Orange County Sheriff’s Office Taser Task Force
Committee Members

Chair, Lieutenant David Ogden
Co-Chair, Ms. Charlene Hotaling
Mr. Gerald Bell
Mr. Angel Cepero
Reverend Richard Davis
Sergeant Carlos Espinosa
Mr. Rick Harris
Sergeant Scott Hayles
Sergeant Paul Hopkins
Captain Angelo Nieves
Dr. Carlos Rueda
Mr. Nollie Shaw

Meeting Coordinator, Ms. Victoria Arndt

Report Prepared By:
Lieutenant David A. Ogden
March 4, 2005
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the members of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office Taser Task
Force Committee and Medical Sub-Committee for their dedication to this project. Your
hard work and efforts have not gone unnoticed and are greatly appreciated by members
of this community and those who serve it. Throughout this past year of review each of
you have brought an incredible amount of knowledge and valuable perspective into this
review process. I am truly grateful to have had the opportunity to have worked amongst
such a fantastic group of true leaders in our Central Florida Community.
I would like to personally thank Ms. Charlene Hotaling for her efforts as the Committee’s
Co-chairperson, Dr. Carlos Rueda for his vast insight into the psychological
perspectives and concerns, Mr. Gerald Bell and Reverend Richard Davis for their
insight and viewpoint from the community perspective, Mr. Nollie Shaw and Mr. Angel
Cepero for their sincere commitment and dedication to this project, Mr. Rick Harris for
his assistance with the Public School section of this report as well as his incredible
insight and talent with regards to dissecting the heart of every issue. I would like to
thank my brothers in law enforcement, Captain Angelo Nieves, Sergeant Carlos
Espinosa, Sergeant Scott Hayles and Sergeant Paul Hopkins for their valued time and
commitment to this project. I would like to offer a special acknowledgment to Ms.
Victoria Arndt, who provided administrative assistance and coordination to this whole
event.
Finally, I would like to thank the panel of medical professionals who provided their
valuable expertise and played a critical part to this review. Dr. Daniel F. Brennan, Dr.
Aurelio Duran, Dr. Jan Garavaglia and Dr. Robert Vandervoort, your service to this
committee and the citizens of Orange County has been greatly appreciated.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ………………………………………………………..

4–5

II. Medical Review……………………………………………………

5 – 20

III. Concurrent Reviews by External Agencies……………….....

20 – 21

IV. Use of Force……………………………………………………….

21 – 23

V. Public Schools……………………………………………….........

23 – 25

VI. Training……………………………………………………………..

25 – 28

VII. Statistical Analysis………………………………………………..

28 – 31

VIII. Public Hearing Input………………………………………………

31 – 34

IX. Conclusion………………………………………………………….

34 – 35

X. Recommendations…………………………………………..…….

36 – 39

XI. Additional Reviews………………………………………………..

40 - 41

3

Introduction:
In an effort to promote safety within the community and that of law enforcement officials,
the Orange County Sheriff’s Office adopted the use of the Electronic Controlled Weapon
known as the Taser. This device has generated national interest and in light of that
attention, it was thought that the assembly of a committee and a careful review of the
training and implementation of the M26 and X26 Taser would be both timely and
appropriate.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office, located in the tourist-centric area of Orlando,
Florida, is responsible for the safety of more than one million people and the security of
just over 1,000 square miles of land. With approximately 1,400 sworn deputies, it is
considered a large law enforcement agency by most standards. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics lists the Orange County Sheriff’s Office as the 11th largest Sheriff’s Office in
the country.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office is a full-service law enforcement

agency (other than a jail) and provides general law enforcement service 24 hours a day,
seven days a week. There are currently six patrol sectors in Orange County and
deputies patrol areas that range from simple homes to complex neighborhoods, richly
diverse and varied.
Background
In May of 2004, Sheriff Kevin Beary appointed the Taser Task Force Committee to look
into the current controversy surrounding the use of the M26 & X26 Taser. The Taser
Committee is made up of 12 members.

The Sheriff continued to promote his

commitment to diversity by appointing seven civilians to the Committee, including the
past President of the NAACP Central Florida chapter, a representative from Florida
State Senator Gary Siplin’s Use of Force Commission, and members of the Orange
County School Board, the Sheriff’s Civilian Advisory Task Force, and the Hispanic
Coalition of Central Florida.

Additionally, the Sheriff appointed five representatives

from within the agency comprising members of the Uniformed Patrol Division, the
Professional Standards Division, as well as the Training Division.

4

The Chairperson, Lieutenant David A. Ogden, facilitated committee meetings, made
specific

arrangements

based

on

committee

member

requests

and

provided

administrative resources to document and file meeting minutes. The Committee initially
underwent intense background training, from subject matter experts, that the Committee
felt was essential prior to proceeding with any discussions, review or additional
research. The Committee covered issues with regards to use of force, legal issues and
pertinent case laws, the Taser User training curricula, as well as the previous analysis,
review and reporting prerequisites which the Sheriff’s Office had completed to date.
The Sheriff’s Office offered complete access to all the Committee’s requests.

The

educational process and training of the Committee proved invaluable and was needed
for this review.
The Taser Committee requested a medical panel of four local, well respected doctors to
independently look at the research and render an expert opinion on the medical aspects
of Taser safety issues. Specifics of the medical review are contained within this report.
With regards to the Taser, there are factions of the public that favor an outright ban of
this operational tool, believing it to be a form of electrocution. To address these
concerns, the Committee held a public forum for the citizens of Orange County to voice
their opinions, as well as to make any recommendations. Committee members felt this
was an integral part of the review process prior to delivering final recommendations to
Sheriff Kevin Beary.
Medical Review:
Utilizing this independent medical panel of experts, the Committee members learned
the Taser does not cause any permanent damage to an individual and the use of this
particular weapon appears to be safer than that of other weapons commonly used by
law enforcement (batons, sprays, and physical arrest techniques). The medical experts
further elaborated on the facts of the electrical currents used by the Taser and stated it
is in no way a form of “electrocution” and that the currents perform differently than that
of traditional electrical currents. The panel related the electrical current distributed by

5

the Taser should not adversely affect the heart in either a normal person or a person
with a pacemaker.
Medical Expert Panel Members Included:
•

Dr. Aurelio Duran

•

Dr. Daniel F. Brennan

•

Dr. Robert Vandervoort

•

Dr. Jan Garavaglia

Dr. Aurelio Duran is a prominent Cardiologist/Electrophysiologist at the Orlando Heart
Center. He is the Vice Chairman of Cardiology at the Orlando Regional Medical Center
(ORMC) where he teaches house staff at ORMC and FSU Medical students. He also
was instrumental in some research and development stages of pacemakers and
defibrillators.

Dr.

Duran

presented

on

TASER

DEVICE:

A

CARDIAC

ELECTROPHYSIOLOGIST’S PERSPECTIVE.
Dr. Duran began his presentation by discussing the role of electricity in the body and
how manipulating electrical forces has many applications in medicine. In addition to
electrical impulses, which carry information throughout the body’s extensive network of
nerve cells, certain specialized tissues in the body make use of electricity locally.
Among these is the heart, where carefully regulated electrical signals stimulate the heart
to contract in an organized and rhythmic manner.
Dr. Duran introduced the concepts of voltage and current. He emphasized that while
certain cells in the body may be activated or deactivated by changes in voltage (such as
stimulation for a muscle to contract), potential for damage to the cells is determined by
the amount of current present, which refers to the actual amount of electricity flowing
through the body. Electrical injuries to humans occur when the body is exposed to high
amounts of current, as exists in lightning strikes or power lines.
Examples of the use of voltage-manipulation in medicine include pacemakers,

6

defibrillators, TENs units, and even some medications. He explained that since voltage
changes are the normal means by which cells communicate to each other, altering
voltage does not damage cells.
Dr. Duran stated that if an electrical device is going to be designed to adversely affect
the heart, it would need to contain several factors. First, it would need to be a highcurrent device and in order to deliver high amounts of current to the heart, it would
require large electrodes. These electrodes would have to be placed on the opposite
sides of the heart and would require electrodes that penetrated deep into the body,
close to the heart.
In contrast, a Taser device is a low-current, high voltage system, which uses small,
superficial electrodes.

The amount of current is very small, 3.8 mA, or about 4

thousandths of one amp. In contrast, household electrical devices generally draw 1 to
15 amps.
Finally, Dr. Duran stated that if the electricity from a Taser happened to cause a
person’s heart to go into a dangerous arrhythmia, this would cause the individual to
immediately collapse with cardiac arrest upon being Tased. To date, this has not been
seen in any of the cases of volunteer testing or law enforcement use of the Taser.
Next the committee heard from Daniel F. Brennan, MD, FACEP, FAAEM. Dr. Brennan
is a member of the Emergency Physicians of Central Florida at the Orlando Regional
Medical Center. Dr. Brennan presented on TASER – EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
PERSPECTIVES to the Committee.
Dr.

Brennan began by reiterating and expanding on the nature of electricity, and

included a slide containing the following information regarding injuries to the body from
electricity:

7

Comparison of Lightning to High-Voltage Electrical Injuries
FACTOR

LIGHTNING

HIGH VOLTAGE

Duration

Instant (1 msec)

Prolonged

Voltage

3,000 – 30 MV

1000 – 70,000 V

Amperage

50,000 A

10 – 10,000 A

Current

Unidirectional (DC)

Alternating

Pathway

Flashover

Through body

Burns

Superficial

Deep

Rhythm

Asystole

V. Fib

Muscle/renal

Rare

Rhabdo, ARF

Blunt injury

Shock wave

Falls

th

Fonanarosa PB, in Tintinalli JE Emergency Medicine, 4 edition 1996, pp. 905 – 14.

Dr. Brennan called attention to the fact that in high-voltage electrical injuries, contact
with the source was prolonged and generally required a current of at least 10 amps.
This is in sharp contrast to the brief, very low amperage exposure produced by the
Taser. To further develop the contrast between high-current and its potential for injury
relative to high-voltage, he stated common static electricity, such as the one produced
by shuffling your feet across a carpet and then touching a metal object, can be up to
50,000 volts which is the same voltage put out by the Tasers.
He also contrasted the Taser with certain high-voltage medical devices such as
defibrillators. While Tasers produce only 1.76 Joules of energy, a defibrillator charge
delivers 50-360 Joules.
Dr. Brennan showed quotes from an article from the world renowned British Medical
Journal the Lancet:
“Myocardial (heart) stimulation extremely unlikely with darts striking the skin.”

8

“Clear that Tasers are less likely than guns to cause injury and death of the target (and
the officer).”
“Generally more effective than other means of restraint.”
Fish RM, Geddes LA. Lancet. 2001; 358:687-8.

Dr. Brennan then reviewed the medical literature relating to Taser use. In a study by
Ordog from the Annals of Emergency Medicine in 1987, researchers compared injuries
from Tasers to injuries from .38 caliber police handguns. Only 1.4% of Tased subjects
died, while 50% of gunshot patients died. In addition, zero of the three Tased patients
who died collapsed immediately and, therefore, their deaths cannot be attributed to the
electrical shock from the Taser per se. All three patients were also positive for PCP.
Thirty-eight percent of Tased patients suffered minor injuries such as abrasions and
lacerations, zero of which resulted in long-term effects.
In another observational study conducted in Portland, Oregon, published in Academic
Emergency Medicine in 2004, researchers studied outcomes following 227 uses of the
Taser in law enforcement. In this study, zero subjects died and 28% suffered minor
injuries (bruises, contusions, lacerations).
Finally, Dr. Brenner presented a study by Kornblum, published in the Journal of
Forensic Science in 1992, which examined 18 deaths in people who had been Tased.
In 15 of the cases, the patients were found to be positive for PCP, amphetamines, or
cocaine. In the remaining three cases, the patients had received significant trauma
sufficient to explain death, such as gunshot wounds. In one patient, the authors did not
rule out that the Taser may have contributed to death. It was noted that even this
potential connection was disputed in a later publication in the same journal the following
year.
The next expert was Dr. Robert Vandervoort, Pharm.D, who is a member of the
Pharmacotherapy Faculty Florida Hospital Family Practice Residency and a Clinical

9

Assistant Professor UF College of Pharmacy.

He presented to the Committee on

COCAINE INTOXICATION: FOCUS ON PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS.
Dr. Vandervoort began by reviewing statistics showing the prevalence of cocaine use in
the US, and then detailed the pharmacologic effects of cocaine use.
Users of inhaled cocaine experience physiologic effects within seconds. These include
subjective feelings of hyperstimulation and alertness, but also often include psychiatric
effects such as paranoia, suicidal and homicidal thoughts, and agitation.
Dr. Vandervoort introduced the term “cocaine intoxication delirium” and contrasted this
condition with simple cocaine intoxication.

The former refers to a disturbance of a

person’s consciousness brought on by the cocaine. This alteration in consciousness is
accompanied by a change in cognition in the patient that is characterized by a reduced
clarity of awareness of the environment. Often, irrational fear is among the features of
cocaine-intoxication delirium.

Dr Vandervoort quoted the Fourth Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, an authoritative Psychiatry text, regarding
cocaine intoxication delirium:
“The individual may exhibit emotional disturbances such as anxiety, fear, euphoria, and
apathy.

There may be rapid and unpredictable shifts from one emotional state to

another… Fear often accompanies threatening hallucinations or transient delusions. If
fear is marked, the person may attack those who are falsely perceived as threatening.”
Another potential consequence of cocaine use is “cocaine-induced psychotic disorder,”
also known as cocaine psychosis. A psychotic disorder is defined by the presence of
hallucinations and/or delusions on the part of the patient. Subjects who smoke cocaine
may experience psychosis within minutes of ingestion, and this condition is similar in
presentation to acute paranoid schizophrenia.
Dr. Vandervoort presented a study, published in the Journal of Psychology in 1991,

10

which compared the psychotic features of 100 cocaine abusers and 100 paranoid
schizophrenic patients.
PS

Cocaine

3

5

Auditory Hallucinations:

36

50

Persecutions Delusions:

49

74

Identity/Grandiosity/Possession Delusions:

30

0

Tactile Hallucinations:

A higher percentage of the cocaine abusers specifically had delusions of persecution,
and the authors noted, “Those in the cocaine group were more often fearful of being
‘caught’ by police or family members.”
Dr. Vandervoort stated patients with stimulant-induced psychotic disorders often report
persecutory delusions, and these delusions often relate to the illegality of the drug use
and make patients particularly fearful of police. In addition, the enhanced vigor and
hyperactivity associated with cocaine intoxication can make for violent actions in a
patient suffering from a psychotic disorder.
To underscore the potential for irrational, violent behavior in these patients, Dr.
Vandervoort quoted the Rosen Emergency Medicine Textbook regarding management
of cocaine psychosis in the Emergency Department:
“ED staff may be severely injured by a wild, combative patient intoxicated with
cocaine. Talk down therapy, which may be effective with hallucinogens, is not useful
for cocaine-induced psychosis.

Such patients must be restrained and given IV

benzodiazepines.”(Sedatives)
Dr. Vandervoort also displayed this quote from the National Institute of Health website:
“High doses of cocaine and/or prolonged use can trigger paranoia. Smoking crack

11

cocaine can produce a particularly aggressive paranoid behavior in users.”
Regarding the prevalence of cocaine psychosis among cocaine users, Dr. Vandervoort
cited a review article on cocaine published in the New England Journal of Medicine in
1988:
“Stimulant effects [at high doses] … may result in accidents, illegal acts, or atypical
sexual behavior. Such adverse effects occur in more than 80% of regular cocaine
users. As a binge lengthens…states of severe transient panic accompanied by a
terror of impending death can occur in persons with no preexisting psychopathologic
conditions, as can paranoid psychoses.

Surveys of abusers indicate that such

states are common. When the paranoia is severe, reality testing becomes markedly
impaired and in extreme cases, homicide can result.”
Dr. Vandervoort then discussed another study published in the Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry in 1991, in which 53% of patients admitted for cocaine dependence reported
experiencing features consistent with cocaine-induced psychosis.

Of those who

experienced psychotic features, 90% had delusions, 96% hallucinated, and 48% were
experiencing one or both of those features at the time of the admission under study.
In a chart-review analysis in the Bahamas, Dr. Vandervoort noted that one third of freebase cocaine smokers reported regularly experiencing symptoms consistent with
paranoid psychosis while intoxicated. This study was published in the Yale Journal of
Biology and Medicine in 1988. In a review article published in the American Journal of
Psychiatry in 1991, which focused specifically on cocaine-induced paranoia, the authors
stated that 68% of 50 male cocaine users were found to have transient paranoid
psychosis.

The subjects reported the paranoia was typically related to the illicit

activities associated with the drug use.
Dr. Vandervoort stated this data regarding cocaine psychosis is relevant to the Taser
discussion because a large number of subjects who are "Tased" by law enforcement

12

officers, and specifically a large percentage of those who die while in custody, are
intoxicated with cocaine or similar stimulants at the time of their arrest.

Close

interaction with these individuals in the field carries significant safety risks for both the
suspect and the officer, with a very high potential for violent resistance if officers are
perceived as a threat by the cocaine abuser.

Reasoning with cocaine-intoxicated

patients will not be productive and is not recommended. Any discussion of the risks and
benefits of Tasers in law enforcement should include an appreciation of this disorder, its
prevalence, and the necessity for physically controlling these patients for the safety of
all involved. Dr. Vandervoort closed with this recommendation from a review article
specifically addressing management of cocaine psychosis in the ED, published in 1993,
in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine:
“Because many, perhaps most, chronic cocaine abusers are intermittently psychotic
while intoxicated, and because it is often impossible to identify the cocaine
intoxicated patient, it seems especially wise in the 1990’s to cautiously approach any
patient who appears afraid, anxious, or suspicious. Similarly, because the delusions
and hallucinations of the cocaine user often causes him to perceive those around
him as enemies, it is recommended to physically restrain angry or agitated psychotic
patients before their condition escalates into violence.”
(High Incidence of Psychosis in Cocaine Intoxication and Preventing Violence in the ED American Journal of Emergency
Medicine 1993; 11(6):676)

The final panel expert was Dr. Jan Garavaglia, M.D., who is the Chief Medical
Examiner for Orange and Osceola Counties, District 9.

She is Board Certified in

Anatomic, Clinical and Forensic Pathology. She presented on IN CUSTODY DEATHS
AND TASER USE – A MEDICAL EXAMINER PERSPECTIVE OR THE RECENT
HISTORY OF IN CUSTODY DEATHS to the Committee.
Dr. Garavaglia reviewed briefly the Kornblum and Ordog studies which had been
introduced by Dr. Brennan. She called attention to the fact that the common feature in
the suspects who died appeared to be that the individuals were in an excited state when
confronted by police. She added, “All were also intoxicated with stimulants.”
13

Dr. Garavaglia identified this condition as “Excited Delirium” and reviewed the medical
literature pertaining to it.

The first reported cases were in 1985 in Miami.

Seven

suspects presented with bizarre psychotic behavior and experienced sudden death
while in custody. All of the individuals had undergone extreme physical exertion while
fleeing or fighting with police and were hyperthermic.
While acute cocaine intoxication can cause death, Dr. Garavaglia noted that Excited
Delirium syndrome has several features that distinguish it from cocaine intoxication
death. Among these are the facts that many Excited Delirium patients actually have low
levels of cocaine in their system at the time of death, and often exhibit bizarre psychotic
behavior typical of cocaine psychosis.

She noted these patients are also often

hyperthermic.
Dr. Garavaglia cited two papers which offered potential explanations for features of
Excited Delirium exhibited by chronic cocaine abusers. One paper, by Staley from
1994, stated chronic cocaine users have neurochemical abnormalities, including a
decreased number of dopamine D-2 receptors in the hypothalamus, which is felt to
explain why those who die are often hyperthermic. In addition, the same author in a
later paper found that cocaine induces changes in the number and distribution of K2
opiate receptors within the limbic system, which may explain the psychotic symptoms
and violent agitation.
It is also recognized by medical experts that Excited Delirium is not just with chronic
cocaine use and can be found with sympathomimetic, hallucinogenic and psychomotor
stimulant drugs. A catecholamine mediated Excited Delirium, similar to that seen with
cocaine, is becoming increasingly recognized and has been detected in patients with
mental disorders taking antidepressant medication and in psychotic patients who have
stopped taking their medications.
Next, Dr. Garavaglia visited the issue of “positional asphyxia”, which has been offered
as an explanation for sudden in-custody deaths, and which is based on the theory that

14

suspects placed on their stomachs by police may have trouble breathing. She reviewed
the history of this theory:
1988
Dr. Reay argued that the prone restraining position restricts chest and abdominal
movement, placing an individual at risk for hypoventilation, increased CO2, and
decreased oxygen and thus asphyxiation.
1992
Dr. Reay reports three cases of “positional asphyxia” occurring in individuals placed in
the prone restraint position in the back seat of a police car.
In all three cases, the subjects were violent and agitated from drugs or psychiatric
illness.
1993
O’Halloran reports 11 cases of sudden death while prone with nine of the 11 in the
"hog tie" restraint position. All of the 11 were in an excited delirious state from acute
psychosis or drugs (mostly cocaine).
Other investigators tried to argue that delirium, intoxication, stress trauma,
catecholamine hyperstimulation, hyperthermia, muscle fatigue, or exhaustion as
opposed to asphyxiation from body positioning was the mechanism of death.
1998
Chan, using good science, demonstrated that no evidence indicated hypoventilation
or ventilatory compromises occurred as a result of body positioning in the restraint
position. The study invalidated the work of Dr. Reay.
Following this, Dr Garavaglia addressed the potential for the Taser to have contributed
to deaths in patients with Excited Delirium. She noted that the deaths that occur in

15

custody are after Taser electrical delivery rather than during or immediately afterwards.
The instruction manual advises instructors to “forewarn volunteers that being hit with a
Taser is an act of physical exertion.”
The expanded “physical exertion” by the muscle contractions may have an exacerbation
effect with the illicit drugs just as fighting against restraints or physical conflict does.
Dr. Garavaglia then reviewed and compared data from two cities and cases of sudden
in-custody deaths over a several year period. These two cities were similar in size and
demographics and she noted the common feature in all the reported deaths appear to
be Excited Delirium. She takes attention to note that none of the cases in San Antonio,
Texas involved the use of the Tasers, indicating there are other factors, i.e., cocaine or
illicit drug use that need to be the subject of concern:
Orlando, FL

2000 – Present:

•

Six (6) in custody cases (excluding GSW)

•

Four (4) had Excited Delirium with cocaine

•

One (1) had hyperthermia and excited behavior from LSD

•

One (1) had altercation with police and an extremely bad heart

•

Four (4) of these cases were shot by Taser

San Antonio, TX

1997 – 2003

•

15 in custody cases (excluding GSW)

•

14 cases of Excited Delirium associated with cocaine use

•

One (1) case of a struggle with police combined with a bad heart

•

Three (3) cases of Excited Delirium deaths without police involvement

•

No Taser involvement in any of these cases

Dr. Garavaglia believes Taser use is not associated with Excited Delirium deaths, and
there is no evidence Tasers are the cause of death. She further elaborated that to
16

implicate Tasers as the cause of death, the person being Tased would have to actually
die as they were being Tased.
According to the National Association of Medical Examiners, Cocaine Excited Delirium
is a fatal disease. Thus, it is the belief of Dr. Jan Garavaglia these individuals would
have died with or without being shot with a Taser.
After presentation by all four doctors, there was a brief question and answer session for
the committee members.
Q.

Mr. Gerald Bell stated that it appeared from the presentation from all four doctors
that the Taser is absolutely safe. He asked if that was correct.

A.

Dr. Garavaglia said, “Yes.” She stated there is no medical evidence to
substantiate any association with death. The cocaine psychosis causes
irrational acts and is contributory to the deaths.

Q.

Sergeant Carlos Espinosa asked if the stress of negative interaction with the
police cause the deaths.

A.

Dr. Garavaglia stated it could, but would most likely be cocaine induced.
Dr. Brennan agreed.

Q.

Mr. Nollie Shaw wanted to make sure there was reiteration that these individuals
died not as a result of the Taser, but the association.

A.

Dr. Garavaglia related information from a study conducted on rats on
cocaine.

The rats were restrained.

The rats had a 58% mortality rate

simply from being on cocaine.
Q.

Sergeant Carlos Espinosa asked, “Based on your experience, would it be
possible that a deputy would be able to tell if a suspect is at risk?”

A.

Dr. Brennan stated that certain behaviors demonstrate that patients are at
risk, whether Tased, pepper sprayed, etc. The Taser is not contributory.

17

He stated he does not feel there is anything the officers could do. He also
stated he wished the officers at his office would have Tasers.
Q.

Captain Angelo Nieves asked, “You would feel comfortable with an officer using
a Taser on a scene?”

A.

Dr. Brennan stated, “Yes.”
Dr. Garavaglia stated she has had two autopsies that she has done; both
were high on cocaine. The Taser was not the cause of death. Excited
Delirium was the cause of both deaths.

Increased stress could be

associated by a Taser shooting; however, being Tased is not the cause.
Q.

Lieutenant Ogden asked for a comparison of risk/benefit ratio.

A.

Dr. Duran stated he would choose being Tased over being struck with a
baton, shot or struck with fists.

Q.

Mr. Rick Harris asked if any certain age was more prone to risk.

A.

Dr. Duran stated the only variable would be those with a history of
substance abuse.

Q.

Mr. Gerald Bell asked if there is any way a police officer could profile someone
who could be on cocaine.

He was concerned that someone should not be

Tased.
A.

Dr. Brennan stated that was a good question. He stated it is very difficult
to diagnose the cause if someone is acting irrationally. It is very difficult
for those in the medical field to immediately make a diagnosis. They do not
ask the Paramedics to do this, so they would not ask the police officers to
do so. It was thought that what Mr. Bell was asking would be very difficult
to put into practice.
Dr. Vandervoort stated that in one particular study, the authors found that
38% of the people experiencing a cocaine psychosis event had armed

18

themselves. They really believe they are threatened and that is why they
arm themselves. They are acting afraid and acting psychotic. The issue of
officer safety is involved.
Q.

Ms. Charlene Hotaling asked, “After Tasing, can you give them medication to
prevent problems?”

A.

Dr. Brennan answered, “No.” There are tools that medical professionals
can use to try and control a situation.

Q.

Mr. Nollie Shaw asked if a Tased person is in the E.R. and in the period of death,
could that person be saved.

A.

Dr. Brennan answered that basic critical care could be given. However,
that may or may not be successful, depending on the degree of
succumbing to physical problems.

Q.

Mr. Rick Harris asked the doctors if they were to relay a message to concerned
citizens, what would it be?

A.

Dr. Duran stated that when you read about the Taser, you find out that this
is not a basic electrocution. When you are deciding upon what tool to use,
the risk does not seem disproportionate.

Q.

Mr. Nollie Shaw asked about victims suffering from psychosis that could cause
them to go into shock.

A.

Dr. Vandervoort stated that cocaine users are more likely to have a heart
attack within one hour from use. The agitation or stress from the struggle,
whether it is from being chased by the law enforcement officer, or K-9, or
being Tased, could account for the adrenaline rush, which could cause
physical problems.

Q.

Sergeant Paul “Spike” Hopkins stated the Taser company states the Taser will
not affect someone with a pacemaker.

19

A.

Dr. Duran stated it is conceivable that the pacemaker could be affected for
one or two seconds. That is not likely to cause a problem. If a patient has
an internal defibrillator, the Taser would have to be used very repeatedly to
cause any kind of problem.

Q.

Sergeant Paul “Spike” Hopkins asked if the Taser could cause a problem with a
pregnant female.

A.

Dr. Duran stated electricity always wants to go through the path of least
resistance.

Nobody has gone around and shocked a pregnant woman.

However, it is not likely to cause a problem.
Q.

Mr. Gerald Bell asked if multiple Tasings could make a difference. Would there
be a cumulative effect?

A.

Dr. Duran stated that the only way would be on someone who has an
internal defibrillator and that would be a very unlikely scenario.

Concurrent Reviews by External Agencies:
The Taser Committee received a review of current and relevant medical literature,
EXCITED DELIRIUM AND ITS CORRELATION TO SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED
DEATH PROXIMAL TO RESTRAINT prepared by Sergeant Darren Laur of the Victoria
Police Department, Ontario, Canada. There had been a popular notion that positional
asphyxia (P/A) had been a significant contributor to the death of several suspects while
in police custody.

Additional empirical and scientific evidence research has since

discounted those beliefs and the cause of death was health conditions brought about by
Excited Delirium.
Sergeant Laur’s research reveals problems similar to Excited Delirium have been
reported in the medical literature since the mid 19th Century (Bell, 1849). A further
report from the UK (Paterson et al., 2003) outlined the information specific to death
proximal to restraint in medical institutions.

20

The literature review conducted to date confirms that Excited Delirium death is not just a
phenomena experienced by law enforcement, but also in psychiatric and geriatric care
facilities (Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, 1998). In this
published report, researchers found a total of 20 deaths associated with physical
restraint in hospitals, psychiatric care facilities, as well as geriatric care facilities in the
United States. A further report found in the Cormorant (Weis, 1988) reported about 145
deaths in chronic care facilities.
A review of literature, both cited by Taser International, Inc. and otherwise, revealed the
level of electrical output or shock delivered by a Taser is very unlikely to cause
permanent injury. In addition, recovery from a Taser shock is almost instantaneous, as
opposed to other less-lethal options that may result in longer term recovery or require
decontamination such as OC spray, which is commonly categorized along side the
Taser by the majority of law enforcement agencies around the country. Research and
personal law enforcement testimonies revealed Tasers may be an effective deterrent to
resistance when simply displayed with the intent to use if compliance is not immediately
gained.
Use of Force:
The Taser Committee felt it was essential to have a basic understanding of Use of
Force in the criminal justice field.

Committee members were given training on

precedent setting case laws that relate to the current issues, as well as the Use of Force
matrix. Interestingly, during the first few months of the Committee’s appointment, a
crucial case came out of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with regards to utilizing a
Taser during passive physical resistance as defined by the Sheriff’s Office. The court’s
decision in this case is critical to one of the most raised questions with regards to
defining the level of force in relation to the Taser weapon system. It is important to note
there is no requirement that an officer use the least intrusive or even less intrusive
alternatives to force, but the force used meets the objectively reasonable standard.

21

When determining claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force
during the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free citizen, the
courts analyze these cases under the Fourth Amendment and its objective
reasonableness standard set forth in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989); see
also Soller v. Moore, 84 F.3d 964, 968 (7th Cir. 1996) (claims of excessive force are
analyzed under the objectively reasonable standard of the Fourth Amendment). The
court looks to the “totality of the circumstances” to determine whether the manner of the
arrest was reasonable. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1985). An important
component of “the ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of
hindsight.” Connor, 490 U.S. at 396. A police officer’s use of force is considered
unconstitutional if, judging from the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest,
the officer used greater force than was reasonably necessary to make that arrest. In
determining whether there has been a constitutional violation, a court may look at
several factors.

These factors may include the severity of the crime, whether the

suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others in the area and last, whether
the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to evade an arrest.
Due to its recent introduction into the law enforcement arena, there are only a limited
number of published cases involving Tasers and use of force issues that are helpful in
determining the appropriate use of force level respectively. E.g., Draper v. Reynolds,
369 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment,
which found use of Taser during traffic stop was not excessive force); Michenfelder v.
Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 336 (9th Cir. 1988) (policy of allowing use of Tasers on inmates
who refuse to submit to strip search does not constitute cruel and usual punishment);
Russo v. Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1045 (6th Cir. 1992) (finding that officers were
entitled to qualified immunity for use of Taser while attempting arrest); Caldwell v.
Moore, 968 U.S. F.2d 595, 600-01 (6th Cir. 1992) (use of stun gun and straight jacket
on inmate who refused to obey correctional officers’ orders did not violate Eighth
Amendment); Alford v. Osei-Kwasi, 418 S.E.2d 79, 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that
officer who used Taser on pregnant female who was creating a disturbance did not

22

violate prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights).

While each of these cases is helpful,

Draper is particularly instructive in dealing with the current concerns surrounding the
appropriate level of use of force for the Taser.
In Draper v. Reynolds, the plaintiff, Stacy Allen Draper, sued Deputy Sheriff Clinton
Reynolds under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for alleged civil rights violations
resulting from a traffic stop on Draper’s tractor-trailer for a tag light that was allegedly
not properly illuminated. 369 F.3d at 1272.

Mr. Draper asserted the deputy used

excessive force in effectuating an arrest for obstructing a law enforcement officer, after
Draper allegedly refused to comply with numerous requests by the deputy to retrieve
documents.

The Eleventh Circuit found the use of the Taser “was reasonably

proportionate to the difficult, tense and uncertain situation that [Deputy] Reynolds faced
in the traffic stop, and did not constitute excessive force.” Id. at 1278. The court found
that the deputy asked Mr. Draper to retrieve documents from the truck’s cab no less
than five times, but each time Draper refused to comply. The court noted that Mr.
Draper accused the deputy of harassing and blinding him with a flashlight, that Mr.
Draper used profanity, moved around and paced in agitation, and repeatedly yelled at
the deputy. The court said that, because of Mr. Draper’s actions, starting with an arrest
command was not required. “More importantly, a verbal arrest command accompanied
by attempted physical handcuffing … may well have, or would likely have, escalated a
tense and difficult situation into a serious physical struggle in which either Draper or
[Deputy] Reynolds would be seriously hurt.” The court, which noted that Mr. Draper
was shown in a video tape to be standing up, handcuffed, and coherent shortly after he
was stunned by the Taser, held that under the “totality of the circumstances” the
deputy’s use of the Taser did not constitute excessive use of force and did not violate
Draper’s constitutional rights. (PTI, 2004)
Public Schools:
Orange County Public Schools is the 12th largest school district in the nation. The
district has a 173,870 student enrollment and 178 schools and work locations. The
district has 24,063 employees and is the second largest employer in the Central Florida

23

area. The district has participated in the School Resource Officer (SRO) Program for
more than 30 years. They currently provide SRO program funding support that provides
a 90 law enforcement officer equivalent as it works with nine agencies.
The district has a department that manages the SRO Program activities. That office
tracks incidents and activities involving those agencies and actions in and around
school board property. The Orange County Sheriff’s Office introduced the first Taser on
secondary campuses in 2001. Since that time, Tasers have been used on school board
properties less than 20 times in situations involving secondary students since 2001. In
every case, the situation involved the use of force matrix at an active resistance level or
higher. This situation indirectly speaks to the caliber of SRO’s that local agencies are
providing to the district. It also suggests that OCPS has the benefit of law enforcement
resources who are generally motivated to work with children, can teach and share
experiences and have communications skills needed to prevent volatile situations from
escalating. To date, no Taser has ever been used on an elementary school student on
Orange County school board property and those officers in such schools are not issued
Tasers.
The district closely monitors SRO program activities and has constant interaction with
the SRO leadership from the Sheriff’s Office and other municipality law enforcement
agencies. The district also routinely offers to underwrite the cost of sending newly
assigned SRO’s to the Basic School Resource Officer Training Course sponsored by
the State Attorney General’s Office. This initiative is in place to assist those officers in
making the transition to performing their duties within a school environment. The district
constantly reinforces the expectation that school and site administrators are there to
manage educational issues. School Resource Officers work with staff and students,
assisting in building safe and positive learning environments. These law enforcement
representatives are there to manage incidents that might involve criminal activity in the
learning environment.

24

During the period since Tasers were introduced, there have been less than 20 total
deployments on campuses as reported by law enforcement. Recent accounts indicated
there are fewer deployments of Tasers by SRO’s than by other deputies or police in
other operational units within local agencies.
The topic of Tasers on school campuses was discussed at the School Security
Director’s Meeting in November, 2004. The meeting involved senior security officials
from the 30 largest school districts in the nation and was hosted by the Federal Office of
Safe and Drug Free Schools.

Currently, there is no recognized national standard

regarding the presence of Tasers on school sites.
Training:
Taser Training Curricula
Over a dozen shocks were administered collectively to members of the Taser
Committee during the course of the Taser training session. One Committee member,
Mr. Angel Cepero, received three separate activations to understand the different
methods of deployment. The Committee spent several hours examining and reviewing
the training curricula from both Taser International and the Orange County Sheriff’s
Office.
Orange County Sheriff’s Office established a Taser training program and required each
of its officers undergo and complete the training before being issued a Taser. Agency
personnel were sent to outside training programs, sponsored by the manufacturer of the
Taser, to obtain their certification and training materials for use in the agency training
curricula. Since the Taser program’s inception, the agency training course has evolved
and been updated according to new information received from the Taser manufacturer,
as well as the agency’s experience in the field with the application of this weapon.
The Taser is considered a less-lethal impact weapon, which trained deputies may use
when they are required to use physical force for protection from an assault and/or take a
person into custody.

An issued Taser may be used when level three or higher

25

resistance on the use of force continuum is encountered. The Orange County Sheriff’s
Office trained deputies to use the Taser and any other similar less-lethal weapon
(baton, chemical spray) in a manner that was reasonable under the circumstances, and
based upon the level of resistance they encountered. Subsequent to 2002, the Orange
County Sheriff’s Office implemented into its training curricula for Taser and in-service
training that if after three to five applications, it was not achieving its desired effect,
deputies should consider going to alternative plans.

Those alternative plans would

include, if possible, having an arrest team attempt handcuffing of the suspect while the
Taser was being activated.

This bulletin was based, in part, on updated training

materials received from Taser International. The purpose of this supplemental training
bulletin was not because the Taser was causing harmful effects upon suspects, but
rather, as with any law enforcement technique, other options should be explored if the
desired effect was not being achieved. Furthermore, the information the Sheriff’s Office
had been provided through Taser International, the manufacturer of the weapon, has to
the present time, refuted any allegation that the weapon has long term effects on
subjects, causes heart failure or cannot be utilized on suspects who are under the
influence of alcohol or drugs.
Training and experience in the past has shown that any less-lethal weapon, which
works on pain compliance, can be overcome by drugs, alcohol, emotionally disturbed
persons or mental focus. According to the manufacturer of the Taser, it does not rely on
pain to achieve compliance. It overwhelms the central nervous system and achieves
incapacitation. While its primary focus is incapacitation and the inability to move while
the weapon is activated, a side effect of that incapacitation may be pain in some
individuals.
The manufacturer provides a host of medical documentation on the safety of this
particular product. The documentation has not been refuted thus far and was also
provided to the Committee for review.

26

OCSO Augmented Training
After the deputy has completed his/her first year of service, and once the field training is
completed, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office has a mandatory 30 to 40 hour
continuing in-service training requirement for all law enforcement officers. Each year an
internal task force is convened to generate a new training curricula based on the
following factors:
Mandatory Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission mandates, use of force
issues, firearms training, defensive tactic skills, soft skill classes (communication, verbal
judo, leadership and management, mental preparation skills, physical, psychological
and physiological conditioning of critical incidents), investigative skills and techniques,
local and national law enforcement trends, driving skills to include the dynamics of
vehicle apprehensions, mental preparation and simulator-based trainings.
Additionally, each deputy is offered a host of elective classes that he/she may attend in
addition to these mandatory classes throughout the year. Also, every deputy undergoes
a yearly evaluation which covers issues and topics on the use of force.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office supervises its officers to ensure that its policies and
procedures are followed. Any violation of policy or procedure is investigated and may
result in disciplinary action depending on the nature of the violation. Also, Orange
County Sheriff’s employees who are promoted are required to attend a newly promoted
supervisor class.

Currently, this is an 80 hour requirement, and an additional

mandatory ten to twenty hours of annual training each year.

These topics have

included some of the below listed sections:
Legal updates and issues (including 4th Amendment issues), mental preparation for
armed confrontations (includes oral communication skills, physiological factors in critical
situations), firearms training (includes use of force issues), CPR/First Aid, defensive
tactics (use of force matrix and levels of force in practical situations), nutrition, auto theft
investigation, gang enforcement, DUI training, critical incident stress debriefing training,

27

communications stat reporting, report review classes (information needed in incident
reports), HASMAT/blood born, building searches, traffic stops (use of force issues
incorporated) and a course with our Simulator (decision making and use of force related
issues).
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office also provides periodic updates and training to its
officers on any changes in the law, which would affect arrest procedures or officer
conduct when executing an arrest. This also provides a guideline for officers on the use
of force and when a Taser may be utilized to effectuate an arrest.
The agency undergoes a complete review of its policies and procedures each year,
which includes training and use of force policy, to determine whether or not it meets the
standards for certification from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies (CALEA).

To present date, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office has

maintained standards in accordance with the requirement of CALEA and has
maintained its certification as a nationally accredited law enforcement agency pursuant
to CALEA’s standards. The Orange County Sheriff's Office's training programs are
established through Law Enforcement mandates, multiple professional affiliations, an
appointed task force, local and national trends, and a complete analysis and review of
its policy and procedures performed each year.
Statistical Analysis:
Per Orange County Sheriff’s Office policy, the Training Section shall prepare an annual
report on the product reliability, recommended training needs and/or policy
modifications related to the uses of force. The introduction of the Taser has been
closely monitored and recommendations or concerns have been addressed through
training as indicated earlier in this report.
The Sheriff’s Office implemented the use of the Taser product in 2000, with six M26
Tasers being issued. Since that time there has been an increase as follows:

28

2000 = 006 Total Tasers
2001 = 230 Total Tasers
2002 = 450 Total Tasers
2003 = 500 Total Tasers
2004 = 700 Total Tasers
There had been a general perception that there has been an increase in the total use of
force since the inception of the Taser into the Sheriffs Office.

There are a

commensurate number of increased events as the total number of Tasers has
increased, which was expected. Therefore, a true comparative analysis of data will be
established after a flat line number of Tasers for a period of time can be explored.
However, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office has captured critical data which presented
an abundance of material for this review. In opposition to the critical view, the use of
the Taser has supported mandatory reporting for incidents which, in the past, would not
have been documented by the standard use of force criteria. Additionally, the Sheriff’s
Office Human Resource Division maintained statistical data on officer injuries reported
during the first two years of the implementation of the use of the Taser, as reported by
Workman’s Compensation reporting. The Human Resource Division reported nearly an
eighty percent decrease in officer related injuries over a two year period of time for
arrest situations.
Mr. Gerald Bell brought forth an inquiry which was raised at a recent NAACP meeting
and reported by the local news media. The source of this information reported that the
majority of Tasers were used during passive resistance encounters, referred to within
our Use of Force matrix as Level 3, and that deputies were abusing this vital tool within
that context. For a complete perspective, the committee reviewed and discussed the
statistical data since the implementation of the Tasers in the year 2000.
In 2003, there were 928,271 calls for service in Orange County Florida and the Orange
County Sheriff’s Office fielded over 740,000 of those calls. The Sheriff’s Office made
31,844 arrests during the same year and deputies were forced to respond to resistance

29

against them 657 times.
More recently, during 2004, the deputies handled 763,650 calls for service and made
45,033 arrests during those incidents. Within that arrest data the deputies were forced
to respond to resistance against them 607 times or 1.3% of total arrest situations.
Despite that calls for service, as well as total arrests, have increased since the reporting
in 2003, deputies have used less force as compared to the previous year’s data.

800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000

2004

0
CALLS FOR
SERVICE

2003
ARRESTS
USE OF FORCE
ENCOUNTERS

CALLS FOR SERVICE

ARRESTS

USE OF FORCE ENCOUNTERS

2003

740,000

31,844

657

2004

763,650

45,033

607

30

The tables below highlight how often deputies used the Tasers alone and at which level
of force. Overwhelmingly, deputies used the issued Taser at Levels 4 and 5 with an
additional 32 situations which could have called for deadly force in the past two years.
2003 Annual Use of Force Report (31,844 Arrests)
Level of Resistance

Number of Taser Deployments

Level 3

31

Level 4

332

Level 5

100

Level 6

18

*Note: missing data is related to discharges at animals, misses and unintentional discharges. (2003 Annual
Use of Force Report)

2004 Annual Use of Force Report (45,033 Arrests)
Level of Resistance

Number of Taser Deployments

Level 3

35

Level 4

309

Level 5

106

Level 6

14

*Note: missing data is related to discharges at animals, misses and unintentional discharges. (2004 Annual
Use of Force Report)

The Use of Force graph and charts were a compelling demonstration of the use of
Tasers versus any other means, as well as the context of the force when it was used.
Dr. Rueda suggested this information should be shared with the public. He felt it would
be very instrumental in educating the public about the facts instead of the hearsay and
rumors.
Public Hearing Input:
On January 25, 2005, Committee members held a public hearing to obtain community
input. The prominent concern of those speaking expressed a need for public safety with
regards to school age children.

Committee members were able to offer a brief

31

exchange of some information they had gathered to date; however, the Committee felt it
was critical to listen to the public’s concerns and not interrupt.
The first guest speaker was Ms. Janet Keseler. Ms. Keseler inquired if Tasers were
allowed in schools and if they could be utilized by teachers or law enforcement officers.
Mr. Harris answered that it would not be school administrators or teachers using Tasers,
but rather law enforcement officers.
The Committee then heard and observed a media presentation by Mr. Chris Keith, a
16 year old student from Boone High School. Mr. Keith felt law enforcement officers
should be able to use Tasers, but added only under strict guidelines. He used a Power
Point presentation to demonstrate his point that the use of Tasers had reduced what
formally would have been gun shot wounds. Mr. Keith brought forth the following points
to his lecture:
•

He stated the subject should be suspected of, or actively committing a crime to
warrant the use of a Taser.

•

He also stated that, if time permits, the deputy should warn the subject at least
three times.

•

He felt that under no circumstances should a Taser be used on someone under
the age of 12.

•

He also stated that, if possible, Tasers should not be utilized on suspects thought
to be impaired by means of illegal narcotics, as this often results in death.

The Committee then heard from Mr. Joshua Willis. He asked about medical research
on the effect Tasers have on kids. He also asked, “What kind of power does the Board
have on changing the policies?” He questioned if there were any new products on the
market. He asked if there was any other piece of equipment available besides the
Taser.
Dr. Rueda answered part of Mr. Willis’ questions by relating the findings of the medical

32

panel. He explained the Taser uses the same basic techniques as a defibrillator. He
explained the difference between current and voltage. In order for the Taser to cause
damage, electrodes would have to be used on both sides of the body. The puncture
mark might be visible on the skin, but the electricity, itself, would not cause damage.
Mr. Harris added that the Committee has not formulated final decisions about
recommending suggestions to changes in policy. He agreed that the Committee also
needs to look into the possibility of finding another alternate solution/piece of equipment
to use instead of the Taser.
Ms. Marie Palmer spoke next to the Committee. She wished to speak as a 42 year
retired educator, who spent 29 of those years in the Orange County Public School
system. She expressed her concerns about the use of Tasers on elementary school
children and the need to find alternative methods to deal with such young children.
The Committee also heard from Mr. John Myrick. Mr. Myrick stated he was personally
Tased on January 14th, 2005, by the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office and gave the
Committee a detailed account of the incident. Mr. Myrick did not give any suggestions
to the Committee.
Ms. Nancy Oesch spoke to the Committee, as well. She stated she believes the police
have a very difficult job every day and inquired about the type of training offered at the
Orange County Sheriff’s Office.
Sergeant Hopkins addressed her question by explaining the Taser training curricula and
other aspects of augmented training set by the Training Section.
The Committee next heard from Mr. John Park, President of the Central Florida Police
Benevolent Association. He shared his personal experiences with the use of the Taser
and how it has saved him from using deadly force on a subject in the past.

33

Mr. Tim Adams addressed the Committee next. He stated he disagrees with some of
the medical facts shared by a member of the Board.

He is concerned about the

inappropriate use of force with regards to the use of the Taser. He appreciates the fact
that there is a minister, a member of the school board and a member of the NAACP on
the committee.
Mr. Adams also added the following concerns:
•

If the Tasers are safe.

•

That the fetus can be affected if a pregnant mother is Tased.

•

The effects of the current on individuals who are sweating.

•

Ethnic origins and other issues would affect the use of Tasers.

Mr. Thomas Luka, a local defense attorney, next addressed the Committee. He stated
he understands a great deal of medical research has been done.

He questioned

several areas he felt needed to be addressed.
•

Secondary injuries subsequent to being Tased.

•

That Tasers should only be used as an alternative to deadly force.

•

Comments from a Neurologist

•

Sheriff Beary’s connection to Taser International.

Dr. Rueda referred to some of the medical research done by Taser International. No
evidence of injury is shown to any organs of the body, including the brain. Dr. Rueda
personally spoke with a neurologist reference this subject. The Taser only interrupts the
signal the brain sends to the body. There is no damage to the brain.
Conclusion:
As a result of this examination, the evidence is overwhelming that Tasers are a viable
option for law enforcement. The likelihood of serious injury as a result of a Taser’s
deployment appears to be less likely than other use of force options. This does not
34

suggest it is impossible for a suspect to be injured in an incident in which a Taser is
used or that being Tased would be a pleasant experience.

However, the Orange

County Sheriff’s Office has integrated additional training protocol in an attempt to
minimize secondary injuries when possible.
The Medical Expert panel review, the literature offered by Taser International, Inc., and
numerous other independent studies, concluded the level of electrical output or shock
delivered by a Taser is unlikely to cause serious or permanent injury. There is a risk
versus benefit association that makes the Taser an obvious choice of use of force when
compared to other known force alternatives. Additionally, recovery from a Taser shock
is almost instantaneous, as opposed to other less-lethal or hand-to-hand combat
options that may result in longer term recovery or require decontamination.

The

Committee’s research and personal testimonies also revealed Tasers appear to be an
effective deterrent to resistance when simply deployed; that is, displayed with the intent
to use if compliance is not immediately gained.
This Committee has several recommendations attached to this report for the Sheriff to
consider with regards to agency policy and procedures that would enhance the
operational effectiveness and provide safety to the community and the agency. Policies
on the use of the Tasers should be carefully constructed to assure the devices are only
used when justified and in such a manner that officer safety is enhanced and not
jeopardized. The objective reasonableness standard, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme
Court, is what should be used as the guide for constructing such a policy. Furthermore,
in the case of the Taser, a timely decision in Draper validates and sets a reasonable
standard for the justified use of a Taser during similar incidents.

35

Recommendations:
Training
1. The Committee members feel proper and thorough training curriculum and
instruction is the key to a successful Taser program. The public should be made
aware that the training and monitoring conducted by the Sheriff’s Office on the
Taser weapon so far has been outstanding.

Committee members feel it is

essential they bring forth an “Educational Campaign” to the public to deliver the
accurate facts and figures with regards to the Taser, its use, the training and
documentation to be aware of this fact.
2. Currently, the Training staff monitors the use of the Tasers and makes changes
or suggestions as trends appear. This effort should continue and the public be
made aware of the yearly reporting information.
3. The current Basic Users Training Curricula is four hours with additional training
received each year through in-service training. The Committee recommends the
following training protocol to enhance its current training and ensure safety for
both the public and the deputies:
a. A certified instructor should teach the “basic user” course, as well as
yearly in-service training recertification.
b. Each user should receive annual re-training as dictated by the Training
staff.

Annual re-certification should include use of force issues and

practical applications with the Taser.
c. Each user should fire a minimum of two cartridges during the “basic user”
course.
d. It is highly recommended that users receive a sample “hit” during initial
training. This should not be mandatory.

36

e. Each user should be required to pass a written examination, with a
minimum score of 80%.
f. The Basic User course should be enhanced from a four hour curricula to
an eight hour curricula to include:
i. A verbal communications section, as suggested by Dr. Rueda.
This

should

include

basic

communication

skills,

operator

awareness of potential situations of concern (medical, cultural,
etc.), proper aftercare procedures and recognizing and dealing with
school age children.
ii. Practical scenario based decision making exercises.
iii. A thorough review of the research material on the Tasers, to
include this committee’s report.
Documentation
1. The Committee recognized that the Orange County Sheriff’s Office has done an
outstanding job tracking and monitoring the use of the Taser since its entry with
the Sheriff’s Office. There are two areas that would enhance this data gathering:
a. Generate a manner in which to capture data that shows how often a
deputy pulls his issued Taser without utilizing it. This data would prove
invaluable when comparing the number of times the Taser was effective
without being used.
b. Continue the detailed breakdown with regards to the Taser as
documented in the 2003 and 2004 Annual Use of Force Reports. This
documentation tracked the amount of times the Taser was deployed and
at what particular level of force. Though it has been reported the Taser
can be used at a low level of force, the overwhelming documentation
provided concludes this simply is not the case and, in fact, restraint and
discipline are being used by the deputies. Continued monitoring will aid in
recognizing potential problems.

37

2. The documentation and annual reporting should be shared with the community
and the agency. All agency members should be well versed in accurate facts
with regards to all use of force reporting.
Policy
1. This committee suggests the Taser have its own separate policy and should not
be incorporated within the overall Use of Force policy as currently constructed.
2. Additional verbiage should be incorporated within this stand-alone policy to
further guide the deputies in their decision making process during physical
encounters. Training will aid to this end.
3. Whereas case law supports this position, the current acceptable use of force
level when using a Taser is placed at a Level 3. The Taser should remain at this
level with additional restrictions noted in the policy and covered in detail through
all aspects of training. Simply stated, the Committee does not encourage the use
of a Taser on someone who merely verbally refuses to comply with a deputy’s
order. However, there are extenuating factors and identifiable behavioral cues
that deputies are trained to identify which fall within this same level of passive
physical resistance that need to be considered. Through proper training and
policy, these identifiable behavioral cues could prevent a tense and difficult
situation from escalating to a serious physical struggle. The Committee supports
a common sense approach to the deployment of the Taser within this level of
force.
General
1. This Committee feels the Taser is a safe and effective tool when utilized
appropriately and properly by the deputy.

When used appropriately, it

safeguards the public as well as the deputies.

38

2. Based on the professional medical experts, the Taser does not cause death or
serious injury. Further, the committee received medical testimony that this tool
was considered safer than other use of force options (baton, spray, striking,
kicking, etc.) currently used by law enforcement. As with any other use of force
option there is a risk associated with using force.
3. The Committee has reviewed and researched countless references, external
reviews, independent research articles, Taser manufacturer information, as well
as independent medical experts.

A great deal of time and effort has been

devoted to this research and the Committee would like to extend its existence for
another year to monitor its results and recommendations and be available to
consult with on any future initiatives with regards to the Taser.

39

Additional Reviews

•

Anthony Bleetman & Richard Steyn, The Advanced Taser: a Medical Review
(April 27, 2003).

•

Cape Coral Police Department, M-26 – Air Taser Program, Evaluation Report
(September, 2004).

•

Case Laws Reviewed: Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989), Tennessee
v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1985), Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir.
2004), Soller v. Moore, 84 F.3d 964, 968 (7th Cir. 1996), Russo v. Cincinnati, 953
F.2d 1036, 1045 (6th Cir. 1992), Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 336 (9th
Cir. 1988), Caldwell v. Moore, 968 U.S. F.2d 595, 600-01 (6th Cir. 1992), Alford
v. Osei-Kwasi, 418 S.E.2d 79, 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).

•

City of Cincinnati, Ohio- Review, Lt. Douglas C. Ventre (July, 2004).

•

Department of Defense, Taser Report.

•

Electronic Control Weapons: Liability Issues, Feb. 5 Edition/Police Chief
Magazine.

•

Florida Gulf Coast University, Dr. Mesloh, Taser Deployments and Injuries:
Analysis of Current and Emerging Trends (December, 2004).

•

IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, Electronic Control WeaponsModel Policy, August 2004.

•

Madison Police Department, TASER Report (Spring 2003).

•

Medical Presentations,
Examiner,

Jan C. Garavaglia, M.D., Orange County Medical

R. Vandervoort, Pharm.D,

Aurelio Duran, M.D., Orlando Heart

Center, Daniel F. Brennan, M.D., Emergency Physicians of Central Florida (July
28, 2004).
•

Miami-Dade

Grand

Jury,

Online

Article.

Located

at

http://www.taser.com/documnets/Miami Dade Grand Jury recs TASER 0105.pdf
•

News Article, Sheriff Beary Takes Taser Hit, EKG Results monitored.

•

Office of the Police Compliant Commissioner British Columbia, Canada. Web
site http://www.opcc.bc.ca?Reports/Reports%20Home%20Page.htm
40

•

Orange County Sheriff’s Office Annual Use of Force Reports 2001-2004.

•

Orange County Sheriff’s Office Policies and Procedures, G.O. 470 - Use of
Force, GO. 251 – In-Service, Roll Call and Specialized Training, G.O. 405 –
Detention Arrest and Search Procedure, G.O. 403 – Handcuffs and other
Restraints, G.O. 404 – Side-Handle Baton, Straight Baton or Expandable Baton,
G.O. 472 – Firearms Policy.

•

Police Training Institute State of Illinois, Position Paper of the Police Training
Institute1, (2004).

•

Seattle Police Department, Policy Governing Less Lethal Options: The M-26
Taser and the Patrol Less Lethal Shotgun with Beanbag Rounds (December,
2000).

•

Sergeant Darren Lauer Report & Review Excited Delirium and its correlation to
sudden and unexpected death proximal to restraint, A Review of The Current and
Relevant Medical Literature, Victoria Police Department (December, 2004).

•

TASER

International

Reference

Materials,

visit

at

http://www.taser.com/indiex,htm
•

Taser International, Taser M26 & X26 User Certification Course, Version X.1
(December, 2003).

•

Taser product brochures: Advanced Taser M26 and Taser X26 Product.

•

Zogby

International

Poll

on

Tasers,

Web

site

http://www.zogby,com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID-974

41