraints
In at least 24 of the cases reviewed, the deceased appear to have been coerced into restraint
positions which can dangerously restrict breathing and have been associated with deaths in
custody from “positional asphyxia”. Such positions include being held face-down on the
ground with weight or pressure applied to the chest. Individuals who are obese, have
underlying heart disease and/or who are severely agitated or intoxicated from drugs or alcohol
are believed to be at increased risk from such procedures.
In at least eight cases, the deceased were placed in a “hogtie” or “hobble restraint”,
with their wrists or elbows bound behind them to their shackled ankles. This form of restraint
is considered to be a particularly dangerous and potentially life threatening procedure,
especially if the subject is in a prone position.141 Standard-setting bodies discourage use of
hogtying and urge that departments avoid holding anyone in restraints, even handcuffs, in a
face-down position. 142 While some US departments have banned hogtying Amnesty
International is disturbed that many agencies continue to use the procedure in some form.
Four of the deceased were reportedly put into “chokeholds”: the application of pressure
to the neck, constricting the flow of blood to the brain. The procedure is known to be
dangerous and many departments either ban all forms of chokehold or restrict their use only
to deadly force situations where no alternatives are available. 143
Several of the deceased were pepper sprayed before being tasered. Pepper spray, which
acts on the mucus membranes and respiratory system, can further restrict breathing and has
been associated with in-custody deaths in the USA and Canada. Amnesty International is
concerned that use of multiple restraint techniques, including pepper spray, might increase the

141

Traditional “hogtying” involves the individual’s wrists and ankles being bound together, so that the
shoulders and ankles are raised, placing pressure on the abdomen, a particularly dangerous procedure.
The hobble restraint may have a longer cord between the wrist and ankles, allowing somewhat more
movement, mainly to allow the individual to be transported in an upright position; while this is less
dangerous, deaths have been reported from the hobble restraint, even where someone is placed on their
side or upright.
142
These include U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Advisory Guidelines for
the Care of Subdued Subjects (June 1995); NIJ Bulletin on Positional Restraint, October 1995;
Metropolitan Police Complaints Authority (UK), bulletin July 2001.
143
The most common forms of chokehold are the “carotid” restraint or the “lateral vascular neck”
restraint both of which involve the application of pressure to the arteries in the side of the neck. Some
of the largest US police agencies ban all forms of chokehold in all circumstances; these include the
New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit and Houston police departments.
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

57

risk of respiratory failure.144 In one case (see below), an unarmed suspect died after being
pepper sprayed, electro-shocked and hog-tied.
Two prisoners (Ray Austin and Frederick Jerome Williams) died after being tasered
and strapped into restraint chairs in Gwinnett County Jail, Georgia (see above). In recent
years, at least 18 prisoners have died in US detention facilities after being immobilized in
restraint chairs, including several who had also been struck with pepper spray and/or electroshock weapons. The manner of restraint was found to be a primary or contributory cause of
death in several cases. Amnesty International has called for a national inquiry into use of
restraint chairs in the USA, based on concerns about their safety and the lack of clear
regulation or monitoring of their use. 145
Positional asphyxia was listed as a direct cause of death in four of the cases examined,
and use of restraints was noted as a contributory factor in at least six other cases. In some
cases, however, restraint was not listed as a causal or contributory factor even though death or
loss of consciousness appears to have occurred very shortly after the use of restraints.
Experts have noted that multiple factors may play a role in deaths where restraints
have been applied, particularly if other risk factors are involved. Amnesty International is
concerned that using combined techniques such as pepper spray, tasers and physical restraint
could exacerbate stress levels, leading to cardiac arrhythmias. The organization believes that
all the cases require further evaluation. They also underscore the need for clear protocols and
training for law enforcement officers on use of restraints and how to avoid excessive or
dangerous force when dealing with people with mental health problems and/or acute
behavioural disturbance. Case examples include the following:
•

Richard Baralla died in May 2002 in Pueblo County, Colorado. According to media
accounts, police were called after he was seen acting strangely in the street and
threatening to jump into traffic. The autopsy report states that Baralla, who was
unarmed, was restrained
“… while exhibiting threatening behaviour. The efforts to restrain him included
pepper spray, the application of a Taser stun gun device, the placement of
handcuffs behind his back, as well as placement of a hobble on his legs. During
the struggle, he became unresponsive….Efforts at resuscitation at the scene and
hospital were unsuccessful”.

144

Since the early 1990s more than 100 people in the USA are reported to have died after being
subjected to pepper spray. While most deaths have been attributed by coroners to other causes, such as
drug intoxication or positional asphyxia, there is concern that pepper spray could be a contributory
factor in some cases. Pepper spray has been found to be a factor in several recent in-custody deaths.
Studies discounting a link between physical restraint and pepper spray have generally been conducted
on healthy subjects and do not replicate what happens in the field. Further research is needed.
145
See, for example, Amnesty International report: The Restraint Chair: How Many More Deaths? AI
Index AMR 51/31/2002

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

58

Excessive and lethal force?

Although the coroner noted that on Baralla’s body there were “two sets of
electrical injury consistent with Taser application”, he found that they were “not of
sufficient severity to have contributed to the death.”146 The autopsy also found “there
was no evidence of natural disease which could be considered a contributing cause of
death” and the toxicology results were “essentially negative”. The opinion also noted:
“Witness statements did not suggest a significant asphyxial component”. The coroner
attributed the death to “cardiac arrest occurring during excited delirium necessitating
restraint.” A wrongful death lawsuit has been filed by Richard Baralla’s family,
claiming police used excessive force.
The forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for Amnesty International
considered that the taser may have been a factor, along with the use of restraints,
noting a temporal relationship between the restraint, use of taser and cardiac arrest.
She found that the absence of any asphyxial component, if true, may increase the
significance of the taser. She also noted that the heart was somewhat enlarged
(something not commented on in the autopsy report) – another possible risk factor for
adverse reaction to electro-shock. 147
•

Vincent Del’Ostia, aged 31, died in January 2002 in Broward County, Florida.
According to the autopsy report, he had a history of psychosis, drug abuse and asthma.
Police were called after he had caused a disturbance in the lobby of a motel and found
him banging on the motel door. He was “reportedly agitated, incoherent and
perspiring”. He continued to flail about after being tasered and to strike at officers
with his hands and feet while on the ground. Officers rolled him onto his stomach,
placing handcuffs on his wrists and ankles, after which an officer “placed his foot on
the upper mid-back to keep him from rolling back over. Paramedics arrived within
approximately 30 seconds of his being restrained and observed he had stopped
breathing and was unresponsive”. According to a press article, a motel employee said
that when the police arrived, he saw them “kicking and teasing” Del’Ostia and asked
them to take it easy on him. Cause of death was determined to be cocaine toxicity.

•

Eddie Alvarado (see above) was hobble restrained after being tasered for the fifth
time while lying prone on the floor and was subsequently (at the scene) “found in
pulmonary arrest”.

•

Terry Hanna, aged 51, died in Burnaby, Canada, in April 2003 after being shot with a
taser. Police said they used the taser on him when he became “aggressive” when they
tried to get him out of a police car. He went into cardiac arrest at the scene. The
coroner found cause of death to be “acute cocaine intoxication”, with coronary artery
disease and restraint to be contributory factors. The autopsy report noted that it was
“of significance … that the patient was placed face-down, handcuffed behind his back

146

It is unclear what the coroner meant by this, as the external marks from taser burns bear no relation
to the effect the shocks may or may not have on the heart.
147
Dr Sigdel Rogde’s report to Amnesty International (op cit).
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

59

and hogtied during the restraint process.”148 An inquest in the case was still pending
at time of writing.
•

Walter C Burks, aged 36, an unarmed, homeless man, died in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, in August 2003. According to a report from a community group, based
on a review of police records, Burks had entered a convenience store shirtless and
sweating, “looking frightened” and begging for help, saying he was going to die. 149
After he grabbed an employee on the shoulders, staff and customers took him to the
ground and tried to calm him while police were called. When the police arrived he
was lying face-down on the floor with his right arm tucked under his torso. When he
failed to respond to police commands to get up, he was sprayed in the face with
pepper spray. He was handcuffed behind his back and dragged to a police car, still
unresponsive. Officers lifted his upper body into a police car, and when he still failed
to respond, tasered him twice in the lower back with an M26 in touch-stun mode. He
was placed face-down on the back of the police car, handcuffed behind his back with
his legs bent backwards (effectively in a hobble restraint position), and reportedly left
in that position for some 27 minutes. He was wheeled into hospital in a wheelchair
and staff noted him to be “drooling and still unresponsive”. He was pronounced dead
a short while later. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner reportedly ruled his
death to be “sudden, unexpected death associated with cocaine excited delirium”,
with heart disease and pulmonary emphysema underlying health factors.

•

Louis Morris, aged 50, died in Orange County, Florida in October 2003 as police
tried to arrest him for suspicious behaviour in a grocery store car park. According to
media reports, he died “just minutes after Orange County sheriff’s deputies used a
Taser stun gun on him”. The autopsy found inter alia that he had a “history of bizarre,
excited, paranoid behaviour prior to sudden arrest” and that he went into cardiac
arrest “after being restrained with handcuffs and ankle restraints (hobbled)”. There
was no evidence of significant external trauma or internal injury. He had a high
concentration of cocaine in his system, and the cause of death was listed as “cocaine
excited delirium”.
The forensic pathologist who reviewed the case for Amnesty International
questioned the finding of “cocaine excited delirium” as this is a condition that cannot
be diagnosed by autopsy without the history and circumstances being taken into
account. She also found that, although he had relatively high levels of cocaine in his
system, the distribution of this in the body may have been affected by resuscitation.
Although it was impossible to assess the role of the taser on the information provided,
she believed it could not be ruled out as a contributory factor, along with the restraint.

148

Autopsy report in case of Terrence Hanna, July 2003
Communities United Against Police Brutality “The Death of Walter C. Burks, An Analysis of Police
Actions”, April 12, 2004
149

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

60

Excessive and lethal force?

•

Kevin O’Brien, aged 31, died in Pembroke Pines, Florida, in November 2003.
According to his attorney he was mentally disturbed, unarmed and half naked
(dressed only in swimming shorts) when arrested for beating on cars. He was tasered
multiple times and placed in a hogtie restraint. The autopsy report gave cause of death
“positional asphyxia due to ‘hogtying’ and facedown (prone) restraint in an individual
displaying ‘excited delirium’”. In his report, the Medical Examiner noted the known
danger of sudden respiratory arrest caused by this procedure, especially in the case of
individuals involved in a violent struggle or strenuous exercise. However, he found
“There is no evidence of illegal behaviour by police, as hogtying (hobbling) face
down (prone) restraint is not prohibited by Florida’s laws. The Medical Examiner
concurs with the policy of the Pembroke Pines Police Department that hobble
restraint (“hogtying”) should not be used”. At the time of writing, Amnesty
International was seeking information on whether any disciplinary action was taken
against the officers involved, after they were cleared of criminal wrongdoing.

•

Lawrence Davis, aged 27, died in Phoenix, Arizona, in August 2004. According to
press reports, he was involved in a struggle with officers after he jumped onto a
parked patrol car, yelling incoherently. He continued to struggle after being hit with
taser darts, and police tasered him again in the leg after bringing him to the ground.
An officer then used a “chokehold” on him. He was pronounced dead in hospital
about 45 minutes later.

2.7. Taser and pregnancy
One of the cases included in Amnesty International’s review was the death of an unborn child
in December 2001 after the pregnant mother was struck by an M26 taser. Although the
coroner failed to establish a link between the taser and the foetal demise, the mother
subsequently received substantial damages in an out-of-court settlement (see Cindy Grippi
case under Lawsuits, 1.7. above). Two medical experts consulted by the woman’s lawyer
reportedly found a likely causal connection between the foetal death and the electro-shock.
Taser International warns that police use of tasers is “not advisable” in the case of
pregnant women because of the risk of the woman falling. Otherwise, the company maintains
that the electrical output from tasers is not harmful to a foetus. However, Amnesty
International is concerned by the absence of thorough, independent research into the medical
effects of using low-amperage, high voltage taser shocks on pregnant women. One past study
has suggested an association between between electrical injury from a (low powered) taser
and miscarriage after reviewing a case report and the literature on electrical injuries during
pregnancy. 150 The case concerned a woman 12 weeks pregnant who was shot with a taser
after she refused to submit to a strip search in a Florida jail; she began to miscarry

150

Mehle L.E. “Electrical Injury from Tasering and Miscarriage”, Acta.Obstet Gynaecol Scand, 1992;
71:118-23.
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

61

spontaneously seven days later. She was subsequently awarded $225,000 by a federal jury. 151
A study of the safety of tasers and any associated medical risks should include further
research into this topic.

2.8. General concerns about health risks and tasers
The manufacturers of electro-shock equipment claim their products are medically safe. It has
been emphasized that the electrical output/current of even the higher powered tasers is far
below the threshold for which cardiac ventricular fibrillation (severe disturbance of the heart
rhythm during which the heart pumps little or no blood) could occur. A training manual
produced by Taser International states that “the Advanced Taser’s low electrical amperage
and short duration of pulsating current, ensures a non-lethal charge”. According to Steve
Tuttle, director of government affairs for Taser International: “In 30 years, no death has ever
been attributed directly to the Taser gun, typically it’s cocaine, pre-existing medical
conditions and, in some cases, excited delirium”.152 Company literature suggests that tasers
are safe even for people fitted with heart pacemakers.
However, there remains a lack of rigorous, independent research into the medical and
safety effects of stun weapons. While there is a limited amount of literature describing clinical
experience of earlier tasers, there has been no independent medical literature published to date
on the effects of the more powerful Advanced Taser. The only medical studies prior to the
marketing of the Advanced Taser were tests on animals commissioned by the company; none
of these studies has been peer reviewed. 153
The earlier published literature includes a review of 16 deaths occurring in Los
Angeles between 1983 and 1987, all involving people struck by the original low-powered
tasers.154 In only one case did the authors find the taser may have contributed to the death of
a man who already had a severely debilitated heart (in all other cases they found cause of
death was clearly due to other factors, mainly drug intoxication). The findings were
challenged by forensic pathologist Dr Terrence B. Allen, who expressed concern that certain
medical conditions, including drug use and heart disease, may increase the risk that the taser
will be lethal and found it could have contributed to nine of the deaths.155
Medical experts have continued to question the safety of tasers, particularly on people
with underlying heart problems or other conditions. A report in the international medical
151

Orlando Sentinel June 16, 1991
The Olympian 11 November 2002
153
The US Department of Defense is reportedly conducting an ongoing study, based, in part, on
materials by Taser International, including operational use, but the results have not yet been made
public.
154
(R. Kornblum, M.D., S. Reddy, M. D, “Effects of the Taser in Fatalities Involving Police
Confrontation,” 36 Journal of Forensic Sciences, 434-48, 1991).
155
37 Journal of Forensic Sciences, 956-58, 1992
152

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

62

Excessive and lethal force?

journal the Lancet in September 2001, for example, reviewing the available medical literature,
noted that tasers were less likely than guns to cause injury or death and that tests on pigs
suggested that “cardiac myocardial … stimulation is extremely unlikely in normal use of
these devices”. 156 However, the authors found that “Further research on what other cardiac
effects tasers and related devices would have in people with pacemakers is needed”. 157 They
concluded that:
“… apart from issues related to cardiac pacemakers mentioned above, there are others
that still need to be researched. Injury thresholds need to be studied, as do the effects
of tasers on the nerves. Methods of stratifying people at risk of respiratory or cardiac
arrest should also be examined, as well as the degree of blood-gas correction needed
to minimise this risk.”
The UK Defence Scientific Advisory Council Subcommittee on the Medical
Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (DOMILL), reporting to the UK Home Office in
December 2002, also raised concern about the potential and unknown medical risks from
tasers, although a decision was made in January 2003 to pilot the M26 in the UK under
limited circumstances (see below). This followed a two-year review of the operational and
medical aspects of the various taser models available. The DOMILL experts noted that:
“The body of manufacturers’ experimental evidence from biological models of
the … effects of taser on excitable tissues is not substantial, particularly with regard to the
M26; the peer-reviewed evidence is even more limited.”158
While they found, on the available evidence, that the risk of death from primary
injuries presented by the M26 taser was low, and very much lower than from conventional
firearms, DOMILL observed that:
“The confidence of the opinion of a very low risk from future use of the M26 is not as
high as that for the low-power device”. This was due in part to the “dearth of information on
the potentially adverse electrophysiological effects of the higher current flow in the body,
particularly in subjects who have a predisposition to cardiac arrhythmias arising from drug
use, pre-existing heart disease or genetic factors”.159 DOMILL also noted:
“There is no experimental evidence that the aforementioned pro-arrhythmic factors
increase the susceptibility of the heart to low or high power Tasers specifically, sufficient to
cause an arrhythmic event. Nevertheless, there is sufficient indication from the forensic data
and the known electrophysiological characteristics of the heart (and the effects of drugs on
this) to express a view that excited, intoxicated individuals or those with pre-existing heart
156

R.M.Fish, L.A. Geddes,“Effects of stun guns and tasers”, Lancet, September 2001, op cit.
The early medical literature includes concern about the potential of tasers to disrupt the software or
cable in pacemakers: Koscove ME. “The Taser Weapon: a new emergency medicine problem”, Annals
of Emergency Medicine, 1985; 14:1205-8.
158
First DOMILL statement on the medical implications of the use of the M26 Advanced Taser,
December 2002
159
Ibid, paragraph A18
157

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

63

disease could be more prone to adverse effects from the M26 Taser, compared to unimpaired
individuals” (AI emphasis) (paragraph A28 of the DOMILL report).
The DOMILL experts recommended that further research should be undertaken into
“cardiac hazards associated with use of the taser on individuals who could be considered to
have a greater risk of adverse effects”, including “possible hypersusceptibility to taser
currents arising from drugs commonly used illegally in the UK, acidosis and pre-existing
disease”.160 They conceded, however, that approval for piloting the M26 taser, under the strict
terms of the operational guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Office (ACPO),
could be considered pending such further research.
Five UK police forces subsequently introduced trials of the M26 taser under the
ACPO guidelines: these allow tasers to be deployed only by trained officers in situations
where use of a firearm has been authorized. In the UK most police officers do not carry, and
are not trained to use, firearms. Firearms remain in the firearms box and are only issued to
officers when authorized for specific circumstances. 161 In September 2004, the UK Home
Secretary, David Blunkett, announced that, in light of the outcome of the trials, he would
allow chief officers of police forces across England and Wales to deploy tasers “for use in the
same strictly limited circumstances” as set out in the APCO guidelines.162
The announcement followed an updated report by DOMILL, which considered data
from the UK trials, as well as some further limited research into the effects of electrical pulses
and of certain recreational drugs on the heart. While the report concluded, overall, that the
risk of life-threatening or serious injuries from the M26 Taser was very low, it left unchanged
the earlier caveat set out under paragraph A28 (cited above) that “excited, intoxicated
individuals or those with pre-existing heart disease could be more prone to adverse effects
from the M26 Taser”. The report states:
“DOMILL has reviewed the paragraph in its first statement that discussed proarrhythmic factors (paragraph A28) and concludes that it does not require
modification on the basis of the current work. The current work provides
experimental evidence to support the original statement.”163
160

Ibid, paragraph A30 (b)
The ACPO guidelines state that “Authorized Firearms Officers (AFOs) … are issued with firearms
where the authorising officer has reason to suppose that they, in the course of their duty, may have to
protect themselves or others from a person who is: in possession of a firearm or has immediate access
to a firearm, or is otherwise so dangerous that the officer’s use of a firearm may be necessary”.
(Operational Guidance on use of Taser, ACPO, 13 August 2004, p 3)
162
During the year-long pilot study, tasers were deployed by UK police in 60 incidents but fired on
only 13 occasions, resulting in minimal injury.
163
Second statement on the medical implications of the use of the M26 Advanced Taser, DOMILL, July
2004, page 3. This current work included research into the effect of recreational drugs on cardiac
function. DOMILL reported that the “results from the study … suggest that some frequently abused
drugs have the potential to contribute to any cardiac-related morbidity or mortality that may arise in the
context of Taser use. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to assume that this conclusion could be
161

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

64

Excessive and lethal force?

The ACPO operational guidance for taser use in the UK deals with these risk factors
by limiting tasers only to authorized situations where trained officers might otherwise use a
firearm, and by instructing officers to take them into account when determining the
appropriate options.164 The guidelines also recommend immediate referral to hospital of any
tasered suspect who has been fitted with a pacemaker or cardiac device and state that “all
arrested persons who have been subjected to discharge of a taser must be examined by a
Forensic Medical Examiner as soon as practicable”. 165
A review of the medical literature commissioned by Taser International also raised a
number of questions about safety issues and the Advanced Taser.166 The authors pointed to
the lack of clinical medical literature on recent models and absence of conclusive evidence on
the effects of the electrical discharge from tasers on humans. They expressed the view that it
will be
“difficult to determine absolute safety for any given quantity or nature of electrical
energy delivered by these weapons. On one hand, direct discharges into animal heart
muscle did not cause ventricular fibrillation, but in earlier (disputed) work, short
episodes of cardiac standstill were caused and doubts raised about the effectiveness of
pacemakers under Taser stimulation”.
They also wrote that:
“elderly subjects and those with pre-existing heart disease are perhaps at an increased
risk of cardiac complications and death following exposure to large quantities of
electrical energy. Since the elderly and heart patients don’t often require to be
subdued or controlled with a high level of force, then this is unlikely to pose a
common problem” and that
“There is not enough proof either way to determine the risk to those with implantable
defibrillators or pacemakers”.

generalised to other emotionally charged and possibly violent confrontations with law enforcement
personnel.” (ibid at page 3)
164
The guidance states that “where it becomes apparent that the subject has an existing medical
condition or is under the influence of drugs, assessment of these additional risk factors should be made
on determining the appropriate option.”
165
The guidelines also state that “Close monitoring of a subject throughout the period following
application of the taser is of utmost importance. If the person is detained in a cell they should be subject
to the same cell supervision provided for persons who have consumed alcohol or drugs. If there are any
signs of adverse or unusual reactions then medical attention should be provided immediately and if
necessary this must be given precedence over conveying the subject to the police station”.
166
The review was conducted by Dr Anthony Bleetman (Consultant in Accident and Emergency
Medicine, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, UK and Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer, Dept of
Surgery, University of Birmingham, UK) and Dr Richard Steyn (a Consultant in Thoracic Surgery,
Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, UK). Their findings have been published as The
Advanced Taser: a Medical Review, Bleetman and Steyn, April 27 2003 (available at the Taser
International web-site).
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

65

Notwithstanding the potential medical risks described, the authors found that the taser
had a “lower injury potential for prisoners than current use of unarmed defensive tactics,
baton strikes and deployment of police dogs” and that “stun devices are certainly less lethal
than firearms and if they are to be deployed in similar circumstances and level of threat, then
the outcome will almost certainly be safer”.
The authors also noted that at that time no deaths had been linked conclusively to the
taser, and that “All deaths have occurred whilst in custody after Taser electrical delivery
rather than during or immediately afterwards”. However, as described above, Amnesty
International believes the latter claim may not be the case in a number of more recently
reported deaths.
An article published in the Emergency Medical Journal (EMJ) in 2004 on the
implications for the Advanced Taser in British policing, authored independently by the above
two experts, covered similar ground and stated that “Until clinical experience with this new
device is published, it is only possible to draw general conclusions about the relative safety of
the device” and that “It seems that the device is essentially safe on healthy people”. 167 The
authors suggested management of “tasered” patients in emergency departments, noting inter
alia that “important points in the history will include known cardiac disease, including
implanted pacemaker or defibrillator, pregnancy, drug or alcohol intoxication, bizarre
behaviour at the time of arrest, other psychiatric disturbance, or coincidental medical
problems”. On the risks of electrical injury, the article noted “there is no evidence to date that
this form of electrical delivery causes interference with cardiac or neurological function in the
30,000 volunteers or in the reported operational uses”. However, the authors refer to “only
four reported deaths” in about 40,000 operational uses, in which “no direct association with
Taser use was implicated”. Amnesty International believes that the more than 70 deaths
reported since those materials were reviewed, and factors arising from those cases, provides
ground for urgent independent scrutiny, as does data on alleged unwarranted injuries,
excessive force and ill-treatment.
The studies cited above underscore Amnesty International’s concern about the
potential health hazards for serious unwarranted injuries and death that may ensue from
widespread deployment of the M26 or X26 taser. While the EMJ review gives the opinion
that tasers are essentially safe on healthy people, many tasered individuals are far from
healthy. Operational surveys by law enforcement agencies in North America show that more
than half the number of people confronted by the M26 Advanced Taser were impaired by
alcohol, drugs or mental illness -- among the population identified by some medical experts as
potentially at increased risk of adverse effects such as heart arrythmias and “acidosis”. As

167

A Bleetman, R Steyn, C Lee. “Introduction of the Taser into British policing. Implications for UK
emergency departments: an overview of electronic weaponry”, Emerg Med J. 2004; 21: 136-140
(accepted for publication June 2003)

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

66

Excessive and lethal force?

taser use proliferates, the potentially adverse effects on people with heart disease or other
underlying conditions could become a significant concern.168
It is important to note also that deaths have been linked with other high-voltage stun
weapons in the USA. An autopsy found that a foster mother’s use of a 70,000 volt stun gun on
a malnourished seven-month old infant was a direct cause of his death, with the case report
concluding that “stun guns are dangerous weapons”. 169 An autopsy in the case of a 54-yearold man killed during a botched robbery in August 2002 ascribed cause of death as
“Electrocution due to a stun gun”; the autopsy found “Factors contributing to his death are
Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Coronary Atherosclerosis, and Cirrhosis of the
Liver.”170
An Ultron 11 stun gun, discharging 45,000 volts at 6 milliamps, was found to be a
contributory factor in the death of Virginia prisoner Larry Frazier. Frazier, a diabetic, died in
July 2000 after lapsing into a coma in the prison infirmary while suffering from
hypoglycaemic shock. Guards in the infirmary applied the stun gun to him three times after he
allegedly became “combative” during a medical examination. The autopsy report gave cause
of death as “cardiac arrhythmia due to stress while being restrained following stunning with
Ultron 11 device”. The coroner did not find the electro-shock from the Ultron 11 caused death
directly through ventricular fibrillation, noting that “it was applied on the flank, where the
output would not interfere with the heart’s electrical activity” and that, according to witnesses,
“the decedent continued to thrash about and shout for several minutes after the device was
used”. Instead, she concluded,
“It seems most likely that severe physiologic stress, initiated by hypoglycaemia and
exacerbated by decedent’s prolonged agitation with stunning, was sufficient to induce a
lethal cardiac arrhythmia”, adding that “Individuals with coronary artery disease are at
increased risk for such an event” (Frazier had severe atheroscelerosis).171

168

Data from US Department of Health and Human Services, published in July 2004, showed that 11%
of US adults aged 18 and over had ever been told they had some form of heart disease and 13 million
(6%) had been diagnosed with coronary heart disease. This figure does not include those with
undiagnosed heart problems.
169
Turner MS, Jumbelic ML, Case Report: Stun Gun Injuries in the Abuse and Death of a SevenMonth-Old Infant, Journal of Forensic Sciences 2003, 48: 180-2.
170
Report of Coroner, Will County, Illinois, in case of Jose Guadalupe Garcia.
171
Report of Autopsy in case of Larry Frazier, Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Commonwealth of
Virginia, July 2000.
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

67

3 . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasers are widely promoted by US police agencies as being a useful force tool, safer than
many other weapons or techniques used to restrain dangerous, aggressive and focused
individuals. In practice, however, they are commonly used to subdue individuals who do not
pose a serious and immediate threat to the lives or safety of others. In many reported instances
police actions using tasers appear to have breached international standards on the use of force
as well as the prohibition against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
Amnesty International considers that electro-shock weapons are inherently open to
abuse as they can inflict severe pain at the push of a button without leaving substantial marks,
and can further be used to inflict repeated shocks. While the capacity for abuse exists in
whichever mode tasers are deployed, Amnesty International believes that tasers in “touch”
stun gun mode are particularly open to abuse, as they are designed for “pain compliance” and
tend to be used against individuals who are already in custody or under police control, often
with multiple shocks.
Amnesty International is further concerned that, despite being widely deployed, there
has been no rigorous, independent and impartial study into the use and effects of tasers.
Medical opinion has continued to raise concern about potential health risks from tasers,
particularly in the case of people suffering from heart disease, or under the influence of
certain drugs. Amnesty International’s concerns are heightened by a growing number of
deaths of individuals struck by police tasers. The organization believes that the taser cannot
be ruled out as a possible contributory factor in some deaths. Concerns about the risks
associated with tasers increase as they become more widely deployed.
Many police agencies claim that tasers have the potential to save lives or avoid
serious injury in cases where police officers might otherwise resort to firearms or other forms
of deadly force. It is self-evident that tasers are less-lethal or injurious than firearms. Amnesty
acknowledges that there may be situations where tasers can effectively be used as “stand-off”,
defensive weapons as an alternative to firearms in order to save lives. This appears to be the
aim of the limited introduction of tasers to UK police who operate under strict rules. However,
it appears that in practice tasers are rarely used as an alternative to firearms in the USA and
most departments place them at a relatively low level on the “force scale”. Amnesty
International further notes that measures such as stricter controls and training on the use of
force and firearms are likely to be more effective overall in reducing unnecessary deaths or
injuries.
Based on these considerations, Amnesty International makes the following
recommendations to federal, state and local authorities:
1. Suspend all transfers and use of tasers and other electro-shock weapons
pending a rigorous, independent and impartial inquiry into their use and
effects. Such an inquiry should be carried out by acknowledged medical,
scientific, legal and law enforcement experts who are independent of

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

68

Excessive and lethal force?

commercial and political interests in promoting such equipment. They should
rigorously assess their medical and other effects in terms of international
human rights standards regulating the treatment of prisoners and use of force;
the inquiry should include the systematic examination of all known cases of
deaths and injury involving the use of such weapons and also consider the
mental impact of being subjected to electro-shock. The study should
recommend strict rules, safeguards and oversight procedures to prevent
misuse of any types of electro-shock equipment that may be viewed as having
a legitimate use in law enforcement. A report of the findings of such an
inquiry should be made public promptly after completion of the study.
2. International standards recognize that situations will arise in which police
officers will have to use force. However, these standards, specifically the
(UN) Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials,
set specific guidelines on when, how and the extent to which force can
legitimately be used. All law enforcement agencies should ensure that
officers are trained to use force strictly in accordance with these standards. 172
3. Federal, state and local authorities should ensure that use of force training
programs for law enforcement officials include international standards on
human rights, particularly the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment.
4. All allegations of human rights violations and other police misconduct should
be fully and impartially investigated. All officers responsible for abuses
should be adequately disciplined and, where appropriate, prosecuted.
Where law enforcement agencies refuse to suspend their use of tasers,
pending the outcome of the above-mentioned inquiry, Amnesty International
recommends that:
5. departments using tasers should strictly limit their use to situations where the
alternative would be use of deadly force. Examples would include: armed
stand-offs, instances in which a police officer faces a life-threatening attack
or injury, or threat of attack with a deadly weapon, or where the target
presents an immediate threat of death or serious injury to him/herself or
others. In such circumstances, tasers should be used only where less extreme
measures are ineffective or without a promise of achieving the intended result.
172

These require inter alia that law enforcement officials shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent
means before resorting to the use of force and firearms; exercise restraint in such use and act in
proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be pursued; minimize
damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life. Law enforcement officials shall not use
firearms except in self-defence or the defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious
injury; in any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable to
protect life. (See appendix for extracts from the standards)
Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

69

6. Unarmed suspects should not be shot with a taser for arguing or talking back,
being discourteous, refusing to obey an order, resisting arrest or fleeing a
minor crime scene, unless they pose an immediate threat of death or serious
injury that cannot be controlled through less extreme measures.
7. Operational rules and use of force training should include a prohibition
against using tasers on the following groups, except as a last resort to avoid
deadly force when no alternatives other than firearms are available: pregnant
women; the elderly; children; emotionally disturbed persons or people who
are mentally or physically disabled; people in vulnerable positions where
there is a risk of serious secondary injury (e.g. in dangerously elevated
positions, or near flammable substances); people under the influence of drugs.
8. Repeated shocks should be avoided unless absolutely necessary to avoid
serious injury or death.
9. Departments should introduce guidelines which prohibit the application of
prolonged shocks beyond the five-second discharge cycle.
10. Tasers should only be used in stun gun mode as a back-up to dart-firing tasers
and only when no other options are available to an officer and there is an
immediate threat of death or serious injury to the officer, the suspect or
another person. The stun gun function should never be used to force a person
to comply with an order given by an officer where there is no immediate
threat to the life or safety of the officer or others.
11. Whenever an individual has been shot with a taser, police officers or custody
staff should be required to call paramedics or other medical professionals to
administer treatment. It is advisable to take tasered subjects to hospital to
have the barbs removed and to monitor for other adverse effects.
12. Federal, state and local agencies should ensure strict reporting by the
departments concerned on all use or display of tasers, with regular monitoring
and data made public. In particular:
Departments should download data recorded by officers’ tasers after
every incident in which they are used. A summary of this data should
be included in all use of force reports.
Each display, “sparking” or shock administered by a taser should be
reported in use of force reports, as well as whether the taser was used
in dart-firing or stun gun mode and the reasons why a taser was used.
The number of trigger-pulls and duration of the shock should be
reported in each instance. The age, race and gender of each person
against whom a taser is deployed should also be reported.
Prisons and other institutional facilities should install remote
monitoring equipment to record taser usage automatically as it occurs.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

70

Excessive and lethal force?

Each department should provide a detailed break-down of its taser
use in regular, public reports.
Recommendations on private sale or use of tasers
13. Tasers and electro-shock weapons should not be sold to members of the
public whose use of the device cannot be monitored, constrained or
accounted for.
14. In jurisdictions where officials refuse to ban their sale, all tasers and electroshock weapons sold to the public should be registered with local officials.
15. The same restrictions on firearms purchased by convicted felons or
individuals convicted for domestic violence, should apply to electro-shock
weapons sales.
16. The sale of tasers should be regulated as firearms, even though they use
compressed gas rather than gunpowder. Federal, state and local officials
should set strict guidelines to curtail abuse of electro-shock weapons
available to the public, with strict penalties imposed for unlawful use of such
weapons.
Additional recommendations:
17. Mentally ill or disturbed individuals should receive appropriate treatment and
alternatives to force in line with best practice. Where officers have reason to
believe that a disturbed individual may be acting in a violent or threatening
manner as a result of mental illness, efforts should be made to involve mental
health specialists in dealing with the disturbed person. Policing methods
based on force should only be used as a last resort.
18. Dangerous restraint holds such as hogtying and use of carotid neckholds or
chokeholds should be banned.
19. There should be strict limitations and guidelines on the circumstances in
which pepper spray should be used, with clear monitoring procedures.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Hannah
Rogers-Grippi
26-week-old
female foetus,
died in womb
after mother,
Cindy Grippi,
hit with police
taser

Time between taser use and
death or cardiac arrest/loss of
consciousness.

Became unresponsive the day of
taser use-Wednesday. Died 4 days
later- Sunday. (Press report)

Foetal heartbeats documented at a
hospital approx. 2 hrs after the
taser incident, used by ME to likely
exclude taser as COD. The
accuracy of the foetal heartbeat
finding questioned by experts for
plaintiff in subsequent lawsuit,
noting hospital had trouble
detecting them and that they could,
in fact, have been the mother’s.
Mother reports lack of foetal
activity from just after the taser
incident.
The day after the taser incident, 12
December, mother diagnosed with
foetal demise and baby delivered
by induction stillborn 3 days later.

Marvin
Hendrix
Age 27 (B)
(AUT)

Hamilton PD Cocaine toxicity
Ohio
17th December
2001

Possible
restraint/excited
delirium

2x
“exact role
unknown”

“some 2 minutes” (went into
History of
cardiac arrest in ambulance)
restraint
(autopsy, but
no details)

Vincent
Del’Ostia,
Age 31 (W)
(AUT)

Hollywood PD Cocaine toxicity
Broward
(signs excited
County FL
delirium)
January 2002

History of drug
abuse and
schizophrenia.

2x

Prone (face- Still struggling after taser strike.
down),
Officer observed had stopped
handcuffed/be breathing 30 secs after restrained
hind back +
ankle cuffs

Anthony
Spencer
Age 35

Philadelphia PD Press reports
February 2002 coroner finding of
cocaine overdose

Pepper spray “conscious and talking on way to
before tasered hospital” at first but died on way to
hospital

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

Mark Burkett
Age 18 (Un)
(Taser+Press
only)

Contrib. factors/
Number of Other
Underlying health Taser
Restraint
condition
activations;
possible
Taser link in
autopsy
report
Alachua County ME stated cause of Blood alcohol
Poss 2x
Sheriff’s Office death was “acute reading of 0.11 14
Alachua County exhaustive mania” hours after arrest(legal driving limit
FL
0.8). Family history
17th June 2001
of paranoid
schizophrenia (Press
Report)
Chula Vista
ME found “exact ME found placental 1x (two darts
Police
cause of the
infarct in small
extracted from
Department,
intrauterine death proportion of
mother’s
placenta. Toxicology back)
CA
is unclear but
12 December could be related to tests on foetus
revealed “a
2001
the maternal
methamphetamine significant amount of
methamphetamine” ,
use”
(2 medical experts no other drugs
for the plaintiff in detected.
subsequent lawsuit Foetus was of normal
gave opinion that gestational weight
and no evidence of
likely cause of
death the electrical disease or trauma.
Experts for plaintiff
shock. Mother
found tearing
awarded
between placenta and
substantial
damages in out-of- uterus could be
court settlement) caused by electrical
current.
Police agency/ Cause of death
City/ State
Month/ Year
of death

Amnesty International, November 2004

4.1. Appendix 1: Taser deaths in USA and Canada June 2001 - 4 Oct 2004

4. APPENDICES

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

71

Name/ source
indicated if
autopsy
(AUT)

No. Taser activations;
possible Taser link in
autopsy report

Other Restraint Time between taser use and
death or cardiac arrest/loss of
consciousness.

72

Excessive and lethal force?

Nassau
Cocaine toxicity Heart disease
Henry
County FL and coronary
William
March 2002 atherosclerosis
Canady
Age 46 (B)
(AUT)
Richard
Baralla
Age 36
(HISP)
(AUT)

Pueblo,
Sudden cardiac
Colorado arrest during
May 2002 excited delirium
necessitating
restraint

2x
Chronic thyroiditis,
obesity
no physical signs of
asphyxia, nor an
asphyxial component
according to witnesses)
witnesses)
NB coroner notes
history of drug abuse
but toxicology reports
show no alcohol or
drugs in system

Eddie R
Alvarado
Age 36
(HISP)
(AUT)

LAPD
Death caused by
Los Angeles sequelae of
CA
methamphetami
June 2002 ne and cocaine
use, post
restraint and
taser use.

No coronary problems,
hyoid bone and larynx
intact but severe
respiratory congestion

“Temporal relationship” between
5x
Handcuffed
Autopsy report states: behind back when restraint, inc. taser and pulmonary
“The circumstances
struck with taser arrest, (became prone after 5th
application. Then hobble
indicated a temporal
then hobble
restrained. Subsequently found in
relationship between
(hogtied)
pulmonary arrest and dead on
retraint, including taser
arrival at hospital.)
application, and his
cardiopulmonary arrest”

Oklahoma ME determined Multiple contusions,
At least 2x
Jason
City, OK Nichols had died lacerations and
Taser implantation sites at
Nichols
Age 21 (B) June 2002 of head trauma abrasions. 3 lacerations right upper arm and left
upper abdomen
(AUT)
suffered during to back of head
fight with uncle No evidence of natural
disease no drugs found
“extremely unlikely that
the taser events had a
direct effect or were
responsible for death
(acc autopsy)
Name
Phoenix,
unknown AZ
(Taser Int June 2002
CNN List)

Police found man
bloodied in driveway

Went into arrest at scene, efforts at
Pepper spray
handcuffs/hobble resuscitation at scene and at
hospital were unsuccessful and he
(hogtied)
was pronounced dead a short time
later

Conflicting reports.

Pepper
spray/handcuffs.
Constantly
struggled against
restraints ie in
restraints

Officer rather than EMSA drove
him to hospital. Went into cardiac
arrest 5 mins after arriving at
hospital.

When paramedics arrived he went
into cardiac arrest i.e. at scene, and
died in hospital

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Police
Cause of death Contrib.factors/
Underlying health
agency/
condition
City/ State
Month/Yea
r of death

Amnesty International, November 2004

Name/
source indicated
if autopsy
(AUT)

“cardiac
(history mental
dysthythmia
health problems)
during..excited
Pre-existing heart
delirium and
problem
following electrical No trace of
shock from Taser” recreational drugs
in system.

Fermin
Rincon
Age 24
(HISP)
(AUT)

Fontana CA
Acute cardiac
27th June 2002 arrhythmia, due to
methamphetamine
abuse, years.

Johnny
Lozoya

Gardena CA
2nd July 2002

Gordon
Orange County
Randall
FL
Jones, Age July 2002
37 (W)
(AUT)

Cardiopulmonary Heart problems
arrest; cocaine
(hypoxic
intoxication
enlephaliapathy)

Number of Taser Other Restraint
activations;
possible Taser
link in autopsy
report

Time between taser use and
death or cardiac arrest/loss of
consciousness.

3x
COD indicates
temporal link
between cardiac
arrest and shock.

Died shortly after struggle with
police.
Autopsy notes arrhythmia occurred
after electrical shock.

3x

Stunned with taser, punched and
Punched, put in
chokehold or “lateral put in chokehold before collapsing.
vascular neck
restraint”
Press: subdued by 5
police officers

3x

Chased by police.
Beaten, choked.

Died at Arrowhead Regional
Medical Center.

Died while strapped
face-down to
stretcher, agitated
during transport

u/k - died on way to hospital
Conflicting reports-Dr Salvatore
Silvestre-overseer of paramedicsquestioned autopsy-said restraints
allowed Jones mobility-‘during
transport Jones tried to bite, spit
and scream at the crew’ stopped
breathing was turned on back and
resuscitated-remained on back and
died in ER room.

Positional asphyxia Restraints/cocaine 13 x
secondary to
intoxication
Anderson
application of
Was carrying half a interviewed by
restraints in setting pill of Maxidone- Arizona Republic
of acute cocaine addictive pain killer thinks that taser
intoxication (first
played role in the
autopsy)
death.
9 Months later
officials requested
another autopsy-Dr
Cyril Wecht
conclusion drawn J
died primarily
from cocaine
overdose

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

Mobile,
Clever
Alabama
Craig
June 2002
Age 46
(Taser Int,
Press)

Contributory
factors/
Underlying health
condition

Amnesty International, November 2004

73
Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

Name/sour Police agency/ Cause of death
City/ State
ce
indicated if Month/Year of
death
autopsy
(AUT)

Heart attack

74

Excessive and lethal force?

Name
Albuquerque,
Unknown NM
Age 31
March 2003
(Taser Int)

Terrence Burnaby
Brian
Mounties,
Hanna, age Vancouver BC
51 (AUT) 21st April 2003
Joshua Alva San Diego CA
Hollander May 2003
(W)
Age 22
(AUT)

Number of Taser Other Restraint
activations;
possible Taser
link in autopsy
report

Time between taser use and
death or cardiac arrest/loss of
consciousness.

Diabetes and
obesity

1x ?

Acc to police not immediate, only
after handcuffed they noticed he
wasn’t breathing
Died in hospital

Toxicology screen
positive for
amphetamines,
cocaine, canniboids
and alcohol.

Cardiac
hypertrophy,
coronary artery
disease, physical
Anoxic/ischemic Under influence of 2x
encephalopathy
methamphetamine
Due to cardiac
Autopsy found he
arrest, due to
suffered hypoxic
incised wounds of brain damage but
wrists and right
because of time
hand
lapse this did not
(manner of death: cause death
suicide)
.

Acute cocaine
intoxication
Inquest pending

Handcuffed

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Stephen L. Olympia PD,
Edwards, WA
Age 59
7th November
2002

Contributory
factors/
Underlying health
condition

Pepper Spray/Baton then Lost consciousness and died in
taser. Broke wires of
ambulance.
taser; subdued by multiple
officers.

Reportedly tasered when officers
Autopsy states: “… of
significance is that patient tried to get him out of a police car
and went into cardiac arrest at the
was placed face down,
handcuffed behind his
scene.
Chokehold-carotid
Died in hospital-further
restraint- twice tasered
investigations revealed 30 mins
after each
after chokehold and taser use he
went into cardiac arrest.

Amnesty International, November 2004

Name/sour Police agency/ Cause of death
ce
City/ State
indicated if Month/Year of
autopsy
death
(AUT)

Several x
Asphyxial death Drug induced
secondary to prone agitation.
restraint syndrome Combative, faceand phencyclidine down pressure to
chest

Timothy
Sleet (B),
age 44
(AUT)

Springfield,
Missouri

Clayton
Alvin
Willey,
(INDIG)
Age 33
Canada

Prince George, Possible cocaine
overdose
BC
Inquest pending
British
Columbia
RCMP
21 July 2003

Gordon
Sacramento, CA u/k
Rauch
Age 38
(source:
John
Zilwaukee,
Reportedly no
Thompson, Michigan
significant injuries
45
at preliminary
(source:
inquest
Taser Int
list only)

Pre-existing heart
condition

Time between taser use and
death or cardiac arrest/loss of
consciousness.

Pepper spray, baton,
beanbag
Handcuffed behind back
with pressure to chest
(officer’s foot on neck)

Police called to scene where Sleet
had just fatally stabbed a woman
(his partner) during fight, in front
of child. Police used multiple force
options before bringing him under
control.
Soon after subdued, officers noted
he was not responding. Pronounced
dead at scene after unsuccessful
attempts at resusciatation.

Tasered after
handcuffed/hogtied

Tasered when police tried to get
him out of police car, collapsed (at
scene?), died in hospital 16 hours
later

2x

Reported to have gone limp after
officers handcuffed him, taken to
hospital where died

At least 2x

Reportedly tasered in his
apartment, then fought with guards
in intake section of jail, put in
isolation cell where found dead
later the same night

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

Contributory Number of Taser Other Restraint
factors/
activations;
Underlying
possible Taser
health condition link in autopsy
report

Amnesty International, November 2004

75
Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

Name/
Police agency/ Cause of death
source
City/ State
indicated if Month/Year of
autopsy
death
(AUT)

Troy Dale
Nowell
Age 51
(press)

Amarillo PD Cardio-pulmonary Arteropsclerptoc Several x
Amarillo,
hypertensive
arrest during
Texas
disease
violent struggle
4 August 2003

Stopped breathing at scene
u/k
Struck on legs with
metal baton

Walter C.
Burks
Age 36 (B)

Minneapolis Excited delirium Pulmonary heart 2x
with cocaine use. disease/
PD
emphysema
Minnesota
7 August 2003

Dead on arrival in hospital.
Pepper spray –
prone position,
hands cuffed behind
back, knees bent.

Contributory Number of Taser Other Restraint
activations;
factors/
possible Taser
Underlying
health condition link in autopsy
report

Pulmonary
At least 5x
edema, mild
atheroscelerosis

Richard
Glendale PD
Glenn Leyba, Glendale,
Age 37 (W) Colorado
(AUT)
19 September
(Paramedic 2003
report)

Cardiac arrest
during cocaine
induced agitated
delirum
necessitating
restraint

Clark Edward RCMP
Whitehouse, Whitehorse,
Age 34
Yukon
Canada
Territories
September
2003

Reportedly died of
cocaine overdose
Inquest pending

Ray Austin, Gwinnet
Age 25
County Jail
Gwinnet
(Press)
County,
Georgia
24 September
2003

Heart attack, cause History of mental 6x
illness
not clearly
determined by
autopsy

Roman
Gallius
Pierson
Age 40

La Brea PD
Cardiac arrest due History of
2x
Yorba Linda, to acute
coronary artery
California
methamphetamine disease
7 October 2003 intoxication

Cuffed with both
wrists behind back
after tasered several
x.

Became limp after 3rd taser.
Paramedics noticed he had stopped
breathing and was pulseless while
being wheeled to ambulance. Attempts
at resuscitation were unsuccessful and
was pronounced dead on arrival at
hospital
Started foaming at month shortly after
tasered, paramedics at scene unable to
rescuscitate him; pronounced dead on
arrival at hospital.

Restraint chair,
After being tasered, was strapped in
psychotropic drugs chair and injected with Haldol
whereupon lost consciousness.
Pronounced dead in hospital half an hr
after tasered.

Handcuffed,
possibly prone

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Police agency/ Cause of death
City/ State
Month/Year
of death

According to press reports, after 2nd
taser he was handcuffed and “after
about a minute” police noticed he was
not breathing.

Amnesty International, November 2004

Excessive and lethal force?
76

Time between taser use and death or
cardiac arrest/loss of consciousness.

Name/
source indicated if
autopsy
(AUT)

Other Restraint
Number of
Taser
activations;
possible Taser
link in autopsy
report

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

Louis
Orange
Cocaine excited
Morris,
County
delirium
Age 50 (B) Sheriffs Dept
Florida
(AUT)
21 October
2003

Atherosclerotic coronary
artery disease

1x

Blunt force head injury;
5x
Dennis
Oklahoma
Acute
Hammond City
methamphetamine multiple injuries to
abdomen, thighs and back;
Age 31
Oklahoma
intoxication
multiple abrasions and
(W) (AUT) October 2003
superficial cuts.

Time between taser use and death or
cardiac arrest/loss of consciousness.

Autopsy notes
“sudden arrest after
being restrained
with handcuffs and
ankle restraints
(hobbled)”

According to press article died “just
minutes after Orange County sheriffs
deputies used a Taser stun gun on him”
(Autopsy noted police reports that he
was still agitated and talking after
shocked with taser)

3 beanbag
rounds/handcuffs

EMSA bandaging his incised wounds
to both calves and soles of feet when
he “turned blue and stopped
breathing”. Reported to have been
several minutes after he was restrained.
Died at hospital.

Michael Oklahoma
Sharp
City
Johnson Oklahoma
Age 32 (B) November
(AUT)
2003

5x
Acute congestive Drugs abuse, agitated
heart failure due to delirium, physical exertion
cocaine induced and restraint.
cardiac arrest,
drug abuse,
agitated delirium,
physical exertion.

Handcuffs and leg During brief struggle he was tasered
restraints-after
multiple times before police were able
being tasered took 3 to handcuff him. Approx 2 mins later
officers to help gain he stopped breathing at scene, placed
control
on a ventilator admitted to intensitve
care with multi-system failure. Died
approx 22 hrs later.

Kerry
Kevin
O’Brien,
(W)
Age 31
(AUT)

Positional
asphyxia due to
hogtying and
prone restraint.

Excited delirium a factor. 4x
NB no alcohol, narcotics or
other recreational drugs
found in system.
(History of asthma,
depression).

Hogtied, face-down Stopped breathing and no pulse at
(prone), head
scene after restraint.
pressed down,
(autopsy notes he continued to struggle
officers’ weight on after being tasered)
shoulders, legs,
buttocks.

Cardiac
dysthythmia
secondary to
hypertropic
cardiomyopathy
(heart attack),
drug intoxication
and electrical
shock

Pre-existing heart
At least 6x
condition
Taser found to
Was confused and weak on have played
arrest; may not have taken role in death
his diabetes medication.

Pembroke
Pines
Florida
10th
November
2003

James L. Monroe
Borden,
Indiana
Age 47 (B) November
(AUT)
2003

Lost consciousness after last electro
shock in jail booking area. Pronounced
dead in hospital.
Officer charged and awaiting trial.

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

Contributory factors/
Underlying health
condition

Amnesty International, November 2004

Police
Cause of death
agency/ City/
State
Month/Year
of death

77

Name/
source indicated
if autopsy
(AUT)

Lewis Shanks St Johns
Florida
King,
Age 39 (B) 9 December
2003
(AUT)

78

Excessive and lethal force?

Curtis
Lawson
Age 40

Contributory
factors/
Underlying health
condition

Cardiac arrest during Heart disease, stress At least 2x
prone restraint due to and physical
hypertrophic and
exertion during
ischemic
arrest
cardiomyopathy

Unadilla
Cocaine overdose
Georgia
10 December
2003

Southampton Autopsy results
David
Glowzcenski Village Police pending
NY
4 February
Aged 35
2004

History of mental
illness

Raymond L. Minneapolis
PD
Siegler,
Minneapolis
Age 40
12 February
2004

Press reports say
pre-existing medical
conditions

William
Lomax,
Age 26
(transcript of
coroner’s
inquest)

Las Vegas
Nevada
21 February
2004

Number of Taser Other Restraint
activations;
possible Taser
link in autopsy
report

ME found COD
Early stages of
cardiac arrest during pneumonia along
restraining procedures with PCP (though
(including taser,
PCP not an an
exertion from drugs extremely toxic
and physical struggle, level). Overweight.
and fact he was on
stomach, further
restricting breathing).
Coroner’s inquest
returned verdict of
COD to be
“combination of
drugs, restraining
force and use of
taser”

Time between taser use and
death or cardiac arrest/loss
of consciousness.

Handcuffs and ankle
restraints prone
position

Taser applied before put in
restraints, still struggling after
restrained, died on way to
hospital

2x

Pepper spray (other
unknown)

Police say continued to fight
after being shocked; after
about 15 minutes while
waiting for transportation
suddenly ceased breathing at
scene

9x

Beaten and hit with
pepper spray

u/k

7x in the course
of nine minutes,
including at least
3x on neck (some
jolts lasting 8 and
6 seconds)

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Police
Cause of death
agency/ City/
State
Month/Year
of death

u/k, suffered cardiac arrest
shortly after shocked. Died 6
days later.

Handcuffed and placed Noticed to have stopped
face down on a
breathing at scene, after
stretcher
placed on stretcher. Died a
Inquest jury ruled
day later in hospital.
that jolts from Taser
played a role in
death. ME testified
that his COD findings
on restraint included
taser as a factor,
though could not be
sure death would not
have occurred
without taser.

Amnesty International, November 2004

Name/
source indicated if
autopsy
(AUT)

Contributory
factors/
Underlying
health
condition

Curtis
Silverdale
Rosentangle Washington
Age 44
21 February
2004

Signs of
“substance
induced
psychosis”

“stabilized”, taken to hospital where died
“some time later”

Perry
Ronald
Age 28
(Taser Int)

Edmonton,
Alberta
Canada
March 2004

Jumped from Hit several times Hobble restraint
third floor and in drive stun mode
shattered ankle

Went into cardiac arrest about an hour
after being restrained. Died in hospital
without regaining consciousness.

Terry L.
Williams
Age 45

Madison
Illinois
30 March
2004

Melvin
Samuel
Age 38

GBI ME found no
Houston
County Jail obvious cause of
death.
Georgia
16 April
2004

Alfredo
Diaz
Age 29
(Latino)

Orange
County,
Florida
18th April
2004

Coroner’s jury
Blood alcohol
determined COD level three
was an accident
times the legal
caused by “sudden driving limit.
death associated by
marked agitation
and physical
restraint”

Autopsy pending

Time between taser use and death or
cardiac arrest/loss of consciousness.

Police will be
looking at how
many times taser
fired (has data
bank)

Was found asleep. Police said he was “conscious and alert”
Was handcuffed on when they left his home-not certain how
one arm and as he much time elapsed between firing of taser
awoke he dropped and W becoming unresponsive.
to the ground this Press report stated halfway through the
was when he was four block journey to the police station W
tasered.
stopped talking and lay down in the seat.
At the station he wouldn’t get out of the
car then officers noticed he was
unresponsive.

3x

Two belly
Taser used to subdue him shortly after
chains/set of leg 1am, about 10mins after struggle, deputies
irons when placed noticed he wasn’t breathing.
face down in
holding cell

Possible drug At least 2x
ingestion.

Pepper spray/
handcuffed

They noticed he was having trouble
breathing after second dart and
handcuffed, called an ambulance (i.e. lost
consciousness at the scene)

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

Number of Taser Other Restraint
activations;
possible Taser
link in autopsy
report

Amnesty International, November 2004

79
Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

Cause of death
Name/
Police
source agency/
indicated if City/ State
autopsy
Month/Year
(AUT)
of death

Diagnosed bipolar 4x (dart and stun gun
Cardiac
mode)
arrhythmia in schizophrenic
setting of acute
psychosis and
physical
restraint

Vancouver,
Roman
Andreichik Canada
1 May 2004
ov
Age 25

80

Excessive and lethal force?

London,
Peter
Lamonday Canada
13 May 2004
Age 33

Police had found
him flailing arms,
high temperature ,
unable to
understand what
they were saying to
him after a binge
drinking session
Cocaineinduced excited
delirium

Jerry
Pickens
Age 55

New Orleans
Louisiana
31 May 2004

Died from head
injury after
Taser shot
caused him to
fall on ground
and hit his head
on cement.

Lost consciousness at scene efforts to
revive him failed.

Died after 15 mins of being zapped
After shocked,
officers alleged to
have handcuffed
him behind back,
pushed head down
on floor while legs
bent backwards
into hogtie
position.
Several x

History of mental 1x
illness , drug abuse.

Henry J.
Seffner near
Lattarulo Tampa
Age 40 (W) Florida
29 May 2004

Time between taser use and death or
cardiac arrest/loss of consciousness
AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Eric Wolle Washington
Grove
Age 45
Maryland
27 April 2004

Number of Taser Other Restraint
activations;
possible Taser link
in autopsy report

Died approx 20 mins after being shocked
Pepper spray
7 officers used their
combined weight to
take him to ground
Struck several
Stopped breathing shortly after being
times with a baton, handcuffed; before that, shot with taser
four more deputies but reportedly pulled darts out
arrived and after
lengthy fight was
handcuffed

Amnesty International, November 2004

Police agency/ Cause of death Contributory
Name/
City/ State
factors/
source Underlying health
indicated if Month/Year of
death
condition
autopsy
(AUT)

Gwinnet County “Brain damage – Wife and 9 yr old 5 taser burn marks
lack of oxygen
Georgia
on chest .
son said he was
and/or blood to
1 June 2004
“talking crazy and However, ME
brain – due to heart not taking his
said “there is no
attack of uncertain epilepsy medicine” evidence the
etiology (unknown No drugs found in Taser directly
reasons)” according system, no history of caused or
to ME
contributed to his
heart problems
death”.

Anthony
Orlando
Carl Oliver Florida
Aged 42
1 June 2004

Daryl
Lavon
Smith
Age 46

Number of
Taser
activations;
possible Taser
link in autopsy
report

Deputies said he fought for more than
an hour.
Seconds after being shocked his heart
stopped. Died in hospital 36 hours
later.

Preliminary reports“had cocaine and
marijuana in his
system, but we don’t
have full toxicology”

Fulton County,
Atlanta
Georgia,
6 June 2004

Jacob J Lair Washoe County “acute
Age 29
PD
methamphetamine
Reno, Nevada intoxication with
associated cardiac
arrhythmia while
engaged in a
physical struggle
with law
enforcement
officers involving a
Taser gun, pepper
spray and
restraints”

Other Restraint Time between taser use and death or
cardiac arrest/loss of consciousness.
AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

Frederick
Jerome
Williams
Age 31
(B,
Liberian)

Contributory
factors/
Underlying health
condition

Died six hours after sheriff’s deputy
used Taser on him in Atlanta

According to ME,
the
methamphetamines
in Lair’s system
were not high
enough to constitute
a drug overdose.
Lair’s death found
due to combination
of drugs, struggle,
pepper spray, taser
and restraint.

1x
Pepper
Lair suffered from an apparent medical
ME reported to spray/handcuffed emergency during the struggle and
find Lair’s death placed face down collapsed at scene
part of a series of on a bed
events of which
Taser was one
factor (Taser
“part of the
scenario”)

Amnesty International, November 2004

81
Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

Name/
Police agency/ Cause of death
source City/ State
indicated if Month/Year of
autopsy
death
(AUT)

St Paul
James
Minnesota
Arthur
9 June 2004
Cobb
Age
Unknown

Robert
Bagnell
Age 54

Vancouver
Canada
June 2004

82

Excessive and lethal force?

Nazareth
Kris J
Lieberman Pennsylvania
24 June 2004
Age 32
(W)

Preliminary ME
examination
showed “no blunt
force contributed”
to death,
toxicology reports
pending.

Shocked several
times

Pepper spray/hit Officers able to handcuff Cobb but then
with batons
he collapsed on the street. Taken to
hospital where he died at 3.14 am

Not yet
determined
Toxicology
reports showed
large amount of
cocaine in system.
Findings deferred
pending
toxicology results
(Aug 04))

Dayton Ohio Coroner reported
Eric B
Christmas 1 July 2004 (?) to have found
COD cocaine
Age 36
intoxication

Demetrius
Tillman
Nelson
Age 44

Contributory Number of Taser Other Restraint Time between taser use and death or
cardiac arrest/loss of consciousness.
factors/
activations;
Underlying
possible Taser link
health condition in autopsy report

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Police agency/ Cause of death
City/ State
Month/Year of
death

Okaloosa
Cocaine
County Sherrif associated excited
FL
delirium
3 July 2004

Crawling
3x
deliriously in a
field, moaning
and pounding
head on ground

Lost consciousness at scene, police
unable to revive him, died two hours
later in hospital.

Was sweating Shot with taser but,
profusely when according to police,
police
the electrical
encountered him. cartridge became
Hospital
dislodged an no
reported
current emitted
temperature in
excess of 107
degrees
After shocked,
Went into respiratory arrest at scene
was shackled
placed in rear of
police vehicle

Amnesty International, November 2004

Name/
source indicated
if autopsy
(AUT)

Brampton,
Ontario
Canada
17 July 2004

Preliminary
Toxicology reports
autopsy did not showed high level
establish COD, of cocaine in blood
full pathology
report pending.

Milton Salazar Mesa, Arizona
Age 29
23 July 2004
Samuel
Truscott
Age 43

Pepper spray and Lost consciousness at scene, paramedics
hogtied
unable to revive him, died shortly
afterwards in hospital.

Cocaine in system Several x (dart
then touch stun)

Drug overdose
Kingston
(cocaine)
Ontario
Canada
8 August 2004

Keith Tucker Las Vegas,
Age 47
Nevada
Press report
dated 4
August 2004

Coroner reported Taser and batons
to have found
COD cardiac
arrest, brought
on by restraint
with taser and
batons

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

Jerry Knight
Age 29

Number of
Other Restraint Time between taser use and death or
Contributory
Taser
factors/
cardiac arrest/loss of consciousness.
Underlying health activations;
possible Taser
condition
link in autopsy
report

Face turned white when handcuffed.
Breathing but unresponsive at scene.
Died two days later.
Pepper spray

Reported to have walked unaided to patrol
car (after pepper spray and taser) and to
have died in hospital approx 2 hours later,
following cardiac arrest.

u/k
Batons/handcuffed Went into cardiac arrest at scene and died
Coroner found
later in hospital. (police noticed had
taser
stopped breathing after he was
contributed to
handcuffed)
cardiac arrest

Ernest
St Louis
Blackwell
County
Age 29
Kansas
(Press Report) 11 August
2004

2x

Sedated

Died on way to hospital

Anthony Lee Cabarrus
McDonald
County
Age 46
North
Carolina
13 August
2004

2x (taser then
stun gun)

Beanbag gun

Reportedly, continued to struggle after hit
with beanbags, was stunned and minutes
later became lethargic with trouble
breathing. Died shortly after arriving at
hospital.

Amnesty International, November 2004

83
Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

Name/ source Police
Cause of death
- indicated if agency/ City/
autopsy
State
(AUT)
Month/Year
of death

William
Teasley
Age 31

u/k
Coroner said taser
Coroner found
contributed to death
taser
when combined with
medical history. He had contributed to
multiple health problems, death when
including enlarged heart combined with
and spleen, hardening of medical history
arteries. Also suffered that included
severe brain damage
heart disease
from car crash in 2003.

Anderson Cardiac arrest, due
County
to heart disease,
South
taser
Carolina
16 August
2004

84

Excessive and lethal force?

Richard
Denver,
“Kevin” Karlo Colorado
Age 44
19 August
2004

“acute cocaine and Heart disease
nortriptyline
(antidepressant)
toxicity”,
following agitated
delirium with
subsequent
restraint

Number of TaserOther
activations;
Restraint
possible Taser
link in autopsy
report

4x

Michael
Fresno, CA
Lewis Sanders 20 August
Age 40
2004

“delusional” with history Several x
of medical problems

Lawrence
Davies
Age 27

May have been using
cocaine

Phoenix
Arizona
24 August
2004

3x

Time between taser use and
death or cardiac arrest/loss
of consciousness.

Was tasered while being
booked into jail and stopped
breathing at the scene.
Pronounced dead shortly after
arriving at hospital.

Wrestled with Trouble breathing (cardiac
arrest?) at scene and
him/baton
pronounced dead in hospital
approx an hour after his
encounter with police

Stopped breathing after being
placed in an ambulance.
Incident occurred at 2 am and
he was pronounced dead at 430
am
Choke
Acc to press, he regained
hold/handcuffs consciousness after taser and
continued to struggle,
chokehold used before
handcuffed. Taken to hospital
and pronounced dead less

than an hour later.

Jason Yeagley Polk
Age 32
County
Sheriff
Auberndale
FL
26 August
2004

Preliminary
Appeared to be
autopsy found no intoxicated
sign of injury or
medical problem,
toxicology results
pending

2x

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Contributory factors/
Underlying health
condition

Handcuffs

Went into ‘some kind of
medical distress’ at scene, was
pronounced dead on arrival at
hospital.

Amnesty International, November 2004

Name/ source Police
Cause of death
-indicated if agency/
autopsy
City/ State
(AUT)
Month/Yea
r of death

Michael Robert Del Rey Oaks
Rosa
Seaside Police
Age 38
CA
29 August
2004

2x

Stopped breathing at scene.
Deputies performed CPR until
medics arrived. Pronounced dead at
hospital

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

Samuel
Wakefield
Age 22

Johnson
County Sheriff
Rio
Vista,Texas
12 September
2004

Witness said had
ingested large
amount of cocaine
Police
spokesperson
reported as saying
he was “resisting
but he wasn’t
fighting”

Andrew
Washington
Age 21

Vallejo, CA
Solano County
Coroner
16 September
2004

Appeared to be
intoxicated

Dwayne
Lafayette
Anthony Dunn Police Dept
Age 33
Louisiana
4 October
2004

Preliminary
Appeared to be
autopsy failed intoxicated
to determine
cause of death

Fell into a
ditch and
tasered; after
handcuffed he
vomited and
started having
cardiac arrest
at scene.
Pronounced
dead at
hospital.
1x?

Fell into a ditch and tasered; after
handcuffed he vomited and started
having cardiac arrest at scene.
Pronounced dead at hospital.

Showed signs of medical distress at
scene. Pronounced dead at hospital.

Police used taser when resisted
arrest outside a grocery store at
around 5.21 am. Became ill shortly
after being booked into jail just after
6am. Condition deteriorated and was
taken to hospital, where died in the
afternoon of same day.

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

Time between taser use and death
or cardiac arrest/loss of
consciousness.

Amnesty International, November 2004

Number of Taser Other
activations;
Restraint
possible Taser
link in autopsy
report

85

Name/ source - Police agency/ Cause of death Contributory
indicated if
factors/
City/ State
autopsy (AUT) Month/Year
Underlying
health condition
of death

86

Excessive and lethal force?

4.2. Appendix 2: Selected International Instruments

Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ratified by the US Government on 8 June 1992)
Article 6
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No
one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or
scientific experimentation.
Article 10
1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the
inherent dignity of the human person.
The United Nations (UN) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ratified by the US government in October 1994)
This provides, among other things, that education and information regarding the prohibition
against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment shall be fully
included in the training of law enforcement personnel and others (Articles 10 and 16). It also
provides that each State Party shall ensure there is a prompt and impartial investigation
whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture or other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction (Articles 12
and 16).
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.
Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988
Principle 1
All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner
and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
Principle 6
No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance whatever may be

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

87

invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
Principle 34
Whenever the death or disappearance of a detained or imprisoned person occurs during his
detention or imprisonment, an inquiry into the cause of death or disappearance shall be held
by a judicial or other authority, either on its own motion or at the instance of a member of the
family of such a person or any person who has knowledge of the case. When circumstances so
warrant, such an inquiry shall be held on the same procedural basis whenever the death or
disappearance occurs shortly after the termination of the detention or imprisonment. The
findings of such inquiry or a report thereon shall be made available upon request, unless doing
so would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation.
Standards on police codes of conduct and use of force
Relevant articles under the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by
the UN General Assembly in 1979:
Article 2: "In the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and
protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons."
Article 3: "Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the
extent required for the performance of their duty."
More detailed guidelines are set out in the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms
by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth UN Congress on the Prevention of
Crime and Treatment of Offenders on 7 September 1990. These provide in part:
4. "Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply nonviolent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and
firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the
intended result."
5. "Whenever use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall:
a. Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the
legitimate objective to be achieved;
b. Minimize damage and injury and respect and preserve human life;
c. Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the
earliest possible moment";
9. "Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or
defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

88

Excessive and lethal force?

perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person
presenting such a danger or resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only
when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional
lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life."
10. "In the circumstances provided for under principle 9, law enforcement officials shall
identify themselves as such and give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with
sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would unduly place the law
enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to others, or
would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident."
The Basic Principles also provide that law enforcement officials shall, among other things:
11(b) "Ensure that firearms are used only in appropriate circumstances and in a manner likely
to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm."
Article 6 of the Basic Principles provides that officials shall promptly report any use
of force or firearms that results in injury or death. Article 7 provides that governments shall
ensure that "arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is
punished as a criminal offence under their law."
Governments were asked to consider incorporating the provisions of the Code of
Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials into national legislation or guidelines for law
enforcement agencies.
The Eighth UN Crime Congress invited member states to bring the Basic Principles
to the attention of law enforcement officials and other members of the executive branch of
government, judges, lawyers, the legislature and the public and to inform the UN SecretaryGeneral every five years of the progress achieved in their implementation.

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

89

4.3. Appendix 3: Distribution and deployment of tasers by
Region and Country
According to a list of distributors published by Taser International in April 2000 and July
2004, there were 43 distributors covering a total of 50 countries worldwide (see table below).
It is not known whether Taser is currently exporting to all these countries. However in 1997
the company was quoted as claiming that they were exporting to more than 35 countries. i
Using reports from companies, distributor and media indicate that the various Taser models
have been tested, trialled, deployed or are in use by police forces in at least 28 countries.
Africa
Deployment / Trials

Country
Algeria
South Africa

Police Task Force
Parlimentary Committee
South African Police Services
National Task Force (SA SWAT)
Hostage Negotiationii

Asia Pacific
Country
Australia
Malaysia
New Zealand
Philippines
Singapore
South Korea

Deployment/Trials
New South Wales Police
Deployediii
Malaysia Police3

“used”iv
Korean Airlinesv
Incheon Provincial Police Agency

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

90

Excessive and lethal force?

Ministry of National Defense
9965 Unit ROK Army3
“used”4

Thailand

Europe
Country
Andorra
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canary Islands
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland

France

Germany

Amnesty International, November 2004

Deployment/Trials
Belgian Federal Police
Canary Island Authority

Finnish Police Techinical Center
Finland Army Units
Testingvi
French Police Dept.
Firearm Headquarters/DGA
French-German Research Institute
Ministry of the Interior / Paris
Security Republican Company /
Paris
Public Security Headquarters
Marine Commando Headquarters
Air Army Headquarters
German Army Special Forces
German Army for Peacekeepers in
Kosovo
German Gov'
t Federal Air
Marshalls
SEK North Rhine Westphalia**
SEK Berlin
SEK Niedersachsen
SEK Sachsen
SEK Baden Wuerttemberg
SEK Thueringen
SEK Rheinland Pfalz

AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

91

SEK Hessen
SEK Bavaria South (Munich
SWAT team)
GSG 9 (German Federal Anti
Terrorist unit)
“used”
Greek Special Forces of the Greek
Air Staff3

Greece
Ireland
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg

Luxembourg SWAT*
*Unites Speciales de Police GrandDucale de Luxembourg

Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Romania
Slovenia
Spain

Deployed?

Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey

Garafia
Espartinas
UEI Guardia Civil
- Sp. - Castellon
Alcala de Xivert
- Sp. - Kanarske ostr.
Canary Island Authority
Tests
Trialled and deployedvii
Turkish Special Forces

UK

Trialled.viii
Trialled and deployed
Middle East

Country
Bahrain
Iran
Iraq

Amnesty International, November 2004

Deployment/Trials
GHQ Bahrain Defence Force
Deployed with US Military Forces

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004

92

Excessive and lethal force?

Israel

Israeli Air Force
Israel Police

Jordan
Special Forces of MOI

Kuwait
Lebanon
Saudi Arabia

Abu-Dhabi Police
Dubai Police

United Arab Emirates

North America
Country
Canada
Mexico
United States of America

Deployment/ Trials
Trialled and deployed
Mexican Army
Trialled and deployed

South America & Caribbean
Country

Deployment/Trials

Argentina

Argentine Federal Police
Gendameria
Argentine Coast Guard
Pan Air Force
Argentine Presidential Security
Justice Minstery – Jails

Brazil
Chile
Paraguay
Peru
Trinidad & Tobago
Amnesty International, November 2004

Trinidad Police
AI Index:AMR 51/139/2004

Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use
of tasers

93

US Virgin Islands
Venezuela
End Notes/Sources

i

Electronic Telegraph 10/6/97: ...Quoted in the October 1996 issue of Security Products, Smith claims to export to
more than 35 countries. "Overseas we primarily sell to law enforcement, and then when they are comfortable, we
move to the mass market."
ii

http://www.harpia.cz/taser/taser12.html (accessed 9/2004) Reference : ADVANCED TASER M26 se pouziva v
ozbrojenych slozkach techto statu:
iii

Australasian Business Intelligence, July 2, 2002: This gun'
s a stunner but not for criminals.

iv

Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News 23/9/2003: Scottsdale, Ariz.-Based Stun Gun Maker Continues to See
Growth
v

Airline Industry Information, March 28, 2002: Korean Airlines signs contract with TASER International.

vi

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/08/01/taser/ "There are to be tests in Sweden at the beginning of
the year 2002 and we already have equipment in Poland," said Tuttle. Tasers are also bound for Finland.

vii

www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=105900 25/7/2003: Switzerland approves use of TASER brand
conducted energy weapons. Becomes first European country to formally approve the new TASER X26
viii

Turkish Daily News 1/4/98: '
Is electro-shock safe enough to use?'

Amnesty International, November 2004

AI Index: AMR 51/139/2004