Conducted Energy Devices - Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance, DOJ, 2006

• Feb. 17, 2016 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Excessive Force, Stun Guns/Tasers

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Conducted Energy Devices:

Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance
The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

by
James M. Cronin
Joshua A. Ederheimer

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, with support from the Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
National Institute of Justice, and other policing organizations and associations,
has developed an online clearinghouse for information on Less Lethal Weapons
(www.less-lethal.org). The web site is growing, based on user feedback and
contributions. It contains links, departmental policies, academic research papers, and
a variety of other documents that are important to understanding the impact of Less
Lethal Weapons in the community at large and within law enforcement.

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

A Less Lethal Weapon Clearinghouse Now Online: www.less-lethal.org

Conducted Energy Devices:

Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance
The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

by
James M. Cronin
Joshua A. Ederheimer

This study of conducted energy devices (CEDs) by the Police Executive Research Forum
(PERF) was supported by Grant #2005-HS-WX-0007 awarded by the U.S. Department of
Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). Points of view or
opinions contained in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or members of PERF.
The opinions expressed are generally those based on the consensus of participants in interviews,
site visits, or expert panel meetings; however, not every view or statement presented in this
report can necessarily be attributed to each participant.
Web sites and sources listed provide useful information at the time of this writing, but the
authors do not endorse any information of the sponsor organization or other information on the
web sites.

Published by:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
and
Police Executive Research Forum
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 930
Washington, DC 20036
United States of America
November 2006
ISBN: 1-932582-73-8
Suggested citation:
Cronin, James M. and Joshua A. Ederheimer. Conducted Energy Devices: Development of
Standards for Consistency and Guidance. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services and Police Executive Research Forum. Washington, D.C., 2006.
Cover design by Michael A. Sogunro, USDOJ COPS Office

iii

his report is a culmination of the valuable contributions and
hard work of many agencies and individuals. Special recognition
goes to the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) Fellows
who conducted the studies that served as the foundation of PERF’s
efforts in this area. Thanks to Will Johnson (Arlington, Texas, Police
Department), Brett Patterson (West Palm Beach, Florida, Police
Department), and Mark Warren (Baltimore County, Maryland, Police
Department). In addition, the expertise and hard work of PERF
Research Director Bruce Taylor and Senior Associate Bruce Kubu of
the PERF Law Enforcement Center for Survey Research made the
project possible.
We would like to thank former Assistant Attorney Deborah Daniels of
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs and
former Acting Assistant Attorney General Tracy Henke for their vision
and support for addressing issues related to less-lethal technology.
The April 2005 DOJ Less Lethal Technology Symposium and the
subsequent creation of the DOJ Less Lethal Technology Working
Group helped to bring conducted energy device (CED) issues to the
forefront of law enforcement thinking.
Of course, this report would not have been possible without the
generous support of the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (the COPS Office). COPS Director Carl Peed and the COPS
staff have demonstrated leadership and sustained commitment to
the issues surrounding CEDs. We appreciate the incredible efforts
of our project manager and Deputy Director of the COPS Office,
Pam Cammarata, who provided exceptional guidance and support
throughout the project, and our current project manager, Albert
Pearsall III. In addition, the guidance and support we have received
from Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Director Domingo Herraiz
and the expertise of BJA Senior Advisor for Law Enforcement Steven
Edwards helped make this project successful.
Moreover, we appreciate the assistance provided to us by our fellow
members of the DOJ Less Lethal Technology Working Group. The
group, led by COPS Director Carl Peed and BJA Director Domingo
Herraiz, provided invaluable expertise. The participants are listed in
Appendix B of this publication. Moreover, critically important to the
completion of this report was the willingness of an exceptional group

Acknowledgments

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

iv
of individuals to attend a PERF symposium—professionals from both
the law enforcement community and the private sector—with expertise
on CEDs. This group of extremely busy individuals graciously spent
two days in Houston, Texas, discussing CED issues and vetting both
the glossary and national guidelines. A list of those participants is in
Appendix A.
Finally, this report could not have been produced without the incredible
efforts of talented and dedicated PERF staff. Executive Director
Chuck Wexler guided this project, playing a key role in moderating the
expert group in Houston, and helping to create a national consensus
on both the guidelines and glossary. We thank Dana Murphy and Lisa
Spahr for editing assistance and Jason Cheney for his research efforts.
Thanks to Nathan Ballard and Anna Berke for their tireless efforts in
making the arrangements for the Houston CED summit.

—James Cronin and Joshua Ederheimer

aw enforcement leaders are constantly striving to identify new
strategies to encourage safe encounters between police officers and
violent persons. One aspect of encouraging positive outcomes
during such encounters is by focusing attention on developing lesslethal strategies that balance minimal use of force with the operational
necessity of arresting or disarming individuals.
An important part of a less-lethal strategy involves the identification
and deployment of weapons and other technology. The goal is to
provide police officers with alternatives to deadly force in order to
minimize harm to both community members and police. In an effort
to more effectively reduce both police-involved shootings and injuries, a
number of innovative less-lethal devices have been developed. One of
the most recently developed and prominent weapon is the conducted
energy device (CED). CEDs are less-lethal devices intended to deliver
an electrical charge sufficient to momentarily disrupt a subject’s central
nervous system, enabling better officer control of the individual and
causing minimal discomfort or injury. According to some estimates,
CEDs have been adopted by more than 8,000 police and sheriffs’
departments across the country.
During the past 2 years, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
has invested considerable time and resources examining the impact
that CEDs have had on law enforcement agencies and communities
across the country. PERF staff members have conducted two national
surveys—one focusing on identifying the state of the field, and the
other examining circumstances and various factors related to deaths
that occurred in proximity to a CED activation. In addition, PERF
has hosted several international symposiums, identified and assessed
available studies and reports, reviewed a large number of police and
sheriff ’s department policies, partnered with Canadian and British
counterparts, consulted with medical doctors, and examined media
reports. Based on the information gathered through these venues,
PERF drafted a CED glossary of terms and a series of national policy
guidelines for the use of CEDs.
Subsequently, with the support of the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), PERF brought together
representatives from more than 50 law enforcement agencies that

Foreword

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

vi
use CEDs, medical doctors, labor union representatives, academic
researchers, and other subject matter experts to carefully vet the CED
glossary of terms and the guidelines for consideration. While several
longer term major studies of CEDs are in progress, the field urgently
needs to have information, guidance, and consistency about these
devices as soon as possible. While the guidelines and glossary are not
meant to represent the final and definitive perspectives on CEDs, they
do provide needed clarification and information that can help guide
police executives in developing CED policy.
The glossary and guidelines in this report address policy issues that
include critical topics such as what resistance levels delineate when
CED activation is permissible; the number and duration of CED cycles
that can be applied to a person; CED use against at-risk populations,
how police should respond to a suspect armed with a CED; tactical
considerations about when a CED can be activated; and numerous
other concerns.
PERF developed the glossary of terms and guidelines for consideration
in the hope that they will be useful in providing the kind of information
that law enforcement leaders and policymakers need to better protect
the public and the safety of their officers. PERF is pleased to bring
this information to the field to help ensure the well-being of our
nation’s officers and to bring the best possible police services to all
communities.

Chuck Wexler
Executive Director, PERF

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Conducted Energy Devices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Describing Conducted Energy Devices.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Concerns Emerge About CEDs .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Need for National Guidelines.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Development of National Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Overview of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The PERF Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
DOJ Less Lethal Technology Working Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
PERF’s National Summit on CEDs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
PERF CED Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
PERF CED Guidelines for Consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
About the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
About the Bureau of Justice Assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
About the Police Executive Research Forum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
About the PERF Center on Force and Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Resources/Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix A: Participants in the National Summit on CEDs (Houston, Texas). . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix B: DOJ’s Less Lethal Technology Working Group Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

vii
Contents

Contents

s more and more conducted energy devices (CED)1 were
deployed across the United States, their use sparked considerable
confusion. Police executives were inundated with questions
about the devices, and had to explain—and in some instances, justify—
several of the ways that the devices had been used as tactical weapons
by their officers. The dearth of available information about how CEDs
worked and how they were used in daily police work had hampered the
ability of police executives to make informed policy decisions about the
devices. Police executives had been provided with little independent
support and guidance on CEDs, which had compelled them to make
policy and operational decisions on CEDs with very little reliable
information to back them.
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and the
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) of the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) recognized the pressing need for a greater understanding of
these devices. They were aware of research activities that had been
conducted on CEDs by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
and other organizations, and supported efforts to provide police chiefs
with a fuller scope of information to help them make more informed
decisions. The goal of this report is to share the CED glossary of
terms and national CED guidelines for consideration, and to provide a
context for how these items were developed. This report reflects the
first step in providing guidance to the field to help bring consistency
and a better understanding of the devices to the profession. As
more research is completed, new information will be synthesized and
the guidelines will likely need to be refined. CED technology is still
maturing and, as it evolves, the profession will have to continually
ensure that it is deployed safely and efficiently.
PERF’s activities included two national studies—one determining the
state of the field and the other identifying issues related to proximity
deaths. PERF had also reached out to, and consulted with, many of
the most experienced and knowledgeable CED professionals in the
field to distinguish the most pressing issues and major obstacles. It
conducted international symposiums with practitioners, medical
doctors, academics, labor unions, and other expert stakeholders. PERF
also interacted with representatives from Taser™ International, advocacy
organizations, and international groups during the course of this
endeavor. Also important, PERF consulted with fellow members of

Conducted Energy Device
(CED) is the preferred terminology for the weapon. However, the CED has also been
referred to as Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology
(EMDT); Electro-Muscular
Incapacitation device (EMI);
Electro Muscular Device
(EMD); and Electronic Control Device (ECD). They all
serve to describe this category
of less-lethal weapons.

Introduction

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

the DOJ Less Lethal Technology Working Group, who offered their
expertise and insights on less-lethal weapon issues.
Complementing these activities, PERF reviewed numerous studies
and reports from individual law enforcement agencies and other
organizations. It examined numerous agency CED policies, including
policy updates and revisions. PERF also examined numerous media
reports on CEDs, both in-print and electronic mediums. Ultimately,
PERF drafted a CED glossary of terms and a series of CED guidelines
for consideration. Building on the knowledge gained from these
activities, PERF—with the support of COPS and BJA—convened a
summit attended by international experts and stakeholders to discuss
pressing CED-related issues and vet the CED glossary of terms and
guidelines for consideration. This report, therefore, represents the
culmination of PERF’s numerous initiatives on CEDs.
This report describes CEDs and explains how they work. It also relates
some of the concerns that arose about the devices, and provides a
context on why the field needed guidance. The report summarizes
related research and the development of the guidelines and describes
the role of the DOJ Less Lethal Technology Symposium. Finally, this
report contains the CED glossary of terms and 52 CED guidelines for
consideration that were vetted by the expert group.
This report fosters consistency in terminology related to CEDs and
less-lethal weapons, as well as assists law enforcement leaders in
making more informed policy decisions about CEDs. While additional
longitudinal research is being conducted, the CED glossary of terms
and the accompanying guidelines for consideration are resources that
are available now to help agencies develop clear and consistent policies
on CEDs.

Describing Conducted Energy Devices

t the time of this publication, the most commonly deployed
conducted energy device (CED) is manufactured by Taser
International, notably the Taser M26 and X26 models. Taser,
developed in the 1970s by Jack Cover, is an acronym for the Thomas A.
Swift Electric Rifle. Swift was a fictional character in a 1930s series of
science fiction books by Victor Appleton (Sanchez 2004). Tasers fire
darts that attach to (or penetrate) a person’s skin or clothing and create
an incapacitating electrical current.
The Taser has evolved over the years. In 1999, the company developed
the Advanced Taser M26, which was powered by an alkaline battery
and used nitrogen cartridges, rather than gunpowder, which was used in
earlier models, to fire projectiles. Shaped liked a handgun, the Advanced
Taser M26 became popular with law enforcement officers. In 2003,
the company introduced the Taser X26, more compact than the
Advanced Taser M26 and, according to the company, more efficient. It
is powered by a lithium battery and also uses nitrogen cartridges to fire
projectiles. These CEDs deliver an electrical current that interferes with
the body’s neuromuscular system, temporarily incapacitating a targeted
person. They are laser-sighted and use cartridges attached to the end of
the weapon’s barrel (Ederheimer and Fridell, 2005).
The Taser has two modes: “probe” and “touch stun.” In the probe
mode, the cartridges project, through a set of wires, a pair of barbs (or
darts with hooks) that attaches to clothing or penetrates the skin after
the Taser is fired, delivering an electrical charge (Association of Chief
Police Officers, 2004). When the barbs strike, the electrical current is
sent down the wires and through the body between the two barb points.
In the touch stun mode, electrical contacts on the Taser are pressed
directly onto a person and there is a similar but reduced neuromuscular
effect (Donnelly et al, 2002).

Concerns Emerge About CEDs

According to some estimates, CEDs have been adopted by more
than 8,000 police and sheriffs’ offices across the country. Many law
enforcement leaders have touted the devices, citing them as an effective
less-lethal option. CEDs have been credited with helping to reduce

Conducted Energy Devices

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

injuries and instances of deadly force; however, as deployments of
CEDs increased across the United States and abroad, controversy has
emerged.
Advocacy organizations raised questions about the devices, claiming
they were being misused, overused, and posed serious health risks.
Policy issues emerged on a plethora of concerns ranging from
placement on the force continuum to activation parameters on at-risk
populations such as children, the elderly, persons under the influence of
drugs, and pregnant women. Training questions arose, especially about
the mandatory exposure of police officers to these devices. Tactical
issues surfaced, ranging from holster placement to the practice of
activating persons in vehicles. The medical effects of CEDs were—and
remain—controversial because some people have died in proximity to
a CED activation. Law enforcement executives were confronted with
these and other CED issues and determined that deeper examination
of them was necessary.

Need for National Guidelines
Any new technology—and in particular, one that has the potential
to cause injury and possible death—must be carefully assessed using
whatever reliable information is available. That assessment can help
law enforcement agencies develop effective policies in their own
jurisdictions and at the same time foster accountability by addressing
apprehensions of the public. Longitudinal research is necessary—not
only on CEDs, but also on how all less-lethal technology and police
tactics affect officer and resident safety. While there were a number
of longer-term studies on CEDs in progress, police departments
needed information quickly so they could develop effective new CED
policies—or refine, calibrate, and strengthen current ones.
The lack of available information prompted Amnesty International to
call for a moratorium on CEDs, and several local and state legislatures
offered legislation to restrict or prohibit the devices. Many law
enforcement agencies delayed or cancelled plans to deploy the devices
in the field. It quickly became clear that the field needed objective
and responsible guidance about these devices, and the failure to have
such guidance could limit the availability of this less-lethal tool for
law enforcement. The pressing need for standardization and well
researched guidelines prompted the development of this report.

Overview of Research

rior to the development of the Police Executive Research Forum
(PERF) CED glossary and guidelines, little U.S. research had
been made available to law enforcement on CEDs. There were
few comprehensive assessments of the operation or effectiveness of
the devices. Primarily, many relied on data from the manufacturer,
from organizations funded by the manufacturer, media reports,
or information from a single jurisdiction. PERF staff, however,
conducted an extensive literature review of available information about
CEDs. Among the items examined was research conducted by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), international
law enforcement partners, technical research by the U.S. Military,
operational data by police departments, reports by media outlets, and
studies completed by advocacy organizations.
PERF examined research conducted by the United Kingdom, which
had completed an operational trial of CEDs (in this case, Taser brand
devices), piloting various models in five British police jurisdictions. The
pilot, conducted by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO),
concluded that the CED (Taser) was a useful and effective piece of
equipment that can help to de-escalate potentially violent situations
and reduce harm with more precision than other alternatives. A second
report conducted by the United Kingdom was completed in 2005.
Entitled Police Scientific Development Branch: Further Evaluation of the Taser
Device,. the report concluded that the risk of life-threatening or serious
injury from the CED was very low.
PERF also examined Canadian research, which included the 2005
report entitled Review of Conducted Energy Devices produced by the
Canadian Police Research Centre. It examined the medical safety of
CEDs and the effect CED use has on police operations. It concluded
that there was no definitive research or evidence to establish a causal
relationship between CED use and deaths. Furthermore, with proper
training the use of a CED can reduce risk of harm to both police
officers and suspects.
Other research reviewed included the U.S. Air Force Research
Laboratory Human Effects Center on Excellence (HECOE) report
entitled Human Effectiveness and Risk Characterization of the Electromuscular

The Development of National Guidelines

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

6
Incapacitation Device- A Limited Analysis of the TASER. The 2005
HECOE report concluded that CEDs (Taser) are generally effective for
their intended use and the activation of the device does not appear to
pose a significant risk to the recipient.
Some local agencies reported operational effectiveness of CEDs. The
Miami, Florida, Police Department reported that after it adopted CEDs
in 2003, the department experienced no police-involved shootings
for 20 consecutive months. During the same period, the Seattle,
Washington, Police Department also reported no police-involved
shooting deaths after adopting the devices, and Chief Gil Kerlikowske
had given some of the credit to CEDs (Castro 2004). After it began
using CEDs, the Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department reported the
lowest rate of deadly police shootings in 14 years (Kershaw, 2004). In
Portland, Oregon, police found that 25 to 30 percent of the situations
in which a CED was used met the criteria for the use of deadly force
(Jones, 2004). A report by the Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department
concluded that the deployment of CEDs has reduced officers’ use of
deadly force and has reduced injuries to both officers and suspects
(Wahl, 2005).
Information critical of CEDs was also examined. The Arizona Republic
published a series of articles concerning deaths following the use of a
CED. The newspaper conducted a search of autopsy reports, police
reports, media reports, and Taser International’s own records to identify
deaths that occurred after a CED activation. Amnesty International,
concerned with the deaths of individuals in the United States and
Canada after a CED activation, released a report in 2006 called Amnesty
International’s Continued Concerns About Taser Use. In the report, the group
calls for the suspension of CED use until an independent, impartial, and
comprehensive inquiry into their effects is conducted.
PERF also reviewed a significant amount of other available information
and research. The work on CEDs that had been completed to that
point, however, used disparate terms and definitions, and had not been
centrally compiled and synthesized. This contributed greatly to the
confusion in the field. Also important, none of the previous efforts
had identified the current issues surrounding CEDs in the United
States, and there was little guidance on CED policy development,
independent training, and tactics. PERF embarked on two national
studies to fill this void, with the goal of translating the new data and
previous research into national guidelines for consideration.

To collect the critical information on CEDs needed to help police
leaders make informed policy decisions, staff from PERF’s Center
on Force & Accountability and PERF’s Law Enforcement Center
for Survey Research completed two major national surveys of law
enforcement organizations. These two studies, a summit of law
enforcement experts, and a compilation of research studies were
instrumental in producing the CED glossary of terms and guidelines
for consideration.2
The first study, conducted in early 2005, was coordinated by Major
Mark Warren of the Baltimore County, Maryland, Police Department,
who served as a PERF Fellow. It involved 74 participating agencies,
most of which used at least 100 CEDs and fully deployed the devices
to all officers on patrol. Recognizing that police CED practices were
rapidly changing, the study sought to determine the state of the field
at the time. While many law enforcement organizations have since
updated their policies, the study provided a national snapshot of the
field during that period. The information was valuable in developing
questions for the second survey and, later, in the development of topics
for the guidelines.
The second study was coordinated by Lieutenant Will Johnson of
the Arlington, Texas, Police Department, who also served as a PERF
Fellow. Completed in October 2005, the study focused on 96 agencies
in the United States and examined 118 deaths that had allegedly
occurred in proximity to a CED activation. In addition, data were
collected from a comparison group of CED incidents where a death
did not occur.
These two national surveys helped identify seminal issues related to
CEDs, and aided PERF staff in formulating the initial draft of the
glossary and guidelines. The information amassed during the course
of the surveys—and the analysis of the data obtained—led to the
development of several key conclusions that influenced guideline
development. For example, the results indicated that multiple and
continuous activations of CEDs may increase the risk of death or serious
injury, and that there may be a higher risk of death in people under the
influence of drugs. Further, the survey reflected that it would be prudent
to provide a medical evaluation following all CED activations.

The results of these studies
are published in: Ederheimer,
Joshua. Chief Concerns:
Strategies for Resolving Conflict
and Minimizing Use of Force.
Washington, D.C.; Police
Executive Research Forum,
2006.

The Development of National Guidelines

The PERF Surveys

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

Also, the results indicated that most CED activations were correlated
with higher levels of aggression by assailants. The surveys also helped
identify practices in the field that influenced guideline development.
For training purposes, the number of injuries experienced by officers
during training supported the practice of informed voluntary exposure
to CEDs. It also became clear that agencies recognized the need
for establishing parameters regarding CED activation on at-risk
populations such as children, the elderly, and pregnant women. Finally,
the data indicated a real need for more attention to the issues related to
CED activation on persons operating vehicles, handcuffed persons, and
fleeing suspects.
These conclusions represent only a small portion of the findings from
the two national surveys. As noted earlier, the complete findings
will be published in a separate publication. Nonetheless, the results
served as the foundation for developing the draft guidelines and the
open dialogue among police executives, authorities on use of force,
researchers, and medical doctors who helped finalize them.

DOJ Less Lethal Technology Working Group

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recognized that CEDs were
emerging as a significant issue facing law enforcement. It noted
the greater use of CEDs by law enforcement and the consequent
increase in questions surrounding their use. Accordingly, the Bureau
of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Institute of Justice—
components of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) at the DOJ—
convened the national Less Lethal Technology Symposium in April
2005 to help centralize CED information and bring contemporary
information to the field. The symposium created an opportunity
for PERF, other law enforcement associations, local police officials,
federal agencies, international partners, and other leaders in the field
to share information.
Based on the success of the symposium, the DOJ wanted to
assist the profession by institutionalizing a national dialogue
and establishing a central component to guide future less-lethal
technology efforts. As a result, DOJ created the Less Lethal
Technology Working Group (LLTWG).
The LLTWG is led by COPS Director Carl Peed and BJA Director
Domingo Herraiz, and is hosted quarterly by the Commission on

The working group has been successful in bringing together
representatives from different agencies and organizations and
combining their expertise to create industry consistency and expand
the profession’s knowledge concerning less-lethal technology. The
group creates focus and direction while establishing national priorities
for law enforcement on less-lethal technology. Most recently, LLTWG
participants gathered information on less-lethal technology for
inclusion on the Less Lethal Technology web site supported by the
IACP. The web site provides a wide array of information on less-lethal
technology that is dynamic and updated frequently. The web site is
located at www.less-lethal.org.
The LLTWG also played an essential role in vetting the PERF CED
glossary of terms and guidelines for consideration.

PERF’s National Summit on CEDs
On October 18–19, 2005, representatives from more than 50 law
enforcement agencies, researchers, and subject matter experts met
in Houston, Texas, to participate in PERF’s National Summit on
Conducted Energy Devices. Supported by the COPS Office and BJA,
the purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss the draft CED
glossary of terms and CED guidelines for consideration. The drafts
were developed after the nearly 2 years of research and the completion
of the two PERF national surveys.
Summit participants represented a cross section of stakeholders—
police practitioners of various ranks, authorities on use of force, labor
union representatives, medical doctors, and academics—who vetted

The Development of National Guidelines

Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) Executive
Director Sylvester Doughtry, Jr., at the CALEA offices in Virginia. The
group consists of representatives from local law enforcement agencies,
PERF, the IACP, National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), the National
Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), the
Police Foundation (PF), the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the Major
City Chiefs Association (MCC), CALEA, the Major County Sheriffs’
Association (MCSA), and the International Association of Directors of
Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST). DOJ partners
include the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
and several components of the OJP, including: BJA; the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS); and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

10
the guidelines during the event. The culmination of these efforts was
a standardized glossary of CED terms to promote consistency and
understanding for policy development, and the formulation of 52
national CED policy guidelines for consideration.
The national summit opened with several presentations that provided
both new information and updates to previously established research.
This information gave attendees a greater awareness of the CED
research completed to date, as well as a factual basis from which many
of the draft policy guidelines were developed.
Joshua Ederheimer, director of PERF’s Center on Force &
Accountability, began the first panel’s discussion with a presentation
on the work that PERF has conducted. He then introduced the key
personnel who had worked on the two studies, Mark Warren and Will
Johnson. Highlights of the PERF presentations included data pertinent
to issues such as: the critical period between CED activation and deaths
that occur in proximity to use; resistance levels that delineate when
CED activation is prudent; the impact of the number and duration
of CED cycles that are applied to a person; CED use against at-risk
populations; how police should respond to a suspect armed with a
CED; and tactical considerations on when a CED can be activated.
The next presentations were made by two international experts
on CEDs. Superintendent Anthony Bangham of the West Mercia
Constabulary and the UK Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
provided an update on the state of the field of CED use in the United
Kingdom. Steve Palmer, executive director of the Canadian Police
Research Centre, provided a similar review of CED research and use in
Canada. Subsequently, Dr. Gary Vilke and Dr. Christian Sloane from
the University of California San Diego Medical Center spoke about
the medical effects of CED use and provided a review of the medical
literature on CED activation. The doctors—who also discussed the
medical assessment protocols on CED use that they developed with
the San Diego Police Department—commented on the draft PERF
guidelines concerning CED post-activation response.
Dr. Geoffrey Alpert, professor and chair of the Department of
Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina,
was the summit’s keynote speaker. Dr. Alpert has been conducting
research on high-risk police activity for more than 25 years and
is considered a leading expert in the field. He discussed better

During the summit, participants focused on reviewing and finetuning the draft guidelines. PERF Executive Director Chuck Wexler
moderated a discussion in which each draft guideline was examined.
Following spirited discussion and debate where strong opinions were
expressed and a variety of viewpoints considered, consensus was
achieved and the CED glossary of terms and 52 policy guidelines for
consideration were finalized.

The Development of National Guidelines

management of CED use through policy, training, and accountability.
Harold Hurtt, chief of the Houston Police Department, was the
summit’s keynote dinner speaker. Chief Hurtt discussed police
leadership and responsibility, and shared his experiences in using CEDs
both in Houston and in Phoenix, Arizona, where he had also served
as chief of police. As chief in Phoenix, he was one of the first law
enforcement executives to introduce CEDs into the field. Currently,
the Houston Police Department has deployed more CEDs than any
other police department in the world.

here was a critical need to provide information, consistency, and
guidance about CEDs to the law enforcement profession. Law
enforcement leaders urgently wanted this information to enable
them to make purchasing and deployment decisions; develop new CED
policies for their organizations; or to refine, calibrate, and strengthen
current policies. Their ultimate goal was—and remains—to foster safe
encounters between police officers and violent subjects.
The development of the CED glossary and guidelines for consideration
helped to bring some order to a field that was experiencing confusion
about how to proceed on CED-related issues. The glossary and
guidelines resulted from a synthesis of available research and
information, and represents a culmination of consensus from different
parts of the country and a varied group of stakeholders.
The development and dissemination of the glossary and guidelines
are an important first step in addressing law enforcement’s needs
regarding CEDs. As more information becomes available about the
devices, however, refinement and modifications to them will need to
occur in the future.
The collective efforts of PERF, DOJ, and their partners helped to
address the profession’s critical need for information about CEDs.
The initial response to the glossary and guidelines has been favorable.
Several law enforcement agencies across the nation compared their
CED policies with the guidelines, and numerous agencies modified
their policies to reflect all or some of the guidelines.
Among the agencies influenced by the guidelines were the Cleveland
Police Department (Ohio); Fremont Police Department (California);
Metro Nashville Police Department (Tennessee); Minneapolis
Police Department (Minnesota); Mountain View Police Department
(California); Pasadena Police Department (California); San Jose
Police Department (California); and the California Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST); among others. In
addition to having an impact on the current CED policies of law
enforcement agencies, the guidelines influenced the decision to
deploy CEDs in at least one police department: the Fort Wayne
Police Department (Indiana).

Conclusion

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

PERF is continuing its efforts to aid the field concerning CED issues. PERF has
partnered with the National
Sheriffs’ Association to examine issues related to the
deployment of CEDs in a custodial setting, such as in courtrooms, transport vehicles, jails,
and other such environments.
The study is supported by the
Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Further, PERF is involved
in other use of force and
officer safety studies, and will
continue to work with various
international partners to keep
the field abreast of the most
contemporary CED issues.

Additional longitudinal research studies are necessary to achieve a
more complete understanding of the effects of CEDs on individuals,3
especially individuals engaging in at-risk behaviors like illicit drug usage
and physical aggression toward police. Law enforcement leaders will
need to evaluate and prioritize disparate information to formulate
policies and training that effectively serve their officers and their
communities. The information presented in this report can assist
executives with these challenges and help them make more informed
policy decisions about CEDs now. It will be necessary to review and
assess these guidelines in the future as new information becomes
available and longitudinal studies are completed.

ne of the first issues that led to confusion about conducted
energy devices (CED) was the disparity of terms used to describe
the device. Various organizations used an array of terms to
describe the same apparatus (e.g., electronic control weapons, electromuscular incapacitation devices, conducted energy weapon, etc.). Police
agencies also used varied definitions for similar behaviors that subjects
exhibited (e.g., the term passive aggression may have different meanings
for different police agencies). To minimize the confusion in discussing
CEDs, PERF staff developed a list of terms and definitions used in
relation to CEDs.
PERF staff examined numerous research reports and agency policies
to create this glossary of terms. This list was then vetted through
the DOJ’s Less Lethal Technology Working Group prior to review
at PERF’s National Summit on Conducted Energy Devices in
Houston, Texas, to ensure consensus. The goal of creating these
terms is to encourage consistency and strengthen clarity regarding the
accompanying national CED guidelines for consideration.
Accidental Discharge
The unintentional firing of a conducted energy device (CED).
Activate
Depressing the trigger of a CED causing a CED to arc or to fire
probes.
Active Aggression
A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means),
coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which
reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent.
Actively Resisting
Physically evasive movements to defeat an officer’s attempt at control,
including bracing, tensing, pushing, or verbally signaling an intention to
avoid or prevent being taken into or retained in custody.
Aggravated Active Aggression
Deadly force encounter.

PERF CED Glossary of Terms

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

16
Air Cartridge
A replaceable cartridge which uses compressed gases to fire two
probes on connecting wires, sending a high voltage/low current signal
into a subject.
Applicable Response
Response determined appropriate for the given operational scenario.
Arcing/Arching
Activating a CED without a cartridge.
Automatic External Defibrillator (AED)
An apparatus that monitors the heart of the patient and then
automatically administers a controlled electric shock to the chest to
restore normal heart rhythm.
Basis Response
Generic responses that describe how people routinely behave as the
result of the application of a weapon or technology (or tactic, or
procedure) employed against them.
Bodily Injury
Injury to the human body that requires treatment by a doctor or other
health professional.
CED Cycle
Duration of a CED electrical discharge following a CED activation.
Central Information Display (CID)
Display of data on the back of a conducted energy device.
Circular Situational Force Model
A circular force training model that promotes continuous critical
assessment and evaluation of a force incident in which the level
of response is based upon the situation encountered and level of
resistance offered by a subject. The situational assessment helps officers
determine the appropriate force option, ranging from physical presence
to deadly force.

Conducted Energy Device (CED)
A weapon primarily designed to disrupt a subject’s central nervous
system by means of deploying electrical energy sufficient to cause
uncontrolled muscle contractions and override an individual’s voluntary
motor responses.4
Confetti Tags
Confetti-like tags expelled from a cartridge of a CED when fired to
shoot probes. Each tag contains a serial number unique to the specific
cartridge used.
Continuum of Force/Response to Resistance
A training model/philosophy that supports the progressive and
reasonable escalation and de-escalation of officer-applied force in
proportional response to the actions and level of resistance offered by a
subject. The level of response is based upon the situation encountered
at the scene and the actions of the subject in response to the officer’s
commands. Such response may progress from the officer’s physical
presence at the scene to the application of deadly force.
Crowd Control
The use of police action to stop the activities of persons assembled.
Crowd Management
Observing, monitoring, and facilitating the activities of persons assembled.
Darts
Projectiles that are fired from a CED and penetrate the skin; wires are
attached to the probes leading back to the CED.
Dart Placement
Point of entry for a probe on a person’s body.
Dart (Barb) Removal
The act of removing a probe from a person’s body or clothing.

Conducted Energy Device
(CED) is the preferred
terminology for the weapon.
It has also been referred to as
Electro-Muscular Disruption
Technology (EMDT); ElectroMuscular Incapacitation device
(EMI); Electro Muscular
Device (EMD); and Electronic
Control Device (ECD).

PERF CED Glossary of Terms

Coincidental Injury
Injuries received in the incident not directly related to CED use (such as
baton use, self-inflicted wounds, and gunshot wounds).

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

18
Defensive Resistance
Physical actions that attempt to prevent officer’s control including flight
or attempt to flee, but do not involve attempts to harm the officer.
Deployment
Sending CED devices into the field with law enforcement officers.
Deadly Force
Any tactic or use of force that has an intended, natural, and probable
consequence of serious physical injury or death.
Discharge
Barbs fired at a subject.
Drive Stun
To stun a subject with a CED by making direct contact with the
body after a CED cartridge has been expended or removed for pain
compliance.
Duration
The aggregate period of time that CED shocks are activated.
Electrocardiogram Monitor (ECG/EKG)
The machine that measures and records the electrical activity of the heart.
Electromuscular Disruption/Incapacitation (EMD)(EMI)
Effect CED has on the body. Overrides the brain’s communication with
the body and prevents the voluntary control over the muscles.
Environmental Factors
Factors such as wind speed, temperature, humidity, lighting,
precipitation, terrain, etc.
Excessive Force
The application of an unreasonable amount (or force too long applied)
of force in a given incident based on the totality of the circumstances.
Excited Delirium
State of extreme mental and physiological excitement, characterized
by extreme agitation, hyperthermia, epiphoria, hostility, exceptional
strength, and endurance without fatigue.

Firing
Discharging CED darts at a person.
Fleeing
An active attempt by a person to avoid apprehension by a law
enforcement officer through evasive actions while attempting to leave
the scene.
Group Cohesion
The ability to disrupt or control a group of individuals by either
restricting or enhancing their organization, cooperation, and density.
Initial Basic Operator Training
The first basic CED training provided to officers prior to issuance of
a CED.
Intentional Discharge Investigation
An investigation of the circumstances surrounding the firing or drivestunning of a CED.
Intermediate Weapon
A weapon usage category situated between a verbal command and lethal
force on a traditional force continuum.
Laser Pointing (Red Dot)
Unholstering and pointing a CED at a person and activating the
device’s laser dot.
Less Lethal
A concept of planning and force application that meets an operational
or tactical objective, with less potential for causing death or serious
injury than conventional, more lethal police tactics.
Less-Lethal Weapon
Any apprehension or restraint device that, when used as designed and
intended, has less potential for causing death or serious injury than
conventional police lethal weapons.

PERF CED Glossary of Terms

Exigent Circumstances
Circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that
prompt action is necessary to prevent physical harm to civilians and/
or officers.

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

20
Measures of Effectiveness
Measures indicating the degree to which a target response satisfies a
requirement within an operational context.
Measures of Response
Measures indicating how a target reacts to a system’s effects.
Objective Reasonableness
Reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting the officer.
Onset Time
(Ideally equal to zero) The period between the deployment of a
less-lethal weapon system (or tactic, technique, or procedure) and
the point when the magnitude of the desired effect attains some
particular threshold.
Operational Effectiveness
That level of force necessary to achieve compliance, safeguard persons
and property, or prevent injury.
Operational Safety
That degree of risk determined to be acceptable in order to accomplish
a mission without unduly endangering officers, bystanders, or suspects.
Passive Resistance
Physical actions that do not prevent the officer’s attempt to control,
for example, a person who remains in a limp, prone position, passive
demonstrators, etc.
Pointing/Aiming
Unholstering and pointing a CED at a person.
Post-Activation Investigation
An investigation of the circumstances surrounding the intentional or
unintentional firing of probes or drive-stunning of a CED.
Primary Injury
(1st Order Effect)
Immediate or delayed consequences of a CED resulting directly from
an electrical current flow in the body.

Proximity Death
The death of a person that occurred in proximity to the use of a
conducted energy device (usually within 24 hours).
Psychological Intimidation
Nonverbal cues in attitude, appearance, demeanor, posture, or physical
readiness that indicate an unwillingness to cooperate, pre-assaultive
posturing, or a threat.
Physical Weapon Characteristics
The intrinsic qualities of a weapon including dimensional design values
associated with a weapon (weight, caliber, size, power requirement,
shelf life, etc.).
Secondary Injury
(2nd Order Effect)
Physical trauma indirectly associated with CED use (e.g., injuries
from falls).
Sensitive Areas
A person’s head, neck, genital area, and a female’s breast areas.
Serious Bodily Injury
Bodily injury that, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later
time, involves a substantial risk of death, a substantial risk of serious
permanent disfigurement, a substantial risk of protracted loss or
impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, or
breaks, fractures, or burns of the second or third degree.
Spark Test
Noncontact testing of a CED by arcing it to ensure it is in proper
working order.
Standard CED Cycle
A 5-second electrical discharge occurring when a CED trigger is
pressed and released. The standard 5-second cycle may be shortened
by turning the CED off. (Note: If a CED trigger is pressed and held
beyond 5 seconds, the CED will continue to deliver an electrical
discharge until the trigger is released.)

PERF CED Glossary of Terms

Probe Spread
The amount of distance between probes fired from a CED (e.g.,
approximately 1 foot spread for every 7 feet of travel distance).

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

22
Substantial Investigation
An extensive investigation into the use of a conducted energy device
that is conducted by investigators outside the chain of command of the
firing officer.
Target Recovery
(Ideally, full recovery immediately at the end of the desired duration)
The period when the target response falls below a particular threshold
and a full recovery of unimpaired functionality is desired in an
operationally meaningful context.
Unintentional Discharge
The unintentional firing of a CED (includes discharges caused by
involuntary muscle contraction and mechanical malfunction).
Ventricular Fibrillation (VF)
Ventricular fibrillation is a condition in which the heart’s electrical
activity becomes disordered.
Verbal Non-Compliance
Verbal responses indicating an unwillingness to comply with an officer’s
directions.

hese 52 CED guidelines for consideration are presented with the
understanding that many use-of-force situations can change rapidly
and may require law enforcement officers to make quick decisions
about force options. It is impossible to anticipate every possible useof-force situation or circumstance that may occur and, in all cases,
officers need to rely on their training, judgment, and instincts. The
considerations noted below, however, can help law enforcement officers
make more informed judgments about CEDs and how and when to use
CEDs to protect themselves and the public.
While every effort was made to consider the views of all contributors
and the best thinking on the vast amount of information received, the
resulting PERF guidelines do not necessarily reflect the individual views
of every stakeholder involved in the development process, nor the
views of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1. CEDs should only be used against persons who are actively
resisting or exhibiting active aggression, or to prevent individuals
from harming themselves or others. CEDs should not be used
against a passive suspect.
2. No more than one officer at a time should activate a CED against
a person.
3. When activating a CED, law enforcement officers should use it for
one standard cycle and stop to evaluate the situation (a standard
cycle is five seconds). If subsequent cycles are necessary, agency
policy should restrict the number and duration of those cycles to
the minimum activations necessary to place the subject in custody.
4. Training protocols should emphasize that multiple activations and
continuous cycling of a CED appear to increase the risk of death
or serious injury and should be avoided where practical.
5. Training should include recognizing the limitations of CED
activation and being prepared to transition to other force options
as needed.

PERF CED Guidelines for Consideration

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

24
6. That a subject is fleeing should not be the sole justification
for police use of a CED. Severity of offense and other
circumstances should be considered before officers’ use of a
CED on the fleeing subject.
7. CEDs should not generally be used against pregnant women,
elderly persons, young children, and visibly frail persons unless
exigent circumstances exist.
8. CEDs should not be used on handcuffed persons unless they are
actively resisting or exhibiting active aggression, and/or to prevent
individuals from harming themselves or others.
9. CEDs should not generally be used when a subject is in a location
where a fall may cause substantial injury or death.
10. When a subject is armed with a CED and attacks or threatens to
attack a police officer, the officer may defend himself or herself
to avoid becoming incapacitated and risking the possibility that the
subject could gain control of the officer’s firearm. When possible,
officers should attempt to move outside the device’s range
(approximately 21 feet) and seek cover, as well as request backup
officers to mitigate the danger.
11. When possible, emergency medical personnel should be notified
when officers respond to calls for service in which it is anticipated
that a CED may be activated against a person.
12. Officers should avoid firing darts at a subject’s head, neck, and genitalia.
13. All persons who have been exposed to a CED activation should
receive a medical evaluation. Agencies shall consult with local
medical personnel to develop appropriate police-medical protocols.
14. All persons who have been subjected to a CED activation should
be monitored regularly while in police custody, even if they
received medical care.
15. CED darts should be treated as a biohazard. Officers should not
generally remove CED darts from a subject that have penetrated
the skin unless they have been trained to do so. Agencies should
coordinate with medical personnel to develop training for such
removal. Only medical personnel should remove darts that have
penetrated a person’s sensitive areas.

17. CEDs should not be used in the known presence of combustible
vapors and liquids or other flammable substances including but
not limited to alcohol-based Oleoresin Capsicum (O.C.) Spray
carriers. Agencies utilizing both CEDs and O.C. Spray should use
a water-based spray.
18. Agencies should create stand-alone policies and training curriculum
for CEDs and all less-lethal weapons, and ensure that they are
integrated with the department’s overall use-of-force policy.
19. Agencies should partner with adjacent jurisdictions and enter into
a Memorandum of Understanding to develop joint CED policies
and protocols. This should include addressing nonalcoholic O.C.
Spray carriers. Agencies should also establish multijurisdictional
CED training, collaboration, and policy.
20. If officers’ privately owned CEDs are permitted to be used on
duty, policy should dictate specifications, regulations, qualifications,
etc. The devices should be registered with the department.
21. The CED “Probe Mode” should be the primary setting option,
with “Drive Stun Mode” generally used as a secondary option.
22. CEDs should be regulated while officers are off duty under rules
similar to service firearms (including storage, transportation, use,
etc.).
23. CEDs should not be used against suspects in physical control of
a vehicle in motion including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles,
ATVs, bicycles, and scooters unless exigent circumstances exist.
24. The use of brightly colored CEDs (e.g., yellow) reduces the risk
of escalating a force situation because they are plainly visible
and thus decrease the possibility that a secondary unit mistakes
the CED for a firearm (sympathetic fire). Note that specialized
units (e.g., SWAT Units) may want dark-colored CEDs for tactical
concealment purposes.

PERF CED Guidelines for Consideration

16. Following a CED activation, officers should use a restraint
technique that does not impair respiration.

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

Association of Chief Police
Officers, 2004. Independent
Evaluation of the Operational
Trial of TASER.™

25. CEDs should be maintained in a holster on an officer’s weak
(support) side to avoid the accidental drawing and/or firing of an
officer’s sidearm.
26. Officers should be trained that the TASER™ CED’s optimum
range is 15 feet.5
27. Auxiliary/Reserve officers can be armed with CEDs provided
they receive all mandated training and maintain all requalification
requirements. Training and local statutes may dictate policy.
28. A warning should be given to a person prior to activating the CED
unless to do so would place any other person at risk.
29. When applicable, an announcement should be made to other
officers on the scene that a CED is going to be activated.
30. A supervisor should respond to all incident scenes where a CED
was activated.
31. A supervisor should conduct an initial review of a CED activation.
32. Every instance of CED use, including an accidental discharge,
should be accounted for in a use-of-force report.
33. Agencies should consider initiating force investigations outside the
chain of command when any of the following factors are involved:
a. A subject experiences death or serious injury.
b. A person experiences prolonged CED activation.
c. The CED appears to have been used in a punitive or abusive
manner.
d. There appears to be a substantial deviation from training.
e. A person in an at-risk category has been subjected to
activation (e.g., young children; persons who are elderly/frail,
pregnant women, and any other activation as determined by a
supervisor).
34. When possible, supervisors and backup officers should anticipate
on-scene officers’ use of CEDs by responding to calls for service
that have a high propensity for arrest and/or use of a CED.

a.
b.
c.
d.

Location and interview of witnesses (including other officers).
Photographs of subject and officer injuries.
Photographs of cartridges/darts.
Collection of CED cartridges, darts/prongs, data downloads,
car video, confetti ID tags.
e. Copies of the device data download.
f. Other information as indicated in guideline #45.
36. Police leaders should be aware that CED download data may
be unreliable. Police leaders and investigators should be able to
articulate the difference between the actual duration of a CED
activation on a person and the total time of discharge registered on
a CED device.
37. CED activations should be tracked in the department’s early
intervention system (EIS).
38. The department should periodically conduct random audits of
CED data downloads and reconcile use-of-force reports with
recorded activations. Departments should take necessary action as
appropriate when inconsistencies are detected.
39. Audits should be conducted to ensure that all officers who carry
CEDs have attended initial and recertification training.
40. Departments should not solely rely on training curriculum
provided by a CED manufacturer. Agencies should ensure that
manufacturers’ training does not contradict their use-of-force
policies and values. Agencies should ensure that their CED
curriculum is integrated into their overall use-of-force systems.
41. CED recertification should occur at least annually and consist
of physical competency and device retention, changes in agency
policy, technology changes, and reviews of local and national
trends in CED use.
42. Exposure to CED activation in training should be voluntary; all
officers agreeing to be subjected to a CED activation should be
apprised of risks associated with exposure to a CED activation.

PERF CED Guidelines for Consideration

35. Every substantial investigation (and when possible every
preliminary investigation) should include:

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

43. Supervisors and command staff should receive CED awareness
training so they can make educated decisions about the
administrative investigations they review.
44. Statistics should be maintained to identify CED trends and
deployment concerns. Agencies may include display and arcing
of weapons to measure prevention/deterrence effectiveness. CED
statistics should be constantly analyzed and made publicly available.
45. The following statistical information should be included when
collecting information about CED use:
a. Date, time, location of incident.
b. The use of the laser dot or display of the CED that deterred a
subject and gained compliance.
c. Identifying and descriptive information of the suspect
(including membership in an at-risk population), all officers
firing CEDs, all officer witnesses, and all other witnesses.
d. The type and brand of CED used.
e. The number of CED cycles, the duration of each cycle, the
duration between cycles and the duration that the subject was
actually activated.
f. Level of aggression encountered.
g. Any weapons possessed by the suspect.
h. The type of crime/incident the subject was involved in.
i. Determination of whether deadly force would have been
justified.
j. The type of clothing worn by the subject.
k. The range at which the CED was used.
l. The type of mode used (probe or drive stun).
m. The point of impact of probes on a subject in probe mode.
n. The point of impact on a subject in drive stun mode.
o. Location of missed probe(s).
p. Terrain and weather conditions during CED use.
q. Lighting conditions.
r. The type of cartridge used.
s. Officer suspicion that subject was under the influence of drugs
(specify if available).
t. Medical care provided to the subject.
u. Any injuries incurred by an officer or subject.

47. The agency’s Public Information Officer should receive extensive
training on CEDs in order to better inform the media and the
public about the devices. Members of the media should be briefed
on the department’s policies and use of CEDs.
48. CED awareness should extend to law enforcement partners such as
local medical personnel, citizen review boards, medical examiners,
mental health professionals, judges, and local prosecutors.
49. CEDs can be effective against aggressive animals. Policies should
indicate whether use against animals is permitted.
50. Officers should be aware that there is a higher risk of sudden
death in people under the influence of drugs and/or symptoms
associated with excited delirium.
51. CED cartridges with longer barbs may be more effective in
extremely cold climates.
52. Agencies should be aware that CED cartridges have experienced
firing problems in extremely cold weather.

PERF CED Guidelines for Consideration

46. Law enforcement agencies should conduct neighborhood
programs that focus on CED awareness training. CED training
should be part of any citizen’s training academy program.

Amnesty International. Amnesty International’s Continued Concerns About
Taser Use. Amnesty International. USA, 2006. http://news.
amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510302006?open&of=ENG
-2AM
Anglen, Robert. “167 cases of death following stun-gun use.” The
Arizona Republic, Phoenix, Arizona,. 2005. http://www.azcentral.
com/specials/special43/articles/1224taserlist24-ON.html
Association of Chief Police Officers. Independent Evaluation of the
Operational Trial of Taser. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, April 2004.
Castro, Hector. “Police Chief, NAACP’s Mack face Taser Zap.” Seattle
Post-Intelligencer. Seattle, Washington, September 17, 2004.
Donnelly, Tara, Karen Douse, Michelle Gardner, and David Wilkinson.
PSDB Evaluation of Taser Devices. Police Scientific Development
Branch, Home Office Policing and Crime Reduction Group.
United Kingdom, September 2002.
Ederheimer, Joshua and Lorie Fridell. Use of Force Tools. Chapter
3 of Chief Concerns: Exploring the Challenges of Police Use of Force.
Washington. Police Executive Research Forum, 2005, pps. 57–81.
Ederheimer, Joshua. Chief Concerns: Strategies for Resolving Conflict and
Minimizing Use of Force. Washington. Police Executive Research
Forum, In publication, 2006.
Jones, Charisse. “Police Say Taser Shocks are Replacing Deadly Shots.”
USA Today, July 14, 2004.
Kershaw, Sarah. “As shocks replace police bullets, deaths drop but
questions arise.” The New York Times. New York, March 7, 2004.
Levine, Saul D., et al. “Cardiac Monitoring of Subjects Exposed to the
TASER.” Academic Emergency Medicine (May 2005); Vol. 12, No. 5
Supplement 1: University of California, San Diego, California.

References

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

32
Maier, Andrew, Patricia Nance, Paul Price,Clifford Sherry, J.
Patrick Reilly,.. B.Jon Klauenberg, and Jonathan Drummond.
Human Effectiveness and Risk Characterization of the Electromuscular
Incapacitation Device- A limited Analysis of the TASER. The Joint
Non-Lethal Weapons Human Effects Center of Excellence. Texas,
2005.
Manojlovic, Drazen, Christine Hall, Darren Laur, Shawna Goodkey,
Chris Lawrence, Rick Shaw, Sylvain St-Amour, Annik Neufeld, and
Steve Palmer. Review of Conducted Energy Devices. Canadian Police
Research Centre, Canada, 2005.
Sanchez, George. “Taser Use Grows Despite Safety Questions.” The
Salinas Californian, Salinas, California, September 4, 2004.
Streicher, Thomas H. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, and Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice on-line conference on less-lethal force, January 18, 2005.
Wahl, Victor. Madison Police Department Taser Report. Madison police
Department, Madison, Wisconsin, 2005.
Wilkinson, David I. PSDB Further Evaluation of Taser Devices. Police
Scientific Development Branch, Home Office Policing and Crime
Reduction Group. United Kingdom, 2005.

Joshua A. Ederheimer is the director of the Center on Force &
Accountability for the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) in
Washington, D.C. He joined PERF in January 2004 after a successful
career with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia. In that capacity he acquired expertise as a commanding
officer in several areas, including the internal affairs, use of force,
equal employment opportunity, and civil rights divisions. Currently,
Mr. Ederheimer is responsible for providing technical assistance to
criminal justice agencies and manages national criminal justice research
and policy development projects. He has traveled extensively in the
United States and abroad consulting, evaluating, and instructing law
enforcement professionals and government officials about leadership,
change management, business process reengineering, and police
accountability issues. Mr. Ederheimer is also an adjunct professor at
American University’s Department of Law, Justice, and Society, where
he has taught both graduate and undergraduate courses. He holds a
bachelor’s degree in justice from American University, and a master’s
degree in management from Johns Hopkins University.

James M. Cronin is a research associate for PERF’s Center on Force
& Accountability. Since starting work at PERF in 2005, Mr. Cronin
has become a member of DOJ’s Less Lethal Technology Working
Group and has been actively involved in research concerning the use
of CEDs by law enforcement agencies. Prior to joining PERF, he was
a researcher for the Maryland Statistical Analysis Center, the Bureau
of Governmental Research (HIDTA-High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas), the D.C. Sentencing Commission, and the D.C. Criminal
Justice Coordinating Council. He has conducted research on juvenile
delinquency prevention, homicide clearance rates, and the rehabilitation
of offenders. He also assisted in establishing sentencing guidelines
for the District of Columbia. Mr. Cronin received his master of arts
degree in criminology and criminal justice in 1994 from the University
of Maryland.

About the Authors

he Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS
Office) was created in 1994 to advance the practice of community
policing in state, local, and tribal law enforcement jurisdictions of
all sizes across the United States.
Since 1994, COPS has invested more than $11.9 billion to add
community policing officers to the nation’s streets, enhance crimefighting technology, support crime-prevention initiatives, and provide
training and technical assistance. COPS funding has supported
community policing innovation conferences, the development of best
practices, pilot community policing programs, and applied research
and evaluation initiatives that make possible the growing body of
substantive knowledge covering all aspects of community policing.
COPS responds to emerging law enforcement needs by working in
partnership with law enforcement departments to enhance police
integrity, promote safe schools, combat the methamphetamine drug
problem, and support homeland security efforts through proven
community policing strategies. Most recently, COPS implemented grant
programs to develop interoperable voice and data communications
networks among emergency response agencies.
The COPS Office created a national network of Regional Community
Policing Institutes (RCPIs) to provide a wide range of training
opportunities to state and local law enforcement, elected officials, and
community leaders. Recently, the RCPIs have focused on developing
and delivering homeland security training.
COPS also develops and offers a variety of publications, CDs, videos,
and other materials that detail specific issues facing law enforcement,
offer best practices for handling problems, and provide high-level
strategic considerations on issues of important concern. In addition,
the COPS Office has hosted live, national webcasts/satellite broadcasts
in which panels of experts discuss current issues such as gangs, meth,
and police recruitment, hiring, and retention, and which serve as useful
tools in opening or furthering community safety dialogues.
To learn more about the COPS Office and its resources, visit
www.cops.usdoj.gov.

About the COPS Office

he Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice, supports law enforcement, courts,
corrections, treatment, victim services, technology, and prevention
initiatives that strengthen the nation’s criminal justice system. BJA
provides leadership, services, and funding to America’s communities by
emphasizing local control; building relationships in the field; developing
collaborations and partnerships; promoting capacity building through
planning; streamlining the administration of grants; increasing
training and technical assistance; creating accountability of projects;
encouraging innovation; and ultimately communicating the value of
justice efforts to decision makers at every level.
To learn more about BJA, visit www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA.

About the Bureau of Justice Assistance

he Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a professional
organization of progressive chief executives of city, county, and
state law enforcement agencies who collectively serve more than
50 percent of the U.S. population. In addition, PERF has established
formal relationships with international police executives and law
enforcement organizations around the globe. Membership includes
police chiefs, superintendents, sheriffs, state police directors, university
police chiefs, public safety directors, and other law enforcement
professionals. Established in 1976 as a nonprofit organization, PERF
is unique in its commitment to the application of research in policing
and the importance of higher education for police executives. Besides a
commitment to police innovation and professionalism, PERF members
must hold a 4-year college degree.
PERF continues to conduct some of the most innovative police and
criminal justice research and provides a wide variety of management
and technical assistance programs to police agencies throughout the
world. PERF’s groundbreaking work on community and problemoriented policing, racial profiling, use of force, less-lethal weapons,
and crime-reduction strategies has earned it a prominent position in
the police community. PERF is one of the founding agencies of the
Community Policing Consortium and the Commission on Accreditation
for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). PERF continues to work
toward increased professionalism and excellence in the field through
its publications and training programs. PERF sponsors and conducts
the Senior Management Institute for Police (SMIP), which provides
comprehensive professional management and executive development
training to police chiefs and law enforcement executives. Convened
annually in Boston, SMIP instructors include professors from leading
universities, but primarily from Harvard University’s Kennedy School
of Government.
PERF’s success is built on the active involvement of its members. The
organization also has types of membership that allow the organization
to benefit from the diverse views of criminal justice researchers,
law enforcement professionals of all ranks, and others committed
to advancing policing services to all communities. As a nonprofit
organization, PERF is committed to the application of research in
policing and to promoting innovation that will enhance the quality of

About the Police Executive Research Forum

About the Police Executive
Research Forum

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

40
life in our communities. PERF’s objective is to improve the delivery
of police services and the effectiveness of crime control through the
exercise of strong national leadership, the public debate of criminal
justice issues, the development of a body of research about policing,
and the provision of vital management services to all police agencies.
PERF has developed and published some of the leading literature in
the law enforcement field. Recently, PERF released two publications
on contemporary law enforcement issues. The books—Chief Concerns:
Exploring the Challenges of Police Use of Force and Police Management of
Mass Demonstrations: Identifying Issues and Successful Approaches—serve as
practical guides to help police leaders make more informed decisions.
In addition, PERF has released a series of white papers on terrorism
in the local law enforcement context, Protecting Your Community from
Terrorism: Strategies for Local Law Enforcement, which examined such
issues as local-federal partnerships, working with diverse communities,
bioterrorism, and intelligence sharing. Other recent publications
include Managing a Multijurisdictional Case: Identifying Lessons Learned from
the Sniper Investigation (2004) and Community Policing: The Past, Present
and Future (2004). Other PERF titles include the only authoritative
work on racial profiling, Racial Profiling: A Principled Response (2001),
Recognizing Value in Policing (2002); The Police Response to Mental Illness
(2002); Citizen Review Resource Manual (1995), Managing Innovation in
Policing (1995); Crime Analysis Through Computer Mapping (1995); And
Justice For All: Understanding and Controlling Police Use of Deadly Force
(1995); Why Police Organizations Change: A Study of Community-Oriented
Policing (1996); Police Antidrug Tactics: New Approaches and Applications;
Under Fire: Gun Buy-Backs, Exchanges and Amnesty Programs (1996).
PERF publications are used for training, promotion exams, and
to inform police professionals about innovative approaches to
community problems. The hallmark of the program is translating the
latest research and thinking about a topic into police practices that
can be tailored to the unique needs of a jurisdiction.
To learn more about PERF visit www.policeforum.org.

reated in April 2005, the PERF Center on Force & Accountability
(CFA) is a significant resource for PERF members and others in
law enforcement, and serves as the principal clearinghouse for
ideas, strategies, and data that will address problems related to police
use of force and accountability. Ultimately, the CFA provides law
enforcement executives with information and strategies that will help
them make more informed decisions as they serve their communities.
The PERF Center on Force & Accountability has four primary
objectives:
1. Identify emerging trends and seek out effective new strategies.
2. Conduct groundbreaking research.
3. Provide high-quality technical assistance to law enforcement
agencies.
4. Create a central resource for information regarding use of force
and police accountability issues.
To that end, the CFA is continually developing competencies in several
specific areas. For use of force, CFA competencies include community
outreach and accountability; equipment and weapons; investigations;
police canines; policy development; review boards; tactics; technology;
training; trends and identification of promising approaches; statistics,
tracking, and analysis; vehicle pursuits; and violence against law
enforcement officers. As it relates to police accountability, CFA
competencies include community involvement; consent decrees/
memoranda of accountability; discipline and conduct review; early
intervention systems and processes; equal employment opportunities;
internal investigations; law enforcement ethics; misconduct statistics,
tracking, and analysis; policy development; technology; training; and
trends and identification of promising approaches.
The CFA released national guidelines for conducted energy devices
that have been embraced by law enforcement agencies throughout the
country. Further, the CFA completed two guides on early intervention
systems to help agencies better manage their human resources. The
CFA also provided technical assistance to municipalities seeking to
assess their use-of-force and disciplinary systems within their police
departments. The CFA also examined critical use-of-force issues in a

About the PERF Center on Force & Accountability

About the PERF Center on Force
& Accountability

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

42
2005 publication entitled Chief Concerns: Exploring the Challenges of Police
Use of Force, and a 2006 publication entitled Chief Concerns: Strategies for
Resolving Conflict and Minimizing Use of Force.
To learn more about PERF and the Center on Force & Accountability
visit www.policeforum.org.

http://www.less-lethal.org

Less-lethal.org is a source of information on
less-lethal technology used by law enforcement
agencies. The web site content is dynamic, with
updates provided on a periodic basis. The web
site is funded through a cooperative agreement
with the International Association of Chiefs of
Police and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja

Bureau of Justice Assistance

http://www.calea.org

Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies

http://www.fop.net

Fraternal Order of Police

http://www.theiacp.org

The International Association of Chiefs of Police

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

National Institute of Justice

http://www.noblenational.org

The National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives

http://www.sheriffs.org

The National Sheriffs’ Association

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

http://www.policeforum.org

Police Executive Research Forum

http://www.policefoundation.org Police Foundation

Resource Links

Participants in the National Summit on CEDs (Houston, Texas)
Commander Randy Aleman (Waco Police Department)
Sergeant Robert Allen (Nashville Police Department)
Professor Geoff Alpert (University of South Carolina)
Deputy Chief Mike Ault (Las Vegas Metro Police Department)
Research Assistant Nathan Ballard (Police Executive Research Forum)
Superintendent Anthony Bangham (West Mercia Police, UK, Association
of Chief Police Officers)
Lieutenant Jennifer Beidle (Pittsburgh Bureau of Police)
Executive Director Gary Bullard (International Association of Directors
of Law Enforcement Standards and Training)
Captain Chris Burbank (Salt Lake City Police Department)
Assistant Chief of Police Adam Burden (Miami Police Department)
Lieutenant Joseph Buttitta (Houston Police Department)
Deputy Director Pamela Cammarata (Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services)
Captain Mike Campagna (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department)
Social Science Analyst Brett Chapman (National Institute of Justice)
Inspector Francisco Colon (Providence Police Department)
Research Associate James Cronin (PERF Center on Force & Accountability)
Captain Frank DeMario (Palm Beach County Sheriff ’s Office)
Assistant Chief of Police Michael A. Dirden (Houston Police Department)
Colonel Jonathan Drummond (U.S. Air Force)
Deputy Chief Dan Dugan (Chicago Police Department)
Director Joshua Ederheimer (PERF Center on Force & Accountability)
Senior Advisor for Law Enforcement Steve Edwards (Bureau of
Justice Assistance)
Chief of the Special Operations Division Robert W. Elder (Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives)
Officer Fred Farris (Lenexa, Kansas, Police Department)
Captain Paul Fields (Tulsa Police Department)
Professor Lorie Fridell (University of South Florida)
National Sergeant-at-Arms Frank Gale (Fraternal Order of Police)
Captain James Gieseke (St. Louis Police Department)
Lieutenant David Gillespie (Montgomery County Police Department)
Corporal William Gleason (Prince George’s County Police Department)
Executive Director John Gnagey (National Tactical Officers Association)
Captain Alan Goldberg (Montgomery County Police Department)

Appendix A

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

46
Major Bernie Gonzalez (Miami-Dade Police Department)
Captain Michael Hagar (Nashville Police Department)
Deputy Tom Hammond (Tuscaloosa County Sheriff ’s Office)
Commander Charles “Sid” Heal (Los Angeles County Sheriff ’s Office)
Director Domingo Herraiz (Bureau of Justice Assistance)
Lieutenant Christopher Hildreth (Minneapolis Police Department)
Captain Steven Hougland (Orange County Sheriff ’s Office)
Chief Harold Hurtt (Houston Police Department)
Major Steve Ijames (Springfield, Missouri, Police Department)
Lieutenant Will Johnson (Arlington Police Department)
Lieutenant David Kelly (Phoenix Police Department)
Commander Paul Kennedy (Providence Police Department)
Lieutenant Gary Kirby (San Jose Police Department)
Executive Deputy Chief Patricia Kneblick (Fort Worth Police Department)
Sergeant Dik Kushdilian (Denver Police Department)
Lieutenant Boyd Long (San Diego Police Department)
Director Phil Lynn (International Association of Chiefs of Police)
Sergeant James MacGillis (Milwaukee Police Department)
Assistant Chief of Police Raymond Martinez (Miami Beach
Police Department)
Director Andrew Mazzarra (Penn State Applied Research Lab)
Executive Assistant Chief Charles A. McClelland (Houston
Police Department)
Captain Steven Melaragno (Providence Police Department)
President Robert Mercado (Pasadena Police Department)
Captain Greg Meyer (Los Angeles Police Department)
Chief Albert Najera (Sacramento Police Department)
Deputy Chief Vincent Ortega (Kansas City Police Department)
Executive Director Steve Palmer (Canadian Police Research Centre)
Director Robert Parker (Miami-Dade Police Department)
Captain Brett Patterson (West Palm Beach Police Department)
Director Carl Peed (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services)
Deputy Anthony Pulitano (Broward County Police Department)
Captain John Reed (Louisville Metro Police Department)
Assistant Chief of Police Winston Robinson (Washington, D.C.,
Metropolitan Police Department)
Deputy Inspector Anna Ruzinski (Milwaukee Police Department)
Superintendent Wes Ryan (Toronto Police Service)
Sheriff Ted Sexton (Tuscaloosa County Sheriff ’s Office; President,
National Sheriffs’ Association)
Chief Floyd Simpson (Dallas Police Department)
Dr. Christian Sloane (University of California San Diego Medical Center)

47
Appendix A

Attorney Robert Spence (Tuscaloosa County Sheriff ’s Office)
Commander Rod Uyeda (Pasadena Police Department)
Dr. Gary Vilke (University of California San Diego Medical Center)
Policy Planner Mimi Walsh (Seattle Police Department)
Major Mark Warren (Baltimore County Police Department)
Executive Director Chuck Wexler (Police Executive Research Forum)
Sergeant Don Whitson (National Tactical Officers Association)
Sergeant Steven Wickelgren (Minneapolis Police Department)

DOJ’s Less Lethal Technology Working Group Members
Director Joseph Akers (National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives)
Consultant Carolyn Allen (Office of Justice Programs)
Project Manager Albert Arena (International Association of Chiefs
of Police)
Deputy Director Pamela Cammarata (Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services)
Program Manager Joseph Cecconi (National Institute of Justice)
Social Science Analyst Brett Chapman (National Institute of Justice)
Research Associate James Cronin (PERF Center on Force &
Accountability)
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Cybele Daley (Office of
Justice Programs)
Executive Director Sylvester Daughtry, Jr. (Commission on the
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies)
Director Joshua Ederheimer (PERF Center on Force & Accountability)
Senior Advisor for Law Enforcement Steven Edwards (Bureau of
Justice Assistance)
Executive Director Thomas N. Faust (National Sheriffs’ Association)
Executive Director Thomas C. Frazier (Major City Chiefs Association
and Frazier Group, LLC)
Curriculum Specialist William Fink (Northern Virginia Criminal Justice
Training Academy)
Lieutenant David Gillespie (Montgomery County Police Department)
Captain Alan Goldberg (Montgomery County Police Department)
Director Earl Hamilton (Police Foundation)
Project Manager William Harrison (Community Policing Consortium)
Director Domingo Herraiz (Bureau of Justice Assistance)
Executive Director Patrick J. Judge (International Association of
Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training)
Director Philip Lynn (International Association of Chiefs of Police)
Senior Intergovernmental and Public Liaison Linda Mansour (Office
of Justice Programs)
Assistant Director John Morgan (National Institute of Justice)
Administrator David Paulson (International Association of Chiefs
of Police)
Senior Policy Analyst Albert A. Pearsall (Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services)

Appendix B

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines

50
Director Carl Peed (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services)
Deputy Director for Communications Jim Pinkelman (Office of
Justice Programs)
Senior Legislative Liaison Tim Richardson (Fraternal Order of Police)
Executive Director Dan Rosenblatt (International Association of
Chiefs of Police)
Sheriff Ted Sexton (Tuscaloosa County Sheriff ’s Office; President,
National Sheriffs’ Association)
Deputy Director John Thompson (National Sheriffs’ Association)
Chief MaryAnn Viverette (Gaithersburg Police Department and
President, International Association of Chiefs of Police)
Executive Director Chuck Wexler (Police Executive Research Forum)
President Hubert Williams (Police Foundation)
Director Fred Wilson (National Sheriffs’ Association)
Executive Director Joseph Wolfinger (Major County Sheriffs’ Association)

For More Information:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
To obtain details on COPS programs, call the
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770
Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov