 J u ne 2 011 S p ec i a l R e p o r t 

A
A Force
Force to
to be
be Reckoned
Reckoned With
With

Taser
Taseruse
useand
andpolicies
policiesinin20
20Arizona
Arizonalaw
lawenforcement
enforcementagencies
agencies

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona is the state’s premier guardian of liberty, working
daily in the courts, Arizona Legislature and communities statewide to defend and preserve
individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to all by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States and Arizona. The ACLU of Arizona is an affiliate of the ACLU, the largest civil liberties
organization in the country, with more than 500,000 members nationwide.
Through litigation, public education and targeted advocacy, the ACLU of Arizona is working to
bring about change intended to improve police-community relations and implement successful
strategies to increase police accountability.
This special report is designed to educate the public, policymakers and members of law
enforcement about the need to implement meaningful reforms surrounding the use of Tasers.
Acknowledgements
The data analysis for this report was completed by Dr. Frances P. Bernat, Emeritus Faculty,
Arizona State University and Professor and Chair, Texas A&M International University.
We’d also like to thank Heather Winkeller and Samantha Blons for their outstanding research
assistance on this project. Finally, we would like to thank John Burton for his insight and
suggestions, and his excellent advocacy on behalf of victims of Taser misuse.
Authors: Emily Whitfield and Annie Lai
Researchers: Dr. Frances P. Bernat, Heather Winkeller and Samantha Blons
Design: Christy Fritz
Published by the ACLU of Arizona, June 2011

A Force to be Reckoned With
Taser use and policies in 20 Arizona
law enforcement agencies
Published June 2011
ACLU of Arizona
P.O. Box 17148  Phoenix, AZ 85011
602-650-1854  www.acluaz.org

A Force to be Reckoned With page 2

A Force to be Reckoned With

Taser use and policies in 20 Arizona law enforcement agencies
Table of Contents
Executive Summary

4

Part I
Introduction and Overview

8

What is a Taser?

9

A False Dichotomy

10

A Liability for Police Agencies

11

Unsupported Claims and Questionable Marketing Practices
by TASER International

13

Part II
Getting Behind the Rhetoric:
the ACLU’s Survey of Arizona Law Enforcement Agencies
Finding #1 Tasers Are Widespread Among Arizona Law Enforcement
Finding #2 Equipping Officers with Tasers Does Not Result
in Lower Levels of Use of Lethal Force

Finding #3 Officers Receive Inconsistent Guidance on
When It Is Appropriate to Use Tasers

Finding #4 Agencies Lack Clear Guidance on Taser Safety Considerations,

15
15
17
21

Including the Use of Tasers Against Vulnerable Populations

24

Finding #5 Agencies Over-Rely on TASER International for Training
Finding #6 Agencies Lack Data Collection and Other Mechanisms

28

to Monitor Taser Use

29

Part III
Recommendations

31

Conclusion

33

Appendix A
Copy of Public Records Request

34

Endnotes

36

A Force to be Reckoned With page 3

Executive Summary
This special report represents the most comprehensive survey of Taser use by law
enforcement agencies in Arizona to date. To our knowledge, it is also the first independent
examination of the relationship between Taser use and the frequency of deployment of lethal
force by police in Arizona.
Police use of Tasers has been controversial since the release of TASER International’s first highpowered Electronic Control Weapons (ECWs) to agencies in the early 2000s. While billed as an
alternative to lethal force including firearms, according to Amnesty International at least 330
people have lost their lives after being exposed to police Tasers between
2001 and 2008. In addition, a 2011 report by the National Institute of
...criticism of police
Justice (NIJ) – a branch within the U.S. Department of Justice – found that
Tasers have indirect or secondary effects, such as injury from falling, that
use of the weapon
has mounted around can result in death. The NIJ cautioned that the effects of Tasers on certain
vulnerable populations, such as small children, pregnant women, the
the country. Arizona elderly, and people with heart conditions, are not well understood.

has not escaped this
controversy.

As more incidents involving Tasers have come to light in the age of YouTube
and the 24-hour news cycle – from the 2007 University of Florida episode
that coined the phrase “Don’t Tase Me, Bro,” to ongoing reports of tragic
deaths and serious injuries inflicted by Tasers – criticism of police use of the weapon has
mounted around the country. Arizona has not escaped this controversy. 	

Many U.S. law enforcement and correctional agencies in the United States are using Tasers
today. In Arizona, where TASER International has its corporate headquarters, the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona asked large police departments and sheriff’s offices about
the number and percentage of officers armed with a Taser; virtually every sworn officer is
provided with one.
The ACLU of Arizona supports the responsible use of less-lethal weapons such as Tasers. We
recognize that there are times when police officers must use such force to protect their lives
and the lives of others. However, all too often, Tasers are used “preemptively” against citizens
that do not present an imminent safety threat, and even offensively as a pain compliance tool.
What’s more, both TASER International training materials and agency policies anticipate that
officers will use the weapon as a pain compliance tool.
The purpose of this report is to illuminate specific facts about Taser use by Arizona law
enforcement officers and to use those facts as a starting point for a conversation about the
need for meaningful reform.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 4

Findings and Recommendations
To learn more about the use of Tasers in Arizona law enforcement agencies, the ACLU of
Arizona filed records requests with 20 agencies across the state, including all of the larger
agencies, between December 2008 and January 2010. Some additional data was collected in
April and May 2010. The records requests sought information about:
 Department policies and procedures governing the use of Tasers;
 Training materials;
 The number of officers in each agency equipped with Tasers;
 Statistical data about Taser use and other uses of force in each agency; and
 Complaints and investigations of Taser use that led to injury or death.
The key findings include:
Finding #1 > Tasers Are Widespread Among Arizona Law Enforcement
Tasers are almost ubiquitous among the agencies surveyed. In addition,
it appears that on the whole, city and state police officers are more likely
to carry Tasers than their counterparts at county sheriffs’ offices.

...contrary to claims
by Taser proponents,
the frequency of
Finding #2 > Equipping Officers with Tasers Does Not Result in Lower
deployment of lethal
Levels of Use of Lethal Force
One of the most striking and more significant findings that came out
force has not declined
of the ACLU of Arizona’s study is that, contrary to claims by Taser
with the advent of
proponents, the frequency of deployment of lethal force has not declined
Tasers.
with the advent of Tasers. These findings highlight the need for a more
honest and sensible dialogue about the role of Tasers in Arizona law
enforcement.

Finding #3 > Officers Receive Inconsistent Guidance on When It Is Appropriate to Use Tasers
Only six out of 20 agencies specified for officers where Tasers fell on the use-of-force
continuum. In addition to Tasers’ placement on the use-of-force continuum, the 20 agencies
reported different results as to what factors should be considered before determining whether
to deploy the Taser and the situations in which Taser use would not be justified.
Finding #4 > Agencies Lack Clear Guidance on Taser Safety Considerations, Including the Use
of Tasers Against Vulnerable Populations
Recognizing the increased risk when dealing with certain populations or when certain safety
hazards are present, law enforcement agencies often caution officers against deploying Tasers
in such high risk situations. However, the ACLU’s survey of Arizona law enforcement agencies
revealed that jurisdictions have adopted a patchwork of inconsistent policies regarding the
Tasing of pregnant, young or elderly suspects, use of Tasers near a flammable substance,
using Tasers on intoxicated people, and deploying the Taser multiple times on an individual.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 5

Finding #5 > Agencies Over-Rely on TASER International for Training
The ACLU found that agencies’ training on Tasers generally fell into three categories: six agencies
supplemented the TASER International training with their own materials; five agencies created
their own training materials; and nine agencies reported relying solely on TASER International’s
training or provided materials that were nearly identical to the TASER International training.
While TASER International’s latest training materials address some of the concerns that the
ACLU and other civil and human rights organizations have expressed over the years, it is clear
that the company’s own claims are fluid and evolving, and law enforcement agencies cannot
depend on TASER International to always present the facts about Tasers.
Finding #6 > Agencies Lack Data Collection and Other Mechanisms to Monitor Taser Use
Many of the agencies that responded to our records requests reported that they could not
provide us with use-of-force data because the information was not systematically collected or
analyzed. If such information was not available to the ACLU, it follows that the same information
would not be available to supervisors within the agency charged with monitoring officers’
behavior. These reports were disturbing. So long as data about Taser use remains unavailable,
the debate about Taser safety and effectiveness remains hopelessly skewed.
Based on these findings, the ACLU of Arizona makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation #1
Implement Strong Accountability Mechanisms for Taser Use, Including Data Collection
An agency’s ability to limit Taser use to lawful and appropriate circumstances depends first and
foremost on meaningful supervision and oversight. As with firearms,
officers should complete a use-of-force report every time a Taser is
Transparency will
brandished or fired (even accidentally). Those reports should then be
also promote positive compared to data downloaded from Tasers to ensure accuracy and
community relations completeness in reporting. Agencies should collect this data in a format
in light of controversy (such as electronically) that allows supervisors to periodically review it for
warning signs of misuse or overuse.

surrounding Taser
use, and the high
number of reports of
injuries and deaths.

In addition to making data about Taser use available to supervisors,
agencies should make the same data available to the public. Basic
information should be available on an agency’s website without having to
file a public records request. This will allow the community to assess for
itself what the impact Tasers have had on other uses of force and overall
public safety. Any useful discussion about the role of Tasers in law enforcement begins from
this point. Transparency will also promote positive community relations in light of controversy
surrounding Taser use, and the high number of reports of injuries and deaths.
Recommendation #2
Revisit Tasers’ Place on the Use-of-Force Continuum and Update Agency Policies	
Tasers clearly are not “non-lethal” weapons, and should always be referred to as “potentially
lethal” or “less-lethal” weapons. Agencies should only permit Taser use in the face of imminent
threats of physical harm to the officer or other individual or, at a minimum, active aggression.
Passive resistance or non-threatening active resistance, such as evasive actions to avoid being
handcuffed, should not justify the use of a Taser.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 6

Recommendation #3
Mandate Regular Training That Meaningfully Incorporates Agency Rules and Philosophies
Regarding Taser Use	
Agencies should not rely exclusively on TASER International, a profit-driven company, to prepare
their officers to use this potentially lethal weapon in the field. TASER International’s materials
have focused primarily on technical proficiency, while exaggerating the weapon’s safety and
downplaying the potential physiological risks associated with their use.
Reliance on TASER International’s materials will also not shield an agency for liability in the
case of a serious injury or death. Agencies with strapped budgets can hardly afford additional
lawsuits, not to mention high-dollar judgments. As a matter of fiscal as well as professional and
ethical responsibility, agencies should invest in training that inculcates
officers with the agency’s own policies on Taser use. Such training
should educate officers on the potentially serious consequences of
...the ACLU invites
Taser exposure (including death) and how use of the Taser relates to
agencies to partner
other force options.

with us to advocate
for a statewide task
force to monitor
trends in Taser use in
Ariona and provide
policy and training
recommendations.

Recommendation #4
Establish a Statewide Body to Review Taser Use and Develop Policy
Recommendations and Training Resources for Agencies
In addition to the above changes, the ACLU invites agencies to partner
with us to advocate for a statewide task force to monitor trends in
Taser use in Arizona and provide policy and training recommendations.
Such a task force could include members of the community, experts,
researchers and representatives from law enforcement. Their
mission would be to gather data on Taser use from state and local
law enforcement agencies, analyze trends in officer behavior, and make recommendations to
agencies that are consistent with the best practices in the field.

Conclusion
This report shows that there are serious issues concerning the use of Tasers in Arizona, and
that the lack of adequate training and accountability endangers the public and exposes law
enforcement agencies to potentially debilitating liability claims.
The Taser is almost certainly here to stay. When used appropriately and responsibly, it can be
an effective tool in the law enforcement arsenal. However, it should never be forgotten that
the Taser is a potentially lethal weapon, with potentially tragic consequences for its use and
misuse.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 7

Part I: Introduction and Overview		
Law enforcement and correctional agencies in the United States today regularly use Electronic
Control Weapons (ECWs), also known as “Tasers.”1 Approximately 260,000 Tasers have been
issued to law enforcement officers across the country.2 More than 15,000 law enforcement
and military agencies use Tasers.3,4 In Arizona, where TASER International bases its corporate
headquarters, it seems virtually every sworn officer is provided with one.
Police use of Tasers has been controversial since the release of TASER International’s first
high-powered ECW to agencies in the early 2000s. While billed as an alternative to lethal force,
including firearms, according to Amnesty International, at least 330 people have lost their lives
after being exposed to police Tasers between 2001 and 2008.5 In addition, a 2011 report by
the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) – a branch within the U.S. Department of Justice – found
that Tasers have indirect or secondary effects, such as injury from falling, that can result in
death.6 The NIJ cautioned that the effects of Tasers on certain vulnerable populations, such
as small children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with heart conditions, are not well
understood.7
As more incidents involving Tasers have come to light in the age of YouTube and the 24-hour
news cycle – from the 2007 University of Florida episode that coined the phrase “Don’t Tase
Me, Bro,”8 to ongoing reports of tragic deaths and serious injuries
inflicted by Tasers – criticism of police use of the weapon has mounted
Amnesty
around the country. Arizona has not escaped this controversy. Indeed,
Amnesty International’s recent 127-page report highlighting deaths
International’s
report prompted the associated with Taser use found that the county in the United States
with the highest number of reported deaths was Arizona’s own
ACLU of Arizona to Maricopa County.9

take a closer look at
Taser use in its own
backyard.

Amnesty International’s report prompted the ACLU of Arizona to take a
closer look at Taser use in its own backyard. We asked 20 of the state’s
leading police departments and sheriff’s offices for policies and data on
their agencies’ use of Tasers. The purpose of this report is not to rehash
the findings about Tasers contained in earlier reports,10 but to illuminate specific facts about
Taser use by Arizona’s law enforcement officers as a starting point for meaningful reform.
This report represents the most comprehensive survey of Taser use by law enforcement
agencies in Arizona to date. To our knowledge, it is also the first independent examination of
the relationship between Taser use and the frequency of deployment of lethal force by police
officers in Arizona.

The ACLU of Arizona supports the responsible use of less-lethal weapons such as Tasers. We
recognize that there are times when police officers must use such force to protect their lives
and the lives of others.11 However, all too often, Tasers are used “preemptively” against citizens
that do not present an imminent safety threat, and even offensively as a pain compliance tool.
What’s more, both TASER International training materials and agency policies anticipate that
officers will use the weapon as a pain compliance tool.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 8

When deployed in compliance with clear and comprehensive department policies, appropriate
training, effective accountability mechanisms and regular data collection, Tasers have the
potential to be a force for good. Whether or not they ultimately fulfill that potential, however,
remains to be seen. For now, they present a force to be reckoned with.

What is a Taser?
Tasers are hand-held, battery-powered devices that deliver an electronic charge through darts
(or probes) fired from a distance or through electrodes applied directly to the skin.12 They are
the most common brand of ECWs used by law enforcement agencies in the United States.13
This report focuses on the M26 and X26 models of Tasers, the two models that comprise
nearly all of the Tasers used by Arizona law enforcement officers. Both
are manufactured by TASER International. The M26 went on the market
TASER International first, in 1999. The X26 model, introduced four years later, delivers
took advantage of
approximately the same electrical charge, though it has a smaller and
this categorization lighter body.14 In 2009, TASER International released a newer model
of the Taser, the X3 model. The X3 model is capable of firing three
to aggressively
15
market the weapon shots, compared X26’s single shot. The Arizona Department16of Public
Safety has already purchased 1,000 of the newer X3 models. Just two
as an alternatiative months ago, in April 2011, the company released yet another model, the
to lethal force...
X2, which fires two shots and is smaller than the X3.17

Tasers and other
similar devices have
therefore generally
remained free of
federal regulation
and control.

TASER International is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. The company first
acquired the weapon in 1993, along with various licenses and patents,
from inventor Jack Cover, an electrical engineer who developed the
device in 1974. Cover named the weapon after the 1911 novel Tom
Swift and his Electric Rifle, part of a series of adventure stories for boys;
he later added the “A” to “TSER.”18

Modern Tasers resemble handguns in shape and appearance,19 but
they are not regulated as such. In 1994, TASER International, Inc. changed the weapon’s
propellant from gunpowder to nitrogen, thus removing the product from regulation by the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.20 TASER International took advantage of this
categorization to aggressively market the weapon as an alternative to lethal force. The
Consumer Products Safety Commission, which currently regulates Tasers, has conducted no
testing of the products, nor offered opinions regarding their safety.21 Tasers and other similar
devices have therefore generally remained free of federal regulation and control.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 9

Tasers function in two modes. In the dart mode, the Taser’s barbed darts are propelled using
compressed nitrogen in a replaceable cartridge.22 Once the barbs penetrate an individual’s
clothing or skin, they carry an electrical charge of 50,000 volts in order to ensure the delivery
of a peak 1200 volts into the body.23 On the X26 model, this charge overrides the subject’s
nervous system, paralyzing his or her muscles and incapacitating the subject for the duration
of the shock.24 In addition to being incapacitated, the shock causes excruciating pain. As long
as both barbs remain embedded in the subject, the operator can inflict additional shock cycles
by continuing to hold down the trigger. The only technical limit to the number or length of the
electrical cycles is the life of the battery, which can last ten minutes or more.25
Tasers can also be used in “touch stun” or “drive stun” mode by applying the electrical barbs
directly onto the skin at close range.26 The touch stun mode does not immediately incapacitate
the nervous system; however, it still inflicts a great deal of pain and can be deployed
repeatedly. While the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has warned that using Tasers to
achieve pain compliance “may have limited effectiveness” and has discouraged officers from
using Tasers for pain compliance,27 TASER International’s training materials28 and some police
department policies allow and, in some places encourage, Tasers to be used in drive stun
mode for this purpose.
Advanced models are equipped with a data port that allows a log of each instance the Taser is
fired (including information such as date, time, and duration of deployment) to be downloaded
onto a computer.29 The X26 can also be fitted with an audio/video recorder.30

A False Dichotomy

However, the reality
is that the majority
of Taser shocks fired
by officers do not
take the place of
gunshots, but rather
other, less-lethal
uses of force, such
as baton strikes,
chemical sprays, and
the like.

The central claim of TASER’s marketing campaign has always been
that Tasers are a safe alternative to the use of lethal force. Indeed,
the company’s slogan, “Saving Lives Every Day,” is emblazoned on its
corporate headquarters in Scottsdale and can be seen from nearby
Highway 101.31
The problem with this claim is that it assumes Tasers are used only in
situations where an officer would otherwise use lethal force. In such
situations, the use of a Taser can almost always be presented as a less
deadly alternative.
However, the reality is that the majority of Taser shocks fired by officers
do not take the place of gunshots, but rather other, less-lethal uses of
force, such as baton strikes, chemical sprays, and the like. As the ACLU
of Arizona’s law enforcement survey suggests, Tasers are routinely
deployed in situations where lethal force would not be justified (i.e., in
the absence of an immediate threat to officer or public safety.)

A Force to be Reckoned With page 10

In a 2004 special report, The Arizona Republic analyzed use-of-force reports from the Phoenix
Police Department for 377 incidents involving a Taser and found that in nearly nine out of 10
cases, the subjects had not threatened officers with any weapon before a Taser was used.32
Included among the subjects were:
 A shoplifter who stole four cans of soup from a Food City, and fled on a bike who was
shocked as officers dragged him to the ground;
	A 15-year-old boy at Alhambra High School who was shocked in the back as officers
attempted to arrest him on a marijuana charge; and
	An intoxicated man who ignored commands to leave a bar and was shocked in the back as
he walked away.33
Virginia police consultant James Ginger, who has worked with the U.S.
Department of Justice to monitor police department reform efforts,
reports that even though most departments bought Tasers to avoid
lethal confrontations, the devices are regularly used in situations that
do not justify lethal force, including to short-circuit arguments and end
chases and potential fights.34

...the devices are
regularly used in
situations that do
not justify lethal
force, including
to short-circuit
arguments and
end chases and
potential fights.

In Houston, for example, a 2007 investigation revealed that in 95
percent of more than 1,000 incidents over two years, Tasers were “not
used to defuse situations in which suspects wielded weapons and
deadly force clearly would have been justified.”35 In approximately 35
percent of the cases examined by the Houston Chronicle, no crime
was committed at all. And of those people charged with crimes, most
were accused of misdemeanors or nonviolent offenses. Officers
shocked members of the public during such routine encounters as investigating a complaint
about fireworks, confronting a litterer and stopping a bicyclist riding with no light.36 The Houston
Police Department started using Tasers after former Phoenix police chief, Harry Hurtt, became
the department head in late 2004.

A Liability for Police Agencies
Police departments and county sheriff’s offices have been paying more attention to their
Taser practices in the wake of controversial incidents involving Tasers, some of which have
led to costly legal disputes. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects
individuals from “unreasonable seizures,” also protects those who come into contact with
the police from being subjected to an unreasonable amount of force.37 There should be no
question that Tasers inflict a significant level of force against those that are subjected to their
shocks.38 Courts have found that deployment of a Taser constitutes “excessive force” –
violative of the Fourth Amendment – when used in contexts that do not warrant such tactics.39
Indeed, in 2007, the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT), acknowledged that Taser
use could constitute a “form of torture” and “can even provoke death.”40

A Force to be Reckoned With page 11

The appropriate level of force that an officer may use depends on the facts and circumstances
surrounding each case.41 A recent opinion by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers
Arizona, provides officers with a helpful roadmap when considering whether or not to use a
Taser. In that case, Bryan v. McPherson, Carl Bryan was stopped by a California police officer
for a seatbelt infraction.42 Though he was yelling expletives, hitting his thighs, and was wearing
only boxer shorts and tennis shoes, Bryan posed no immediate threat to the officer or anyone
else.43 The Court first noted that the physiological effects and high levels of pain associated
with the Taser make it more severe than other non-lethal uses of force, such as pepper spray.44
Therefore, Taser use must be justified by weightier governmental interests.45 In Carl Bryan’s
case, the Court found that Taser use was not justified.

...the time may be
ripe for Arizona
law enforcement
agencies to revisit
their policies and
training on Tasers
to ensure that they
are consistent with
developments in
the law.

Some of the factors the Court stated should be considered before
Tasers are used include whether the subject poses any immediate
threat to life or safety, the severity of the offense, and whether the
subject actively resists police action.46 Bryan was unarmed and facing
away from the officer when he was Tased, and therefore posed no
threat to the officer.47 The offenses being investigated included only
a traffic violation and nonviolent misdemeanors.48 And his alleged
“resistance” was, at best, a passive resistance, insufficient to warrant a
Taser shock.49

The Court also found relevant the officer’s failure to warn Bryan that
he was going to use the Taser before firing it and his failure to consider
alternative ways to resolve the situation.50 Finally, the Court rejected
the officer’s argument that the use of the Taser was justified because
he believed Bryan to be mentally disturbed. The Court found that the
officer’s interest in deploying the Taser was lesser, not greater, in that case, as “the problems
posed by, and thus the tactics to be employed against, an unarmed, emotionally distraught
individual who is creating a disturbance or resisting arrest are ordinarily different from those
involved in law enforcement efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal who has
recently committed a serious offense.”51

Two subsequent decisions by the Ninth Circuit have been less helpful. In Mattos v. Agarano,
an officer responding to a domestic disturbance call end up Tasing the wife of a suspect, most
likely in drive stun mode.52 In upholding the use of the weapon in that case, the Court noted
that it felt handicapped by an incomplete record about the kind of force or injury Tasers inflict.53
In Brooks v. City of Seattle, an officer Tased a pregnant motorist in drive stun mode for refusing
to sign a speeding ticket.54 The panel distinguished the case from Bryan by downplaying the
impact of the Taser in drive stun mode.55 Police agencies should not rely on the conclusions
in either of these cases, however, since they were recently reheard by the Ninth Circuit and a
decision is still pending.56

A Force to be Reckoned With page 12

To the extent that Taser deaths or injuries can be attributed to agency-wide policies or failures
in supervision or training, municipalities (cities, towns and counties) can be on the hook for
any damage that results.57, 58 In determining whether a police department or sheriff’s office
should pay damages, courts will look at an agency’s policy governing Taser use and use-offorce generally.59 They also consider the decisions and, statements of the head of an agency.60
The failure of an agency to adopt adequate internal procedures to address a problem regarding
Tasers has been viewed as condoning such acts, giving rise to liability.61 Finally, courts are
likely to examine the training that officers receive on Tasers to determine whether it provided
adequate guidance concerning their lawful obligations in the field.62 A governmental entity will
be liable if the training is so deficient that it constitutes “deliberate indifference” to the rights of
those that officers come in contact with.63
The recent decisions by the Ninth Circuit suggest that the time may be ripe for Arizona law
enforcement agencies to revisit their policies and training on Tasers to ensure that they are
consistent with developments in the law.

Unsupported Claims and Questionable Marketing Practices by TASER International

	
TASER International initially insisted on calling its weapons “non-lethal.”64 However, in doing
so, the company was glibly relying on the military definition of the term
“non-lethal.” According to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), any
The claim [that
weapon that is intended to “significantly reduce the probability of...
Tasers are a nonfatalities or injuries as compared with traditional military weapons which
achieve their effects through the physical destruction of targets” can be
lethal use of force]
called “non-lethal.”65 Notably, the DOD policy does not expect or require
was misleading and
non-lethal weapons “to have a zero probability of producing fatalities or
has contributed to
permanent injuries.”66

the misuse of the
weapon.

Thus, the military’s “non-lethal” is everybody else’s “less lethal.”67
TASER International’s claim that Tasers are a non-lethal use of force
therefore relied on the fact that most people do not read the fine print.
The claim was misleading and has contributed to the misuse of the weapon. As James Ginger
aptly put it, “It is not that we should take the Taser away and tell officers not to use it. Most
departments have Taser in the wrong place on the use-of-force (scale).”68 Tasers do not belong
at the low end of the use of force continuum, opposite firearms as lethal weapons at the high
end. Given the numerous reports of tragic deaths and injuries associated with Taser use,
Tasers belong closer to the firearms end of the continuum.
	
TASER International’s semantic gymnastics points to larger issues around the company’s
credibility. Taser has badly damaged its public image through numerous well-documented
scandals that run the gamut from slick marketing practices70 and offering stock options to
officers who promote the weapon, to launching legal assaults on anyone who dares to criticize
them.71

A Force to be Reckoned With page 13

For instance, in January 2005, TASER International’s shareholders filed a class-action suit
against the company, alleging they had been misled about the safety of its products (the
lawsuit was settled the following year for nearly $22 million).72 Meanwhile, TASER International
was mired in ethical investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office over its safety claims. The SEC inquiry, which was
upgraded to a formal investigation in September 2005, examined, among other things,
whether the company’s product safety statements were true to the scientific studies TASER
International had cited. Shortly after the SEC announcement, in an effort to forestall the
avalanche of negative publicity, Taser offered to increase product
warnings, change some of its broad claims of safety and limit the use
of the term “non-lethal” to describe its products.73 The Arizona Attorney “The most serious
General’s inquiry ended after Taser made similar formal agreements to
wounds are selfmodify its marketing language.74
inflicted, and in the

case of Taser and

Later that year, news investigations revealed that TASER International
its credibility, we’ve
had given thousands of dollars in stock options to six active-duty
done it to ourselves.”
police officers between 2001 and 2003 for helping to oversee the
company’s police department training program and for promoting
agencies’ purchases of the weapon.75 Four of the six officers involved
were later given jobs with TASER International. According to Forbes magazine, “the options
controversy first erupted in 2004, when President George W. Bush picked Bernard Kerik,
the former New York City police commissioner, to run the Homeland Security Department.
It then emerged that TASER International had paid Kerik 85,000 options to join its board.
Kerik says he promoted the weapon to law enforcement and made more than $6 million on
the options. TASER International had repeatedly refused to disclose which other cops got
the stock incentives.”76 As John Gavin, president of the newsletter SEC Insight, wrote: “The
investigation of a Minneapolis police officer for an undisclosed financial relationship with Taser
provides reasonable basis for political leaders across the country to begin asking if ‘persons of
influence’... were, in essence, bought by Taser.”77
It is telling that Steven Ijames, a police major and strong supporter of Tasers who has consulted
with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has said, “The most serious wounds
are self-inflicted, and in the case of Taser and its credibility, we’ve done it to ourselves.”78

A Force to be Reckoned With page 14

Part II: Getting Behind the Rhetoric:
the ACLU’s Survey of Arizona Law Enforcement Agencies
To learn more about the use of Tasers in Arizona law enforcement agencies, the ACLU of
Arizona filed records requests with 20 agencies across the state (including all of the larger
agencies) between December 2008 and January 2010. Some additional data was collected in
April and May 2010. The records requests sought information about:
 Department policies and procedures governing the use of Tasers;
 Training materials;
 The number of officers in each agency equipped with Tasers;
 Statistical data about Taser use and other uses of force in each agency; and
 Complaints and investigations of Taser use that led to injury or death.
The ACLU did not request information about Taser use on individuals already in custody
including jail detainees and prisoners. A copy of the records request is attached to this report
as Appendix A.
While each of the departments responded to the records request, not all of them provided
complete responses to every item. The charts that follow capture the major findings of the
survey based on the information that was provided.
Finding #1 > Tasers Are Widespread Among Arizona Law Enforcement
The ACLU asked agencies for the total number of sworn officers, the total number of Tasers
they had, and the percent of officers who carry Tasers. Each of the agencies provided at least
some of this information, allowing the ACLU to capture or estimate the proportion of officers
who carry Tasers. For agencies that did not provide the total number of sworn officers, we
consulted public sources.79 If the number of Tasers owned by the department exceeded
the number of sworn officers, we estimated the percent who carry at 100%. The results are
displayed on page 16.
The results reveal that Tasers are almost ubiquitous among the agencies surveyed. In addition,
it appears that on the whole, city and state police officers are more likely to carry Tasers than
their counterparts at county sheriffs’ offices.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 15

Percent of Officers Carrying Tasers
Agency
Chandler Police Department
Cochise County Sheriff s Office
Coconino County Sheriff s Office
Douglas Police Department
Department of Public Safety
Flagstaff Police Department
Glendale Police Department
Gilbert Police Department
Maricopa County Sheriff s Office
Mesa Police Department
Peoria Police Department
Phoenix Police Department
Pima County Sheriff s Office
Pinal County Sheriff s Office
Scottsdale Police Department
Tempe Police Department
Tucson Police Department
Yavapai County Sheriff s Office
Yuma County Sheriff s Office
Yuma Police Department

Total Sworn
Officers
332
85
63
34
1200 (approx.)
113
452
219
881
829
181
3356
542
218
420
353
1001
128
219
157

% Who Carry
Tasers
100%
67%
67%
76%
100%
 66%**
100%
100%
57%
75%
100%
88%**
97%
100%
91%
96%
12%**
97%
43%**
100%

** These agencies did not provide the percent of officers who carried Tasers. The ACLU estimated this
percentage based on the number of officers and the number of Tasers owned by the agency.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 16

Finding #2 > Equipping Officers with Tasers Does Not Result in Lower Levels
of Use of Lethal Force
Proponents of Taser use argue that officers who use the weapon are able to avert the use
of deadly or lethal force against combative suspects. One of the most striking and more
significant findings that came out of the ACLU of Arizona’s study is that, contrary to claims by
Taser proponents, the frequency of deployment of lethal force has not declined with the advent
of Tasers.

The information
provided by
departments thus
suggests that Tasers
have been deployed
in situations where
lethal force would
not be allowed, and
where less severe uses
of force are available.

Use-of-force statistics provided by three of the largest police
departments in Maricopa County (the Glendale, Mesa and Phoenix
Police Departments) are displayed on the following pages. These
departments are among those that provided enough data to compare
Taser use to other uses of force over time. They also reported
the highest absolute number of Taser incidents. Together, these
departments serve a community of some 2.3 million residents – more
than one third of the population of the state.80
In each department, Taser use experienced a sharp spike during its
initial deployment. Its use would usually peak within several years,
sometimes sooner. However, after the initial deployment phase – and
in particular after 2005, when controversies surrounding TASER
International began to surface – Taser use plateaued, and then
dropped off.

These results show that Taser deployment was apparently not phased in by departments
(as recommended by the IACP81 and others), but rather issued to a large number of officers
at once, before its effects could be fully known. The high initial figures also suggest that
TASER International’s aggressive and questionable marketing strategies – as noted above82
– accomplished their purpose. As time wore on and the novelty of the weapon wore off, officers
appear to have found it to be less useful than originally believed.
The frequency of lethal force did not decline with the advent of Tasers. In fact, the data
revealed no relationship between the deployment of Tasers and the use of firearms. At the
same time, officers began using Tasers as frequently as other non-lethal force techniques, so
that deployment of a Taser became as routine as pepper spray and batons. The information
provided by departments thus suggests that Tasers have been deployed in situations where
lethal force would not be allowed, and where less severe uses of force are available. These
findings highlight the need for a more honest and sensible dialogue about the role of Tasers in
Arizona law enforcement.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 17

Glendale Police Department
In Glendale, Taser use started out slowly in 2001 and then spiked as the department went to
full deployment in 2003. Usage fell off sharply after 2005.

Glendale Police Department
Use of Force Data, 2000 - 2008

Number of Incidents

250
200
150
100
50
0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

� Intermediate Control Techniques
� Chemical agent / OC spray

2006

2007

2008

� Taser
� Firearm

The use of firearms dipped slightly during the period after Tasers were first introduced, but
then rose as Tasers became available to more officers. The use of firearms eventually fell back
to pre-Taser levels, but not because Tasers were being deployed more frequently (Taser use
Mesa
Police
Department
experienced a parallel decline
during
this period).

Use of Force Data, 2000 - 2003, 2006 - 2007

Number of Incidents

As 150
Taser use spiked, the rate of intermediate control techniques (such as baton and flashlight
strikes, hand strikes, kicks, beanbags and grounding) also grew initially and then dropped. As
Taser use later declined, the rate of intermediate control techniques again grew markedly, this
120
time
to unprecedented highs for the 8-year period.
These
90numbers indicate that Tasers did not serve as an alternative to lethal force. Officers
were just as reliant on lethal force during the time period studied. To the extent that use of
lethal force initially declined, so too did Taser use. Tasers seemingly took the place of other
60
less-lethal
and non-lethal uses of force. In the end, Taser use likely added to the total amount
of force applied by this department. The only category of force that declined steadily as Taser
use 30
became routine was chemical agents and pepper spray. And when Taser use eventually
fell, officers seemed to turn back to the more traditional, heavy-handed intermediate control
techniques.
0

2000

2001

2002

� Chemical agent / OC spray
� Hard Hands

2003

2004

2005

� Taser
� Limited Hard Hands

2006

2007

� Impact Weapons
� Deadly Force

A Force to be Reckoned With page 18

Number of Incidents

200
150

The Glendale Police Department reported 109 incidents of Taser use in 2008. This is a
100number of incidents in relation to the number of sworn officers in the Department
higher
(24.1 incidents per 100 officers) than Phoenix Police Department (7.2 incidents per 100
officers
50 in 2007-2008) or Mesa Police Department (11.7 incidents per 100 officers in 2007).
Further research is necessary to better understand the reasons for the relatively high rate of
deployment of Tasers by Glendale officers.
0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

� Intermediate Control Techniques
Mesa Police Department
� Chemical agent / OC spray

2006

2007

2008

� Taser
� Firearm

In Mesa, Tasers went to full deployment at the end of 2001 and their use spiked sharply
between 2002 and 2003 before dropping off in 2006 and 2007. Data was not available for the
years 2004 and 2005.

Mesa Police Department
Use of Force Data, 2000 - 2003, 2006 - 2007
150

Number of Incidents

120
90
60
30
0

2000

2001

2002

� Chemical agent / OC spray
� Hard Hands

2003

2004

2005

� Taser
� Limited Hard Hands

2006

2007

� Impact Weapons
� Deadly Force**

** Deadly Force is an estimate of firearm use, because the 2000-2001 ‘deadly force’ total
includes both firearm use and carotid artery technique.

Number of Incidents

The frequency of deadly force (firearm use and the carotid artery restraint technique) did not
decline with the advent ofPhoenix
the Taser and
in factDepartment
rose slightly during the initial Taser deployment
Police
83
period. It was the use ofUse
bothof
“hard
hands”
and
chemical
sprays that dropped as Tasers
Force Data, 2000
- 2007
became more popular. As with the Glendale Police Department, as Taser use eventually
400
declined
in the Mesa Police Department, the frequency of intermediate control methods such
as 350
“hard hands” and “limited hard hands”84 rose sharply, though the use of impact weapons
such as batons remained steady.
300
250
200
150
100
50

A Force to be Reckoned With page 19

30
0

2000

2001

2002

� Chemical agent / OC spray

Phoenix Police
� HardDepartment
Hands

2003

2004

2005

� Taser
� Limited Hard Hands

2006

2007

� Impact Weapons
� Deadly Force

Phoenix Police Chief Harry Hurtt took his officers to full Taser deployment in 2003.85 Taser use
initially spiked, and then fell off after two years.

Phoenix Police Department
Use of Force Data, 2000 - 2007
400

Number of Incidents

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

� Intermediate Control Techniques
� Chemical agent / OC spray

2005

2006

2007

� Taser
� Firearm

Firearm use declined slightly in 2003, but then rose again in 2004, remaining fairly steady
after that. The use of intermediate control techniques – such as impact weapons (baton or
flashlight), hard empty hands, and the stunbag shotgun – declined somewhat during the initial
period of Taser deployment and eventually overtook Taser as the most common use of force.
The use of chemical agents and pepper spray declined initially with the introduction of Tasers
and remained steady in subsequent years.
Thus, the Phoenix Police Department shows a similar pattern as in Glendale and Mesa. When
officers were first issued Tasers, they used them frequently. After two years, Taser use fell off,
but other intermediate tactical control methods took their place. The introduction of Taser did
not result in a decline in firearm usage.
The Phoenix Police Department also provided the ACLU with data about the number of times
officers used Tasers in “touch stun” or “drive stun” mode (applying barbs directly onto the skin).
The Department reported that in over one-third of Taser encounters between 2007 and 2008,
officers used the Taser in “touch stun” mode. This suggests that Phoenix police officers are
using the Taser as a pain compliance tool, a use that has been discouraged by PERF86 and
Amnesty International.87 It also suggests that officers were close enough to employ alternative
methods of force less severe than the Taser.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 20

Finding #3 > Officers Receive Inconsistent Guidance on When It Is Appropriate to Use Tasers
A comprehensive and strong use-of-force policy that provides officers with clear rules on
when particular uses of force are allowed is a pre-requisite for ensuring that officers only
employ Tasers when necessary. Many agencies have a “use of force continuum” – developed
from Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) guidelines – that serves as a visual
tool to help officers determine whether certain uses of force are appropriate under the
circumstances.88
In 2005, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report examining the use-of-force
policies of seven major police agencies in the country as they pertained to Tasers. One of the
jurisdictions studied was the Phoenix Police Department.89 The
report found that agencies have substantially different policies with
...the placement
respect to when Tasers can be used. Two agencies studied allowed
of Tasers on the
Tasers to be used only when the subject engages in assaultive
agencies’ use-of-force
behavior or otherwise presents a risk of physical injury to another
90
human being. Four jurisdictions, including Phoenix, allowed Tasers continuums varied
to be used against non-threatening behaviors (such as against a
widely.
resisting subject). One jurisdiction allowed Tasers to be used in
situations where the subject was only passively resisting.91 In other
words, the placement of Tasers on the agencies’ use-of-force continuums varied widely.
The GAO’s findings were consistent with what the ACLU found in Arizona. Among the 20
agencies surveyed, almost all of them treated the Taser as an intermediate use of force.
Many of them, however, did not specify where Tasers would fall on the use-of-force continuum
in relation to other intermediate uses of force. This fails to provide officers with sufficient
guidance, as intermediate uses of force can comprise anything from chemical sprays to hard
empty hand techniques to impact weapons.
Of the six agencies that did specify for officers where Tasers fell on the use-of-force continuum,
only two agencies, Mesa and Tempe, considered Tasers to be an intermediate-high use of
force. In other words, they considered Tasers to be a greater level of force than chemical
sprays but less serious than (or on par with) impact weapons. Other agencies, such as Tucson,
included language that Tasers should only be used in situations where the suspect displays
active aggression. Three agencies, Coconino, Cochise, and DPS, considered Tasers to be softintermediate uses of force, e.g., on par with chemical sprays. Gilbert also categorized Tasers
with chemical sprays and control holds, but specified that they could only be used against
active resisters.
To the extent that some departments are treating Tasers on par with chemical sprays or control
holds, they are likely out of step with the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Bryan, which found
Tasers to constitute “an intermediate, significant level of force.”92 The Bryan court specifically
stated that Taser use was a more severe intrusion (and therefore had to be justified by more
severe circumstances) than pepper spray and other uses of force that cause only localized pain
or injury.93

A Force to be Reckoned With page 21

Departments that do not specify where Tasers fall on the continuum are vulnerable to criticism
because officers can interpret this to mean that Tasers are considered equal to and no less
threatening or dangerous than all other uses of force that fall into the broad “intermediate”
category. A group of experts convened to examine Taser use found that, “best practices in
training include, first, an emphasis on decision-making. Officers must know not only how to
use force, but when – that is, what situations call for what level of force. This is why the use-offorce continuum has become an expected part of police standards and practices all over the
country.”94
Given that Tasers have rapidly overtaken other intermediate uses of force, such as pepper
sprays, and sometimes at inappropriately low levels of suspect resistance,95 it is imperative
that agencies reevaluate the policies and place Tasers at an appropriate place on the useof-force continuum. PERF has stressed that Tasers should not be deployed against suspects
unless they are exhibiting active aggression or active resistance of a nature that creates a risk
of injury.96 The FLETC has also advocated for a standardized training program on Tasers to
avoid inconsistency among law enforcement agencies as to where Tasers are placed on the
continuum.97
In addition to Tasers’ placement on the use-of-force continuum, the 20 agencies surveyed
by the ACLU of Arizona reported different results as to what factors they ask their officers to
consider before deploying the Taser. Many also failed to specify situations in which deployment
of a Taser would not be justified.
In the chart on the next page are the details of each agency’s policies with respect to the
following circumstances:
	Subject is handcuffed
	Subject is suspected of a serious crime
	Subject has a violent history
	To coerce/intimidate a subject
	Subject is a serious threat to others
	Subject is fleeing
If the policy made some mention of the circumstance, we indicated whether officers with that
agency are “not allowed” to use the Taser, “discouraged from” using the Taser, “allowed” to
use the Taser if reasonable and necessary, or asked to “consider” the circumstance before
using the Taser. If an agency’s policy provided no guidance on that specific circumstance, we
indicated that the policy was “silent.”

A Force to be Reckoned With page 22

Factors Considered before Deploying Tasers
Agency
Chandler
Cochise
Coconino
DPS
Douglas
Flagstaff
Gilbert
Glendale
Maricopa
Mesa
Peoria
Phoenix
Pima
Pinal
Scottsdale
Tempe
Tucson
Yavapai
Yuma County
Yuma Police

Handcuffed

Serious
Crime

Violent
History

To Coerce/
Intimidate

Serious
Threat

Fleeing
Subject

Not allowed
Discouraged
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Silent
Discouraged
Discouraged
Silent
Discouraged
Discouraged
Discouraged
Discouraged
Discouraged
Silent
Silent
Considered
Discouraged
Allowed
Silent

Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Considered
Considered
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Considered
Considered

Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Allowed
Considered
Considered
Silent
Considered
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Considered
Silent

Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Silent
Not allowed
Not allowed
Not allowed
Not allowed
Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Not allowed
Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent

Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Considered
Considered
Considered
Silent
Considered
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Considered
Considered

Considered
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Discouraged
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent

A Force to be Reckoned With page 23

The question of whether a subject poses an immediate safety threat was treated as the “most
important” factor in determining whether Taser use was justified in Bryan.98 Subjects who are
already handcuffed are unlikely to pose any threat to officers or other individuals. As can be
seen from the chart, however, only two agencies specifically prohibited officers from Tasing
subjects who are handcuffed, although 10 agencies discouraged it or stated that it should be
considered. Five agencies asked officers to consider whether the subject had a violent history
and six agencies asked them to consider generally whether the subject was a serious threat to
others.
In addition, only five agencies mentioned or disallowed officers from Tasing subjects that are
fleeing. PERF has recommended that agencies instruct officers not to Tase individuals if the
sole basis for doing so is that they are fleeing.99

...only four agencies
explicitly instructed
officers to consider
whether the subject
was suspected of a
serious crime. Only
13 agencies prohibit
the use of Tasers as
a form of coercion or
intimidation, while
seven agencies were
silent on the issue.

The Bryan court also found the severity of the suspected offenses to
be relevant to the determination of whether Taser use was lawful.100
However, only four agencies explicitly instructed officers to consider
whether the subject was suspected of a serious crime. Finally, only 13
agencies prohibit the use of Tasers as a form of coercion or intimidation,
while seven agencies were silent on the issue.
Seven agencies’ policies were silent on the question of whether Tasers
could be used to coerce or intimidate subjects.
Finding #4 > Agencies Lack Clear Guidance on Taser Safety
Considerations, Including the Use of Tasers Against Vulnerable
Populations
There is a general consensus that the risk of death or injury from Taser
use can increase when the subject is a vulnerable person or other safety
hazards exist. Indeed, according to the NIJ, officers should exercise
heightened caution when deploying Tasers against certain populations, if
they are used at all:

The effects of CED exposure in [small children, those with diseased hearts, the elderly,
those who are pregnant and other at-risk individuals] are not clearly understood
and more data are needed. The use of a CED against these populations... should be
minimized or avoided unless the situation excludes other reasonable options.101
Recognizing the increased risk when dealing with certain populations or when certain safety
hazards are present, law enforcement agencies often caution officers against deploying Tasers
in such high-risk situations. However, the ACLU’s survey of Arizona law enforcement agencies
revealed that jurisdictions have adopted a patchwork of inconsistent policies regarding such
situations.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 24

In the chart on page 26 we detail each agency’s policies with respect to the following
circumstances:
	Suspect has gun/explosive
	Suspect is intoxicated
	Pregnant suspect
	Young suspect
	Elderly suspect
	Presence of a fall hazard
	Suspect is near a flammable substance
	Officer using other sprays or devices (that have the potential to combust)
	Officer deploying Taser multiple times
	Suspect is operating a vehicle
The chart also displays agency policies with respect to the preferred target area for a Taser,
including specific areas that agencies encourage officers to target or avoid.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 25

Agency Policies in High-Risk Situations
Gun/
Explosive

Intoxicated

Pregnant

Young

Elderly

Fall Hazard

Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Not allowed
Discouraged
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Discouraged
Not allowed
Considered

Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Silent
Not allowed
Not allowed
Not allowed
Discouraged
Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent

Considered
Silent
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Discouraged
Discouraged
Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Not allowed
Discouraged
Silent
Silent

Considered
Silent
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Considered
Silent
Silent
Considered
Silent
Silent
Considered

Considered
Silent
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Considered
Silent
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Considered

Considered
Silent
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Not allowed
Not allowed
Not allowed
Discouraged
Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Silent

Flammable
Substance

Sprays/
Devices

Multiple
Deployments

Operating
Car

Chandler
Cochise
Coconino
DPS
Douglas
Flagstaff
Gilbert
Glendale
Maricopa
Mesa

Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Silent
Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Not allowed

Allowed
Silent
Silent
Silent
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Not allowed

Discouraged
Silent
Silent
Allowed
Allowed
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Silent
Discouraged

Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Not allowed

Peoria
Phoenix
Pima
Pinal
Scottsdale
Tempe
Tucson
Yavapai
Yuma County
Yuma Police

Not allowed
Not allowed
Discouraged
Not allowed
Not allowed
Not allowed
Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Silent

Not allowed
Discouraged
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent
Silent

Not allowed
Allowed
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Silent
Silent
Allowed
Silent

Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Not allowed
Not allowed
Silent
Silent
Discouraged
Silent
Silent

Agency
Chandler

Cochise
Coconino
DPS
Douglas
Flagstaff
Gilbert
Glendale
Maricopa
Mesa
Peoria
Phoenix
Pima
Pinal
Scottsdale
Tempe
Tucson
Yavapai
Yuma County
Yuma Police

Agency

Preferred Target Area
Back
Upper Torso
Silent
Avoid Vital or Sensitive Areas
Avoid Vital or Sensitive Areas
Silent
Silent
Back
Silent
Back
Below the Neck, Not Genital
Area
Back
Silent
Back
Back
Avoid Vital or Sensitive Areas
Back
Avoid Vital or Sensitive Areas
Back
Silent

A Force to be Reckoned With page 26

The results show that:
	A surprisingly high number of agencies were silent on whether officers may Tase vulnerable
persons such as pregnant women, young people or the elderly. For example, 10 agencies
were silent on whether officers may Tase pregnant women and only four expressly
prohibited the practice. 12 agencies were silent on whether officers
may Tase a young or elderly person, and only one expressly prohibited
While it may seem
the practice. While it may seem obvious to some that pregnant women,
obvious to some that
10-year-old children, or elderly people who don’t present a threat
pregnant women,
should not be Tased, the reality is that it happens all too often, in
102,103
Arizona and elsewhere, and sometimes with tragic results.
10-year-old children,
	10 out of 20 agencies prohibited use of the Taser on an intoxicated
suspect, while nine were silent. The IACP National Law Enforcement
Policy Center has noted that persons who are intoxicated with drugs or
alcohol are already in a precarious physical state and are among those
at highest risk of sudden death from Tasers.104 These individuals are
also often mistaken for being combative, when those that are unarmed
usually present no imminent threat.

or elderly people
who don’t present a
threat should not be
Tased, the reality is
that it happens all
too often, in Arizona
and elsewhere, and
sometimes with
tragic restults.

	14 out of 20 agencies prohibited or discouraged deployment of the
Taser in proximity to flammable substances, and nine prohibited or
discouraged officers from using a Taser when the suspect had a gun
or explosive. However, 15 out of 20 agencies were silent when it came
to using Taser with pepper sprays (and one allowed it). Pepper sprays have been known to
combust when a Taser is deployed.105
	11 out of 20 agencies were silent on whether officers could Tase people multiple times,
while four departments allowed it and four discouraged it. Only one agency banned
multiple Taser deployments outright. Both NIJ106 and PERF107 have cautioned against
multiple activations of the Taser, recognizing that multiple or repeated applications of
Tasers (along with prolonged applications beyond 15 seconds) are the factors most
commonly associated with ECW-induced deaths.

	Six agencies had no policy whatsoever on preferred Taser target area. Five instruct officers
to avoid vital or sensitive areas, including the genital area, seven specify that they should
target the back area, and one specified that they should target the upper torso. After
concerns arose about cardiac arrest resulting from Taser exposure, TASER International
released a training bulletin advising officers not to aim for the chest.108 However, nor
should officers be encouraged to shoot the subject in the back, as that implies the subject
is facing away from the officer or running away and, therefore, less likely to pose a threat.
Agencies that provide officers with clear restrictions on the use of Tasers against vulnerable
populations and in situations where there is an increased safety risk should be commended.
Those agencies with policies that fail to address these risks, however, may be inviting officers
to use Tasers in situations that are more likely to lead to serious injury and death. They are also
increasing their vulnerability to lawsuits and public criticism.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 27

Finding #5 > Agencies Over-Rely on TASER International for Training
The ACLU of Arizona asked agencies to provide copies of their training materials on Taser use,
or, if they used only the training provided by TASER International, to indicate so.
As can be expected, larger police departments and sheriffs’ offices tended to be the ones
that supplemented TASER International’s training with their own materials (six agencies total)
or created their own curriculum altogether (five agencies total). With the exception of the
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, every agency with over 500 sworn officers did so.

Law enforcement
agencies should
reconsider their heavy
reliance on TASER
International’s
training materials,
and seek to develop,
at a minimum,
supplemental
materials that
clearly set forth their
own agency’s rules
regarding Taser use.

However, even if smaller agencies cannot afford to develop their own
curriculum, at a minimum, they should provide sufficient supplemental
training so that officers are aware of where their own agency’s policies add
to or depart from TASER International’s training. We reviewed a number
of policies that provide additional guidance in areas where the TASER
International training was silent or contradictory. Nine agencies reported
relying solely on TASER International’s training or utilized materials that
were nearly identical to the TASER International training. This contradicts
PERF’s recommendation that agencies not rely solely on training provided
by the manufacturer.109
As part of its study, the ACLU reviewed TASER International’s most current
training manuals, Versions 16 and 17.110 We also reviewed an October
2009 TASER International Training Bulletin111 and an “update” to the
Version 17 training described as a “User Recertification” module.112

Compared to earlier versions of TASER International’s training materials,
these new materials have adjusted a number of troubling earlier claims
that were inaccurate, contradictory, or attempted to minimize or sidestep completely the life
and safety risks associate with Tasers.113 For example, TASER International no longer asserts
(as it did in one version analyzed by the ACLU of Northern California in 2005) that no person
has ever been killed or suffered long-term injuries from exposure to the weapon.114 However,
even as it cautions officers to avoid aiming for the subject’s chest area, the company continues
to deny that Tasers can cause cardiac arrest or other cardiac events.115
In addition, while previous TASER International training materials encouraged officers to use
Tasers to induce pain compliance, such as by depicting a naked, unarmed man surrounded
by armed police officers, being shocked simply so that he will roll over on the ground,116 newer
training materials caution officers not to use pain compliance “if circumstances indicate that
pain is ineffective.”117 However, TASER International materials still clearly contemplate that
Tasers will be used for pain compliance.118
TASER International’s new materials thus address some of the concerns that the ACLU and
other civil and human rights organizations have expressed over the years (though not all).
Nevertheless, it is clear that TASER International’s own claims are fluid and evolving, and law
enforcement agencies cannot depend on the company to always present the facts about
Tasers. After all, it has a product to sell and will continue to be motivated first and foremost by
its “bottom line.”

A Force to be Reckoned With page 28

Law enforcement agencies should reconsider their heavy reliance on TASER International’s
training materials, and seek to develop, at a minimum, supplemental materials that clearly set
forth their own agency’s rules regarding Taser use. Agencies relying on TASER International’s
training materials should also make every effort to use only the most recent version of the
training, in light of the fact that older versions have contained inaccurate information and do
not take into account best practices or subsequent court decisions.
It is also important for agencies’ training materials to contain scenario-based training so
that officers can practice applying the rules regarding Taser use to situations they are likely
to encounter in the field. Finally, officers should be adequately trained on how to deal with
persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, and know how to transition from the Taser to other
force options, so that they are less likely to overuse the Taser.
Finding #6 > Agencies Lack Data Collection and Other Mechanisms to Monitor Taser Use
In our follow-up correspondence with agencies to which we sent the records requests, many
reported that they could not provide us with the use-of-force data we had requested because
the information was not systematically collected or analyzed. If such information was not
available to the ACLU, it follows that the same information would not be available to supervisors
within the agency charged with monitoring officers’ behavior.

So long as data
about Taser use
remains unavailable,
the debate about
Taser safety and
effectiveness remains
hopelessly skewed.

These reports are disturbing. So long as data about Taser use
remains unavailable, the debate about Taser safety and effectiveness
remains hopelessly skewed. It is even more disturbing because such
data would be easy to collect: both the M26 and X26 Taser models
come with a feature that can record the date and time of each use,
the duration of the deployment and a way to track a probe to the
specific weapon which fired it. The device can also be purchased with
an integrated video camera to record the events leading up to, and
following, the use of a Taser on a subject.119

In addition, few departments had a policy requiring each incident
where a Taser was deployed to be reviewed by a supervisor to ensure that officers are
complying with agency rules. PERF recommends that supervisors respond to all incident
scenes where a Taser is deployed, and that they conduct an initial review of every Taser
activation.120 Given the preliminary findings in this report, this type of review would be critical
for detecting anomalies or patterns of misconduct before they result in a serious injury or
death. Any officers that present a problem should be required to attend additional training, or
be disciplined.
There was also little mention by the agencies of what to do if a complaint is filed against
an officer. Agencies should have a clear procedure that governs the investigation process,
including the circumstances that will trigger an investigation, the persons that should be
interviewed, and the forensic evidence that should be gathered. Such incidents should be
reviewed by someone outside the officer’s chain of command.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 29

Finally, to the extent that agencies gather data on Tasers and other uses of force, such data
should be easily accessible to the public (along with agency policies), so that the community
can be better informed about the role of Tasers in law enforcement.121 Agencies can present
the data and policies in a format that does not reveal any sensitive information.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 30

Part III: Recommendations
To ensure that Taser deployment is aligned with the serious repercussions that can arise from
its use on members of the public, the ACLU urges that Arizona law enforcements adopt the
following recommendations:
Recommendation #1
Implement Strong Accountability Mechanisms for Taser Use, Including Data Collection
An agency’s ability to limit Taser use to lawful and appropriate circumstances depends first and
foremost on meaningful supervision and oversight.
As with firearms, officers should complete a use-of-force report every time a Taser is
brandished or fired (even accidentally). Those reports should then be compared to data
downloaded from Tasers to ensure accuracy and completeness in reporting. Agencies should
collect this data in a format (such as electronically) that allows supervisors to periodically
review it for warning signs of misuse or overuse. Supervisors should respond to the scene
each time a Taser is deployed (this is particularly important for newer recruits). In the case of
a citizen complaint, injury, death, or a Taser deployment that appears to deviate from agency
policy and training, there should be a full investigation completed.
In addition to making data about Taser use available to supervisors, agencies should make
the same data available to the public. Basic information should be available on an agency’s
website without having to file a public records request. This will allow the community to assess
for itself what the impact Tasers have had on other uses of force and overall public safety.
Any useful discussion about the role of Tasers in law enforcement begins from this point.
Transparency will also promote positive community relations in light of controversy surrounding
Taser use, and the high number of reports of injuries and deaths.
Recommendation #2
Revisit Tasers’ Place on the Use-of-Force Continuum and Update Agency Policies
Tasers clearly are not “non-lethal” weapons, and should always be referred to as “potentially
lethal” or “less-lethal” weapons. Agencies should only permit Taser use in the face of imminent
threats of physical harm to the officer or other individual or, at a minimum, active aggression.
Passive resistance or non-threatening active resistance, such as evasive actions to avoid being
handcuffed, should not justify the use of a Taser.
In addition, policies should clearly instruct officers to consider the seriousness of a subject’s
the alleged offense whenever possible, e.g. before someone is Tased while fleeing or for
resisting apprehension. Tasers should rarely – if ever – be used in “drive stun” mode to induce
“pain compliance.” If the officer feels comfortable enough to be so close to a subject, a less
severe use of force can accomplish the officer’s objective in almost all cases.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 31

If an officer has no choice but to use the Taser to induce compliance, the officer should
be required to document his or her efforts to use less severe techniques, such as verbal
commands, control holds, and warnings. In addition, officers should be instructed to consider
whether intoxication, mental illness, or other circumstances would make voluntary compliance
difficult. Agencies should make sure that officers have enough training and preparation to deal
with intoxicated or emotionally disturbed individuals, so that they are able to de-escalate a
situation without resorting to force. Under no circumstances should the Taser ever be used to
“punish” or “intimidate” a subject.
A majority of the agencies surveyed were silent on whether officers could Tase individuals
multiple times. However, multiple deployments are much more likely to cause serious injury
or death, and, in many instances, have been found to be unlawful. Past TASER International
training materials de-sensitized officers and even encouraged them to fire more than once.122
Against this background, it is even more important for agencies to ensure that officers can
independently justify each application of the Taser. They should be instructed to administer
shocks for as short a time as possible and to stop and evaluate the situation after each cycle
to see if additional shocks are necessary.
Agency policies should more completely describe when Taser use is discouraged or disallowed
with respect to vulnerable populations. Pregnant women, children, and the elderly should
not be Tased. Using Tasers on intoxicated or other persons at risk of cardiac arrest or health
problems should be discouraged. Policies should also identify additional situations where Taser
use is discouraged because of the existence of a safety hazard, such as a flammable liquid,
explosive, pepper spray, restraints, fall hazard or water hazard.
Recommendation #3
Mandate Regular Training That Meaningfully Incorporates
Agency Rules and Philosophies Regarding Taser Use
Agencies should not rely exclusively on TASER International, a profit-driven
company, to prepare their officers to use this potentially lethal weapon
in the field. TASER International’s materials have focused primarily
on technical proficiency, while exaggerating the weapon’s safety and
downplaying the potential physiological risks associated with their use.
Reliance on TASER International’s materials will also not shield an agency
from liability in the case of a serious injury or death. Agencies with
strapped budgets can hardly afford additional lawsuits, not to mention
high-dollar judgments. As a matter of fiscal as well as professional and
ethical responsibility, agencies should invest in training that inculcates
officers with the agency’s own policies on Taser use. Such training
should educate officers on the potentially serious consequences of Taser
exposure (including death) and how use of the Taser relates to other force
options.

As a matter of
fiscal as well as
professional and
ethical responsibility,
agencies should invest
in training that
inculcates officers
with the agency’s own
policies on Taser use.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 32

In addition, re-certification training should be required on at least an annual basis. Such
training should include a review of the documentation procedures for Taser use, and how
complaints and rule violations will be handled. However, any changes to the policies or updates
to the training should be circulated to officers immediately. To the extent that agencies rely on
TASER International for training, they should make sure to use only the most current version of
the materials.
Recommendation #4
Establish a Statewide Body to Review Taser Use and Develop Policy Recommendations
and Training Resources for Agencies
In addition to the above changes, the ACLU invites agencies to partner with us to advocate for
a statewide task force to monitor trends in Taser use in Arizona and provide policy and training
recommendations. Such a task force could include members of the community, experts,
researchers and representatives from law enforcement. Their mission would be to gather data
on Taser use from state and local law enforcement agencies, analyze trends in officer behavior,
and make recommendations to agencies that are consistent with the best practices in the
field.
The task force should make recommendations for state-level legislation on subjects such as
uniform data collection. In addition, it could undertake the creation of a standardized training
program (as recommended by the FLETC) to assist agencies with fewer resources to develop
their own training rather than rely exclusively on TASER International for training.

Conclusion
This report shows that there are serious issues concerning the use of Tasers in Arizona, and
that the lack of adequate training and accountability endangers the public and exposes law
enforcement agencies to potentially debilitating liability claims.
First and foremost, we reiterate our call for implementation of stronger accountability
mechanisms for Taser use, including data collection. As stated above, any useful discussion
about the role of Tasers in law enforcement begins from this point.
	
With regard to officer training, we commend TASER International for recent updates to its
training materials that respond to criticisms and concerns. However, law enforcement agencies
should not rely solely on TASER International, a profit-driven company, to guide them in the
use of this potentially lethal weapon. We therefore urge agencies to partner with the ACLU to
advocate for a statewide task force to monitor trends in Taser use in Arizona and provide policy
and training recommendations.
The Taser is almost certainly here to stay. When used appropriately and responsibly, it can be
an effective tool in the law enforcement arsenal. However, it should never be forgotten that
the Taser is a potentially lethal weapon, with potentially tragic consequences for its use and
misuse.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 33

Appendix A

Sample ACLU Public Records Request
A LE S S A NDR A S OLER MEET Z E
E X ECUTI V E D IR ECTOR
A CLU O F A R I ZON A

[DATE]
AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIE S UNION
FOUNDATION
OF ARIZONA
 
P.O. Box 17148

[NAME OF AGENCY]
[ADDRESS OF AGENCY]
	

Re: Public Records Request

To Whom It May Concern:

Phoenix, AZ 85011
 
Tel: 602-650-1854
Fax: 602-650-1376

Pursuant to Arizona’s Public Records Law, A.R.S.§ 39-121 et seq., the ACLU of Arizona
(“ACLU-AZ”) hereby requests the right to examine and copy, or to be furnished with
copies, of certain public records in the possession of the [NAME OF AGENCY].

http://www.acluaz.org

Arizona Public Records Law carries with it a presumption that all records are “open to the
public for inspection as public records.” Carlson v. Pima County, 141 Ariz. 487,490,687
P.2d 1242 (1984). If the request is denied in part or in whole, please justify any redactions
by referencing the specific grounds on which information is withheld under the Public
Records Law. All segregable portions of otherwise exempt material must be produced. We
reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information.
These records are not sought for any commercial purpose. The ACLU-AZ is a non-profit
civil rights organization and this information will inform our investigation of Taser policies
in light of growing public concern about their use.
We seek all records (including in written, electronic, audio, video, CD-Rom, or other
format) containing the following:
Request No.1: All department policies and procedures currently in force that govern
the use or display, training, (re)certification, inspection, monitoring, or reporting on uses
and/or displays of Tasers.* This includes, but is not limited to, general orders, formal
or informal directives, instructions, manuals, bulletins, guidelines and memoranda. It
includes any documents that address Tasers specifically or permissible uses of force
generally.
* The term Tasers in this request is being used in the generic sense and refers to any electro-shock weapon. If your department
uses an electro-shock weapon other than the Taser, please specify which weapon is being used.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 34

Request No. 2: All training materials currently in force regarding the use or display,
training, (re)certification, inspection, monitoring, or reporting on uses and/or displays
of Tasers. This includes the training itself as well as any materials used as part of the
training, including sample forms and documents. To the extent that the training manual is
provided to your agency by TASER International, please simply inform us of the edition or
version used.
Request No. 3: Records reflecting the number of officers in your agency (both the raw
number and as a percentage of the all sworn officers) and the rank/type of officers who use
or carry Tasers, as well as the total number of Tasers in the agency’s possession by type/
model. If you do not have records reflecting this information, but know the answer to these
questions, please provide the answers in your response.
Request No. 4: Records containing statistical data about the reported uses of force
– including, but not limited to, Tasers, firearms, batons, OC and/or chemical agents, control
holds or other forms of physical control–for the two years preceding the deployment of
Tasers and for every year after the deployment of Tasers, whether maintained/compiled by
your agency or an outside body.
Request No. 5: Records pertaining to any complaint, investigation, or incident involving
injury, hospitalization, or death following the use or testing of a Taser by an officer in your
agency. We do not seek the names or biographical information of any individual or officer
identified in the records.
You may contact us to inform us when the records have been compiled, or if there are ways
we can narrow the request to expedite processing. However, if we do not hear from you
within thirty (30) days, we will deem the request denied.
Thank you very much for your prompt attention.
							

Sincerely,

A Force to be Reckoned With page 35

Endnotes
1	

Various other terms have been used to describe the family of weapons that Tasers fall into, such as controlled
electronic devices (CEDs), electro-muscular disruption technology (EMDT), electro-muscular incapacitation devices
(EMIs), conducted electrical weapons (CEWs), and electronic control devices (ECDs). This report focuses on Tasers
because they are the weapon most prevalent in Arizona. However, many of the concerns documented in this report
also apply to other such weapons.

2	

National Institute of Justice, Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption, (2011): vii, available at http://
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/233432.pdf. (Hereinafter, “National Institute of Justice Study of Deaths 2011”).

3	

National Institute of Justice, Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons, (2011): 1, available at
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232215.pdf. (Hereinafter, “National Institute of Justice Police Use of Force
2011”).

4	

While the numbers of departments and officers armed with Tasers are not specifically known, some indication of
their prevalence can be found in other articles, including: Braidwood Commission on Conducted Energy Weapon
Use, Restoring Public Confidence: Restricting the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons in British Columbia, (2009):
50, available at www.braidwoodinquiry.ca; Janyce M. Sanford and others, “Two patients subdued with a taser®
device; cases and review of complications,” Journal of Emergency Medicine 40, no. 1 (2008): 28-32, doi:10.1016/
j.jemermed.2007.10.059; Michael D. White and Justin Ready, “The Impact of the Taser on Suspect Resistance:
Identifying Predictors of Effectiveness,” Crime & Delinquency 56, no. 1 (2010): 70-102, doi:10.1177/0011128707
308099.

5	

Amnesty International, ‘Less than Lethal’? The Use of Stun Weapons in US Law Enforcement, (2008): 1-121, http://
www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/010/2008/en.

6	

National Institute of Justice Study of Deaths 2011, 6.

7	

Ibid. at 24.

8	

Sarah Lai Stirland, “’Don’t Tase Me, Bro!’Jolts the Web,” Wired.com, Sept. 19, 2007, http://www.wired.com/
threatlevel/2007/09/dont-tase-me-br/.

9	

Amnesty International 2008, 27.

10	 Prior to the Amnesty International report, the ACLU of Northern California released a report surveying Taser use
among Northern California law enforcement agencies. ACLU of Northern California, Stun Gun Fallacy: How the
Lack of Taser Regulation Endangers Lives, (2005): 1-25, http://www.aclunc.org/issues/criminal_justice/police_
practices/stun_gun_fallacy_how_the_lack_of_taser_regulation_endangers_lives.shtmlspecial_report_stun_gun_
fallacy.shtml. The Use of Force Working Group of Allegheny County Pennsylvania, assembled by District Attorney
Stephen Zappala, and the Maryland Attorney General’s Task Force on Electronic Weapons, also issued reports,
available at http://www.law.pitt.edu/files/harris/Taser-Working-Group.pdf and http://www.oag.state.md.us/
Reports/ECWReport.pdf, respectively.
11	 For example, there is some empirical support for the claim that Tasers, when used correctly, have been associated
with a decline in injury rates among officers and suspects. See Taylor, Bruce, et al. 2009. “Comparing Safety
Outcomes in Police Use-of-Force Cases for Law Enforcement Agencies That Have Deployed Conducted Energy
Devices and a Matched Comparison Group That Have Not: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation.” Report submitted to
the National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, available at http://meetings.
policeforum.org/upload/CED%20outcomes_193971463_10232009143958.pdf.
12	 While the term “Taser” is often used generically to refer to a stun gun, Tasers differ from stun guns in that they can
be fired from a distance of up to 35 feet and do not require contact with the skin to deliver a charge.
13	 National Institute of Justice, Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption: Interim Report, (2008): 8,
available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/222981.pdf. The interim report, which preceded the full-length
report by the National Institute of Justice in 2011, will hereinafter be referenced as “NIJ Interim Study of Deaths
2008”.
14	 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Taser Weapons: Use of Tasers by Selected Law Enforcement Agencies,
(2005): 5-6, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05464.pdf.
15	 “Arizona Department of Public Safety orders 1,000 new Tasers,” Phoenix Business Journal, Jan. 6, 2011, http://
www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2011/01/06/arizona-department-of-public-safety.html.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 36

16	 Ibid.
17	 John Yantis, “Second-shot Taser stun gun hits the market,” The Arizona Republic, Apr. 20, 2011, http://www.
azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/2011/04/20/20110420arizona-new-taser-stun-gun-hits-market.html.
18	 Elaine Woo, “Jack Cover Dies at 88; scientist invented the Taser stun gun,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 13, 2009,
available at http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-jack-cover13-2009feb13,0,4344955.
story.
19	 U.S. Government Accountability Office 2005, 5-6.
20	 John Burton and Peter M. Williamson, “Representing Clients Injured by TASER International Electrical Control
Devices,” Civil Rights Litigation Handbook, (2010): 29.
21	 Ibid. supra, note 13, at footnote 11.
22	 Amnesty International 2008, 12.
23	 See Bryan v. McPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 824 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010) (superseding opinion dated Dec. 28, 2009 and
denying rehearing en banc).
24	 Amnesty International 2008, 6-8. For the earlier M26 models, the duration of the cycle stopped at approximately
5 seconds. However, later models of the M26 and the X26 allow officers to extend the activation cycle for as long
as they pull the trigger. Police Executive Research Forum and U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, PERF 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines (2011): 13, available at http://www.
policeforum.org/library/use-of-force/ECWguidelines2011.pdf. (Hereinafter “Police Executive Research Forum ECW
Guidelines 2011”).
25	 Amnesty International 2008, 12.
26	 U.S. Government Accountability Office 2005, 8.
27	 Police Executive Research Forum ECW Guidelines 2011, 14.
28	 TASER International, TASER X26 User Course, Version 17 (2010): 164,169.
29	 Ibid. at 80.
30	 Data about the number of departments that use this feature is not available.
31	 “TASER Headquarters,” TASER International, last modified September 8 2010, http://www.taser.com/company/
pages/building.aspx.
32	 Robert Anglen, “Police expand use of Taser: safety questions create call for restrictions on stun gun,” The Arizona
Republic, Nov. 7, 2004, http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/1107tasermain07-CP.html.
33	 Ibid.
34	 Ibid.
35	 Roma Khanna, “The Taser Effect: Two years after HPD armed itself with the stun guns, questions linger over how
and how often the weapon is being used,” Houston Chronicle, Jan. 14, 2007, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.
mpl/metropolitan/4464516.html.
36	 Ibid.
37	 See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395-96 (1989).
38	 See Bryan, 630 F.3d at 825 (“The physiological effects, the high levels of pain, and foreseeable risk of physical
injury lead us to conclude that the X26 and similar devices are a greater intrusion than other non-lethal methods of
force we have confronted.”); Beaver v. City of Federal Way, 507 F.Supp.2d 1137, 1144 (W.D.Wash. 2007).
39	 See, e.g., Bryan, 630 F.3d at 832 (“Bryan was neither a flight risk, a dangerous felon, nor an immediate threat .
. . Officer MacPherson’s desire to quickly and decisively end an unusual and tense situation is understandable.
His chosen method for doing so violated Bryan’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force.”); Oliver
v. Fiorino, 586 F.3d 898, 907 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that “repeated tasering of Oliver into and beyond his
complete physical capitulation was grossly disproportionate to any threat posed and unreasonable under the
circumstances”); Oliver v. City of Orlando, 574 F.Supp.2d 1279, 1285-86 (M.D.Fla. 2008); Beaver, 507 F.Supp.2d at
1144-46.
40	 “Tasers a form of torture, says UN,” Daily Telegraph, Nov. 24, 2007, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/
breaking-news/tasers-a-form-of-torture-says-un/story-e6freuz9-1225758523986.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 37

41	 Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97.
42	 Bryan, 630 F.3d at 822. The original Ninth Circuit opinion in the case was issued on December 28, 2009. Bryan
v. McPherson, 590 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2009). Six months later, on June 18, 2010, the Ninth Circuit withdrew the
opinion, granting qualified immunity but leaving the finding that the use of the Taser was excessive intact. Bryan v.
McPherson, 608 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2010). Rehearing en banc was subsequently denied and superseding opinion
issued on November 30, 2010 that leaves the body of the opinion virtually unchanged. Bryan, 630 F.3d 805. This
report cites to and quotes from the superseding opinion.
43	 Id. at 826-27.
44	 Id. at 825-26.
45	 An earlier version of the Bryan opinion, which was withdrawn by the Ninth Circuit, was more specific. It noted that
Taser use could only be justified “a strong government interest [that] compels the employment of such force.” 608
F.3d at 622 (internal quotation omitted).
46	 Bryan, 630 at 826-30.
47	 Id. at 826-28.
48	 Id. at 828-29.
49	 Id. at 829-30.
50	 Id. at 831.
51	 Id. at 829 (quoting Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2001)).
52	 590 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2010).
53	 Id. at 1087.
54	 599 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010).
55	 Id. at 1027-28.
56	 The en banc panel heard oral arguments on Dec. 14, 2010.
57	 Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv’s, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); see also Menotti v. City of Seattle,
409 F.3d 1113, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005).
58	 TASER International has also been held liable for injuries resulting from use of its product. See, e.g., Heston
v. TASER International, Inc., Nos. 09-15327 & 09–15440, 2011 WL 1707048 (9th Cir. May 5, 2011) (nonprecedential) (affirming award of wrongful death damages to parents of decedent and reversing other components
of jury award).
59	 See Monell, 436 U.S. at 661; Menotti, 409 F.3d at 1147.
60	 See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986); Menotti, 409 F.3d at 1147.
61	 Oviatt By and Through Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1992).
62	 See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 409-10 (1997) (municipality that fails to provide officers with
specific tools in the face of a “high degree of predictability” that a constitutional violation will occur can be held
liable for the consequence).
63	 See generally City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).
64	 In 2005, the company started to back away from this terminology. Sturke, James and Rosalind Ryan, “Police
stun-gun may be lethal, firm says,” The Guardian, Oct. 3, 2005, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/
oct/03/ukcrime.jamessturcke.
65	 U.S. Department of Defense, “Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons,” Department of Defense Directive Number 3000.3,
(1996), certified current as of November 2003, http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/300003p.pdf.
66	 Ibid.
67	 The Police Executive Research Forum has stated that Tasers should be considered “less-lethal” weapons. Police
Executive Research Forum ECW Guidelines 2011, 11.
68	 Anglen, “Police expand use of Taser.”
69	 National Institute of Justice Study of Deaths 2011, vii.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 38

70	 See generally, ACLU of Northern California 2005.
71	 Robert Anglen, “Judge rules for Taser in cause-of-death decisions,” The Arizona Republic, May 2, 2008, http://
www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/02/20080502taser0503.html.
72	 TASER International, “TASER International Reaches Agreements to Settle Securities Class Action and Derivative
Litigation,” Aug. 9, 2006, http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129937&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=894370&hi
ghlight=.
73	 Robert Anglen, “Taser set to change marketing, state says,” The Arizona Republic, Sept. 28, 2005, http://www.
azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0928taser28.html.
74	 “AG drops inquiry after changes,” The East Valley Tribune, Dec. 23, 2005, http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/
article_fc2e2e85-3118-5031-a151-6cbc9a747af4.html.	
75	 Robert Anglen, “Taser defends giving stock options to police,” The Arizona Republic, Sept. 24, 2005, http://www.
azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0924taserOLP24a1.html.
76	 Elizabeth MacDonald, “A shocking defense,” Forbes, Oct. 31, 2005, http://www.forbes.com/
forbes/2005/1031/062.html.
77	 Thor Valdmanis, “Taser gave 4 police officers stock options,” USA Today, Jan. 11, 2005, http://www.usatoday.
com/money/companies/management/2005-01-11-taser-usat_x.htm.
78	 Major Steve Ijames, “Taser today: Controversy, credibility & control considerations,” PoliceOne.com, May 14, 2005,
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/articles/100546-TASER-today-Controversy-credibilitycontrol-considerations/.
79	 For the Glendale Police Department, we consulted a recent staffing study, available at http://www.glendaleaz.
com/police/documents/StaffingStudyFinal2010.pdf, 26. For the Chandler Police Department, we consulted the
department’s 2009-2010 annual report, available at http://chandlerpd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/
annual_report_2009-2010.pdf. For the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, we consulted a February 2010 Arizona
Republic article, available at http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/02/08/20100208arpaio-deputiesimmigration-training.html#ixzz0rtpR4Mrz.
80	 U.S. Census Bureau, “Arizona Population Estimates 2009,” American FactFinder, http://factfinder.census.
gov/servlet/GCTTable?-ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_GCTT1R_ST9S&-geo_
id=04000US04&-format=ST-9&-tree_id=809&-context=gct.
81	 International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Step 8: Use a Phased Deployment Approach for EMDT,” ElectroMuscular Disruption Technology: A Nine-Step Strategy for Effective Deployment, (2008): 1-19, http://www.theiacp.
org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Jk7o%2b4Ai2hE%3d&tabid=87.
82	 See also ACLU of Northern California 2005.
83	 The Mesa Police Field Manual defines “hard hands” as “techniques that have more than a minimal chance of
injury,” such as kicks, punches, and strikes with the elbow, palm or knee. Mesa Police Department, “FLD 2010:
Use of Force,” in Mesa Police Field Manual, (2006), 8.
84	 “Limited hard hands” refers to the same technique applied to specific target areas on the suspect’s body. See id.
85	 Khanna, “The Taser Effect.”
86	 Police Executive Research Forum ECW Guidelines 2011, 14.
87	 Amnesty International, “Amnesty International’s concerns about Taser® use: Statement to the U.S. Justice
Department inquiry into deaths in custody,” ( Sept. 27 2007), available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/
asset/AMR51/151/2007/en/a0499552-d364-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/amr511512007en.pdf.
88	 U.S. Government Accountability Office 2005, 7-8.
89	 Ibid., 2.
90	 Ibid., 9-10.
91	 Ibid.
92	 Bryan, 630 F.3d at 826-27.
93	 Id.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 39

94	 David A. Harris, “Taser Use by Law Enforcement: Report of the Use of Force Working Group of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania Report,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 71 (2009): 735 (emphasis in original), available at
http://www.law.pitt.edu/files/harris/Taser-Working-Group.pdf.
95	 National Institute of Justice Police Use of Force 2011, 15.
96	 Police Executive Research Forum ECW Guidelines 2011.
97	 U.S. Government Accounting Office 2005, 9 footnote 10.
98	 Bryan, 630 F.3d at 826.
99	 Police Executive Research Forum ECW Guidelines 2011, 20.
100	 Id. at 826, 828-29.
101	 National Institute of Justice Study of Deaths 2011, 24.
102	 Scott Thrill, “Why are cops Tasering pregnant women, grandmothers and kids?” Alternet, Aug. 17, 2009, available
at http://www.alternet.org/rights/142006/why_are_cops_tasering_grandmothers,_pregnant_women_and_kids/.
103	 Amnesty International 2008, 56-75.
104	 International Association of Chiefs of Police National Law Enforcement Policy Center, “Electronic Control Weapons:
Concepts and Issues Paper,” (1996, revised Aug. 2005): 4.
105	 Chris Myers, Rick Wyant, and Tom Burns, “Taser, safe or flammable?” Law Officer Magazine, Aug. 2007, http://
www.crtlesslethal.com/CRT%20Taser%20OC%202007.pdf.
106	 National Institute of Justice Study of Deaths, 2011, 27.
107	 Police Executive Research Forum 2011, 13.
108	 Robert Anglen, “Taser advises police not to aim at suspect’s chest: for 1st time, firm acknowledges some heart
risk,” The Arizona Republic, Oct. 21, 2009, available at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/
2009/10/21/20091021taser1021.html.
109	 Police Executive Research Forum ECW Guidelines 2011, 18.
110	 TASER International, TASER X3 User Certification Course, Version 17, (2010). Available for download at http://
taser.com/images/downloads/pdf/Training%20Bulletin%2016-1%20Version%2017.pdf.
	

Also see: TASER International, TASER X26 User Course, Version 16, (2009), available at: http://acluaz.org/sites/
default/files/documents/X26-UserCourseV16.pdf.

111	 TASER International, “TASER Training Bulletin 15.0 Regarding Medical Research Update and Revised Warning,” Oct.
12, 2009, available at http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/1020tasermemo.pdf.
112	 TASER International, “Version 17 User Update,” Feb. 2011, available at: http://www.taser.com/images/downloads/
ppt/02-01-11_v_17_taser_user_update_001.ppt.
113	 ACLU of Northern California 2005, 8-11.
114	 Ibid., 8-9.
115	 Robert Anglen, “Taser advises police not to aim at suspect’s chest.”
116	 ACLU of Northern California 2005, 6.
117	 TASER International, “Version 17 User Update,” slide 10.
118	 Ibid (referring to considerations for “using force for compliance (when feasible),” including giving adequate time for
volitional compliance and verifying that the person is capable of complying).
119	 While the additional costs of video equipment may be beyond the means of many police departments, even regular
use of the built-in data recorder would be a significant step forward.
120	 Police Executive Research Forum ECW Guidelines, 22.
121	 Ibid., 24.
122	 ACLU of Northern California 2005, 9.

A Force to be Reckoned With page 40

ACLU of Arizona
P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, AZ 85011
602-650-1967
www.acluaz.org