HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Consideration to Purchase 25 Tasers from Police Forfeiture Funds Center of Gond Liyih
s Y
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Meeting Date: May 3, 2005
Item #
Reviewed By:
Contact Name: S. Goclon Department Director:
Contact Number: X3021 City Manager: _ �i / Aero
Subject: Police Taser Purchase
Background Summary:
Tasers have been proven to reduce office and resistant subject injuries during confrontations that turn physical or
which have the propensity to turn physical. The Ocoee Police Department wishes to supply its officers with Tasers
to help protect themselves and others during such incidents. The Tasers and related equipment would be purchased
out of the police forfeiture fund.
Issue:
Should the Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners authorize the use of not more than $26,000 from
forfeiture funds to make an initial purchase of Tasers (sole source from DGG Taser Inc.) for police department use.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners authorize the use of not more than
$26,000 from forfeiture funds to make an initial purchase of Tasers (sole source from DGG Taser Inc.) for police
department use.
Attachments:
Sole source letter
DGG Taser quote
Financial Impact:
$26,000 from police forfeiture funds
Type of Item: (please mark with an "x')
Public Hearing For Clerk's Dept Use:
Ordinance First Reading Consent Agenda
Resolution Public Hearing
Commission Approval Regular Agenda
Discussion&Direction
Original Document/Contract Attached for Execution by City Clerk
Original Document/Contract Held by Department for Execution
Reviewed by City Attorney N/A
Reviewed by Finance Dept. N/A
Reviewed by ( ) N/A
1 -
MayorS' Center of Good Lit Commissioners
S. Scott Vandergrift g Danny Howell, District 1
CO EZScott Anderson, District 2
City Managers —' Rusty Johnson, District 3
Robert Frank _ Nancy J. Parker, District 4
STAFF REPORT
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: Steven J. Goclon, Chief of Police
DATE: April 25, 2005
RE: Police Taser Purchase
ISSUE
Should the Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners authorize the use of not more than $26,000 from
forfeiture funds to make an initial purchase of Tasers (sole source from DGG Taser Inc.) for police department
use.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Tasers are electrical defensive weapons which utilize low amperage electrical charge to disrupt neuromuscular
function. Tasers have been proven to reduce officer and resistant subject injuries during confrontations that turn
physical or which have the propensity to turn physical. The Ocoee Police Department wishes to supply its
officers with Tasers to help protect themselves and others during such incidents. The use of"hands on"tactics,
chemical weapons, expandable batons, impact munitions, and firearms may not be possible or appropriate when
verbal communications skills don't allow officers to control a combative subject. All of the aforementioned
types of force (with the exception of verbal communication skills) can result in permanent injury or death.
Chemical weapons and baton strikes (long traditional and accepted less lethal force options)result in either a
cumbersome decontamination process or medical attention or both. The Taser usually requires no medical
attention and recovery is almost instantaneous. The few deaths that have been reported in the news would have
occurred regardless of the use of force option used by police because conditions such as positional asphyxia or
because of subject factors such as acute cocaine intoxication and excited delirium. Many situations that would
have resulted in deadly force being used by officers have actually been avoided through the use of a Taser.
Tasers are issued by hundreds of police agencies throughout the country. The following police agencies in
Orange County issue Tasers to their officers: OCSO, Orlando PD, UCF PD, Maitland PD, Winter Garden PD,
Apopka PD, and Edgewood PD. The Orlando Sentinel recognizes that Tasers are a needed tool for police
officers and endorses their responsible use by the police. The Ocoee Police Department currently employs two
certified Taser instructors. Officers would be required to undergo training before being issued a Taser.
Taser International is the only company that currently manufactures a reliable, non-firearm Taser. Their sole
distributor in Florida is DGG Taser Inc. in Jacksonville. The purchase would include X-26 Tasers, holsters,
training cartridges, duty cartridges, and software.
17800 N. 85th St.*Scottsdale,Arizona*85255*1-480-991-0797*Fax 1-480-991-0791 *www.taser.com
4-20-05
To Whom It May Concern;
This letter is to confirm TASERTM International, Inc. is the sole source manufacturer of the less-
lethal TASER X26 Model 26000, 26001, and 26005.
TASER international is also the sole source manufacturer of the patented less-lethal Electro
Muscular Disruption TASER Brand M26, Model 44000 and 44005.
TASER International is also the sole source manufacturer of the patented, 15-foot Air Cartridges,
Model 34200, and the patented, 21-foot and 25-foot Air Cartridges, Model 44200, 44203, and,
44205. The Air Cartridges are required for the unit to function in the remote TASER mode.
These are some of the unique features the ADVANCED TASERS X26 and M26 have that are not
found with other TASERs:
The ADVANCED TASER M26 and X26 are the only less-lethal weapons systems that can
stop an aggressive, focused combat trained attacker.
The TASER X26 directly stimulates motor nerve and muscle tissue, causing
incapacitation regardless of mental focus, training, size, or drug induced dementia.
The TASER X26 comes with an on-board memory chip to download 2,000 past firings
based on the time and date the unit was fired to protect officers from unfounded charges
of misuse of force.
The ADVANCED TASER has over 94.9%field effectiveness rating.
The ADVANCED TASER M26 and X26 uses the exact same hand motions and muscle
memory as standard 9 mm semi-automatic pistols, drastically reducing the amount of
time required to train. User training and Instructor training materials are all on CDrom for
ease of reproduction for training.
Propulsion System for all air cartridges is compressed nitrogen (1800 to 2100 lbs/in2).
The Sole Authorized Police Distributor for Flordia is:
DGG Taser Inc.
10034 Plank Lane
Jacksonville, FL 32220
904/781-8184 Phone 904/781-8194 Fax
Please note the ADVANCED TASER TM, AIR lASERTM, and TASERTM are registered
trademarks. TASER-Wave TM is a trademark of TASER International Inc. Patent: U.S.
5,078,117 and others pending in the U.S. and Worldwide. Copyright 1999 TASER International,
Incorporated.
Please contact us at 1-800-978-2737 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Stacie Sund berg
Vice President, Global Sales Operations
Estimate
DGG
11111 A �l Date Estimate #
(114 „ i / C� � 4/1/2005 1095
TACTICAL SUPPLY
ESSENTIAL GEAR FOR AMERICA ' S HEROES
10034 PLANK LANE Department &Address
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32220
904-781-8184 FAX 904-781-8194 City of Ocoee
DGGTASER@AOL.COM Attn: Accounts Payable
150 N. Lakeshore Drive
Ocoee, FL 34761-2258
Item Description Quantity Rate Total
26000X X-26 Advanced Taser with light sight, low 25 810.00 20,250.00
intensity light, extended digital power
magazine, dataport download capability
and exo-skeleton holster
11007 X-26 BladeTech holster with TEK LOK 25 49.95 1,248.75
belt attachment and one cartridge holder
44228 Case of 21-foot air cartridges (28 in a case) 3 531.16 1,593.48
3 per officer for deployment and 9 spares
44205 Non-conductive 21-foot training cartridge 75 17.97 1,347.75
single shot for scenario based training
(Blue cartridge) 3 per officer
34200 15-foot air cartridge single shot 1 per 25 17.89 447.25
officer for training
26500 X-26 USB Dataport download software 1 149.95 149.95
and adapter kit
Freight Shipping&Handling 286.25 286.25
X-26 Warranty A 4-year extended warranty may be
purchased up to 1 year from date of
purchase for$179.95 per Taser.
ESTIMATE for X-26 Subtotal $25,323.43
Sales Tax (0.0%) $0.00
Total $25,323.43
DGG Estimate
Date Estimate#
BIM= JIIM AIM NMI
W
C 4/1/2005 1095 11114\41
°• & TACTICAL SUPPLY
ESSENTIAL GEAR FOR AMERICA ' S HEROES
10034 PLANK LANE Department & Address
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32220
904-781-8184 FAX 904-781-8194 City of Ocoee
DGGTASER@AOL.COM Attn: Accounts Payable
150 N.Lakeshore Drive
Ocoee,FL 34761-2258
Item Description Quantity Rate Total
26000X X-26 Advanced Taser with light sight, low 25 810.00 20,250.00
intensity light, extended digital power
magazine, dataport download capability
and exo-skeleton holster
11007 X-26 BladeTech holster with TEK LOK 25 49.95 1,248.75
belt attachment and one cartridge holder
`28 Case of 2l-foot air cartridges (28 in a case) 3 531.16 1,593.48
3 per officer for deployment and 9 spares
44205 Non-conductive 21-foot training cartridge 75 17.97 1,347.75
single shot for scenario based training
(Blue cartridge)3 per officer
34200 15-foot air cartridge single shot 1 per 25 17.89 447.25
officer for training
26500 X-26 USB Dataport download software 1 149.95 149.95
and adapter kit
Freight Shipping&Handling 286.25 286.25
X-26 Warranty A 4-year extended warranty may be
purchased up to 1 year from date of
purchase for$179.95 per Taser.
ESTIMATE for X-26
Subtotal $25,323.43
Sales Tax (0.0%) $0.00
Total $25,323.43
17800 N. 85th St.*Scottsdale,Arizona 85255*1-480-991-0797*Fax 1-480-991-0791 "www.taser.corn
4-20-05
To Whom It May Concern;
This letter is to confirm TASERTM International, Inc. is the sole source manufacturer of the less-
lethal TASER X26 Model 26000, 26001, and 26005.
TASER international is also the sole source manufacturer of the patented less-lethal Electro
Muscular Disruption TASER Brand M26, Model 44000 and 44005. .
TASER International is also the sole source manufacturer of the patented, 15-foot Air Cartridges,
Model 34200, and the patented, 21-foot and 25-foot Air Cartridges, Model 44200, 44203, and,
44205. The Air Cartridges are required for the unit to function in the remote TASER mode.
These are some of the unique features the ADVANCED TASERS X26 and M26 have that are not
found with other TASERs:
The ADVANCED TASER M26 and X26 are the only less-lethal weapons systems that can
stop an aggressive, focused combat trained attacker.
The TASER X26 directly stimulates motor nerve and muscle tissue, causing
incapacitation regardless of mental focus, training, size, or drug induced dementia.
The TASER X26 comes with an on-board memory chip to download 2,000 past firings
based on the time and date the unit was fired to protect officers from unfounded charges
of misuse of force.
The ADVANCED TASER has over 94.9% field effectiveness rating.
The ADVANCED TASER M26 and X26 uses the exact same hand motions and muscle
memory as standard 9 mm semi-automatic pistols, drastically reducing the amount of
time required to train. User training and Instructor training materials are all on CDrom for
ease of reproduction for training.
Propulsion System for all air cartridges is compressed nitrogen (1800 to 2100 lbs/in2).
The Sole Authorized Police Distributor for Flordia is:
DGG Taser Inc.
10034 Plank Lane
Jacksonville, FL 32220
904/781-8184 Phone 904/781-8194 Fax
Please note the ADVANCED TASER TM, AIR TASERTM, and TASERTM are registered
trademarks. TASER-Wave TM is a trademark of TASER International Inc. Patent: U.S.
5,078,117 and others pending in the U.S. and Worldwide. Copyright 1999 TASER International,
Incorporated.
Please contact us at 1-800-978-2737 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Stacie Sund berg
Vice President, Global Sales Operations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•_ INT RNATI ® FI•ALe
7860 E. McClain Drive, Suite 2 • Scottsd• •e, Arizona 85260 • www.TASER.com
• Phone: 480.991.0797 •810.978.2737 • Fax:480.991.0791 •
•
SUBJECT: • A CALL TO ACTION
•
• DATE: APRIL 1,2005
•
To the Law Enforcement Community,
As you have no doubt noticed,the level of debate about la enforcement officers'use of TASERTM devices is intensifying.On
one side are more than 7,000 agencies that use TASERs to•ave lives and reduce both officer and suspect injuries. On the other •
side are liberal activists who argue law enforcement offic rs use TASERs to abuse citizens.
TASER technology is helping save lives and we urge y. to learn more about its benefits. If you take the time to assign
someone in your agency to study the issue and learn the . you'll find that TASERs are saving lives. Moreover,medical
experts from your community can help answer questions-.out the science behind TASERs;to ensure the safety of both your
officers and your constituency,allowing you to make an• ormed decision regarding the tools your officers utilize to do their
jobs as safely as possible.
• Dozens of independent tests of TASER technology have b conducted,including an extensive,multi-million dollar three-year
study by the British Associations of Chief Police Office in consultation with the British Police Scientific Development
Branch,the British Defence Science.and Technology :boratory, and the British Defence Scientific Advisory Council
• Subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal eapons.The U.S.Department of Defense also conducted its own
study of more than 20 medical and research doctors from o era dozen academic,governmentand private institutions. These '
studies have reaffirmed the overall general safety and eff- tiveness of the TASER life-saving technology. In fact,the peer- •
reviewed journal Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology.ecently published the results of a cardiac safety study of TASER
technology in its January 2005 supplement. The results su_gest a safety index of>20 for human adults weighing more than 99
lbs.—a higher margin of safety than many over-the-coun r drugs,including Tylenol°.
But don't take our word for it. We encourage you to s. ak with opponents of the TASER technology,such as Amnesty
International and your local ACLU chapter. Then go to • .TASER.com/1 etfacts and requestthe data and studies available to
address these concerns.Make an informed decision.The adison(Wisconsin)Police Department recently completed just such
a project,available at www.TASER.com/SavingLives. strongly encourage you to do the same type of project
This is not an area intelligently discussed in sound bites. It a significant technology shift based on complex science. This is •
why we ask you to base your policy on facts—not headlin.s.Take the time to assign someone to research and understand this
topic in depth. Anything less,risks betting the health d safety of your officers on headlines that are designed to'sell
newspapers—not convey balanced scientific fact.
The good news is that the American public understands the.erils of law enforcement and the need for viable non-lethal weapon
technology such as TASER. This is underscored by a recent survey conducted by independent research firm.Zogby
International,which found that more than 77 percent of tho e surveyed supported the continued police use of the TASER,with
less than 17 percent opposing the concept
•
It is paramount that city councils and other key elected offi.ials understand that the controversy resides in the minds of a vocal
minority and the media and not in the minds of the general.ublic,who overwhelmingly support police having access tothese
valuable tools.It is easily Understood that the electric pulse.f a TASER is far safer thane bullet or being struck with an impact • •
weapon.
•
If you are currently using TASER devices,study your own esults. Evaluatethe impact on officer and suspect injuries and the
impact on the frequency of lethal force confrontations. An. finally,share your data:Both TASER and the law enforcement
agencies that use them are on trial in the court of public opini.n. It's important that the facts are publicized so informed decisions
are made. Silence is acquiescence. Whatever opinion you old on this important topic,now is the time for you to be heard.
•
We look forward to hearing from you, •
•
•
•
Rick Smith Tom Smith
CEO President
•
• •
•
•
* ' DISOk • •
•
• < GI i• mi� •
• • Ode
MADISON • POL CE DEPARTMENT
TASE " REPORT •
SUBMITTED TO CHIEF OF POLICE N .BLEWRAY BY LIEUTENANT VICTOR WAHL
S MMARY
In the summer.of 2003,the Madison Police Departm t(MPD)first deployed Tasers as part of an experimental pilot
program. The Taser program was one component of• effort to expand the non-lethal use-of-force options available to
Madison Police officers. The goal of this effort w, to provide officers with additional options that would reduce
• injuries to officers and citizens,and would reduce offi•ers'utilization of deadly force.The Taserprogram was expanded
significantly in early 2004,withi resulting increase in Taser deployments. This report serves as a summary of MPD's
Taser program to date. The report's key findings:
• MPD's deployment of the Taser has redu ed injuries to officers and suspects resulting from
' use-of-force encounters.
•
• MPD's deployment of the Taser has red ced MPD officers'utilization of deadly force.
• The Taser has proven to be a safe and e ective use-of-force tool.
• MPD officers are deploying the Taser in•n appropriate manner.
•
ISTORY • - •
In early 2000,the use-of-force tools/techniques avail..le to Madison Police were limited to empty-hand techniques
(including compliance holds,takedown techniques,an'active countermeasures,like punches or kicks),OC spray,the
baton,and firearms(officers'individual handguns or u e AR-15 patrol rifle). The department recognized several things
about those use-of-force options:
• They all relied on either causing pain or cau ing injury to be effective. Some subjects—whether
they be under the influence of alcohol or co.trolled substances,have mental health issues,or are
• simply extremely mentally focused—do n respond to pain and are extremely difficult for.
officers to control with traditional use-of-fo ce tools/techniques.
• They offered officers no way to deliver no. deadly force from a safe distance.
• They were,for the most part,the same use-o-force options that officers in the 1960's(or earlier)
had available.
•
As a result of these recognitions,the department began•xploring other use-of-force options. In the summer of2000,the
department implemented a less-lethal projectile progr.m(bean-bag rounds fired from 12 gauge shotguns), Initially,
approximately 70 officers were trained in the use of ime act projectiles,and shotguns designated as less-lethal weapons
were deployed'in certain squads and to District Stations Other impact projectile weapons were also deployed with the
Special Events Team. At the time we proposed implem nting the less-lethal program,less-lethal tecehnologies were not
•
- '-• -new,and had(iii various forms)been in use acro s the nation for years. However,we felt that at that time technology
had progressed to the point that it was appropriat: for the department to move forward(the particular advancement was
• • the development of the"super sock"round,offe '.g a proper balance of effectiveness and safety).
• Since the initial deployment of patrol less-lethal ojectile weapons,the program has expanded to over 100 trainedusers
and about 40 less-lethal shotguns. The less-le .:1 projectiles offer one significant advantage over traditional use-of-
force tools/techniques:the ability to deliver non deadly force from a safe distance. However,they do stiffer from the
same limitation as most other tools/techniques: .ey rely on causing pain or causing injury to be effective. As stated
above,some subjects will not respond to pain, •,d are no more likely to respond to less-lethal projectiles than to other .
use-of-force tools/techniques.[Note:as of Janu 31,2005,MPD officers have deployed less-lethal projectiles in 9
incidents;5 of those deployments likely allowe•'officers to avoid the use of deadly force] •
' Since the time we began discussing the less-l•thal projectile program, several of us on the department had been •
monitoring other developments in police use-o l force technology. One device I had researched and tracked was the
M26 Advanced Taser,manufactured by Taser .ternational. In October of 2002,I attended an/v126 Taser Instructor
• certification course, to gain additional info is:tion about the Taser. The Taser, I learned, functions by causing . •
electromuscular disruption(EMD).The electri al wave of the Taser mimics the wave that the human brain uses to
communicate with the body;when the Taser •ve is inserted into the body,it overrides these electrical impulses,
creating a contraction of the body's muscles d preventing the brain from exercising voluntary control over the
muscles. The result is incapacitation. My res-. ch suggested a number of advantages the Taser offered over traditional •
use-of-force tools/techniques: -
.
• Because the Taser causes EMD,it do s not rely on causing pain or causing injury to be effective.
As such,it allows suspects to be con.,.11ed in most cases without injury;and it is effective against •
subjects who are not responsive •. pain (subjects who have historically been extremely
challenging—and dangerous—for o ii cers to control).
• The Taser allows officers to control.uspects from a safe distance(up to 21 feet). _
. • Traditional use-of-force tools/techni;ues exhibit a direct relationship between effectiveness and .
propensity for injury:techniques tha are located near the bottom of the use of force continuum
• (such as escort holds,pain complian e,etc.) are very unlikely to cause injury,but are also very
unlikely to be effective in controllin: a subject who is non-compliant;techniques located higher
• on the continuum(baton strikes,acti e countermeasures,etc.) are male likely to be effective in'
gaining control of a non-compliant• bject,but are also very likely to cause injury. The Taser,
however,offers the best of both w..lds. The Taser is extraordinarily effective in controlling
• resistive subjects,while also being xtraordinarily safe(causing virtually no injury in the vast
` majority of cases,and causing no.lo,g-term injury or adverse effects).
•
• • The Taser internally records the da e and time each time it is deployed, and that data can be
downloaded to a computer and revie ed. The data download will show the time and date for each
• time the Taser is deployed,as well.•the duration of each deployment(how long the Taser current
' is delivered). Each Taser will store.•to for about 2,000 firings. Also,each air cartridge has an
individual serial number,and also c,ntains about 20-40 AFID's(anti-felon identification). The '
" AFID's are small confetti-like piec of paper that are fired from the air cartridge when the Taser
,•. is deployed. Each AFID is printed 'th the unique serial number of the air cartridge it was fired
`. from.This offers a higher degree of•versight and accountability than any other use-of-force tool.
• The electrical output of the Taser is ell-below established safety standards,and has no long-term
effects. .
• Agencies that had deployed the Tas r saw a decrease in injuries(to both officers and suspects),a
reduction in officers'use of more'.trusive use-of-force tools/techniques(such as baton strikes)
and a reduction in officers'utilizati.n of deadly force. .
x
As a result of this research, in early 2003 •aptain Snyder (then a.Lieutenant) and I gave a presentation to the
Management Team,recommending that the d:.artment move forward with deployment of the Taser.Chief Williams
°' and the Management Team endorsed the con• pt,and the department acquired two M26 Advanced Tasers as a pilot•
• program in mid-2003. Initially,.about fifteen embers of the Emergency Response Team were•Irained to use the M.26,
,� and were authorized to carry the Tasers with .-mon patrol. The department's first Taser deployment was on July 18,
2003. From July of 2003 to February of 200• there were a total of eleven M26 Taser'deployments.
r
In 2003,while we were moving forward wi . our pilot M26 Taser program,Taser International introduced the X26 .
(4 Taser. The X26 offered a number of advanta•es over the M26. The primary advantage of the X26 was its small size;
• •s•; while the M26 is comparable in size to a Gl.ck 17 handgun,the X26 is 60%smaller and lighter.(this difference is
critical,as officers trained in the M26 found it difficult to fit on their duty belts). Given the many advantages the X26
-' offered over the M26,we determined that an future MPD Taser purchases would be of the X26. •
fit- .
l
1' i
•
A presentation on the Taser was made to the Public Safety Review Board in May of 2003,and presentations were made
to the Mayor's Capital Improvement Review Committee in both 2003 and 2004. A press conference unveiling the Taser
to the public was held,and local media did a number of stories/articles ori the.Taser.
In January of 2004,.the department ordered 31 X26 Tasers (and associated equipment) from Taser International,
utilizing Block Grant funds.The equipment arrived in early-March(literally one day before the first user training was
scheduled). In March and April of 2004,about 100 MPD sergeants and officers were trained as X26 Taser users.While •
Taser International recommends a four-hour training course for users,we provided a full eight-hour day oftraining.The
training consisted oh classrooni segment,followed by a written test. The remainder of the training consisted of hands-
on training with the Tasers,including weapon retention instruction and a practical Taser deployment scenario. Some
1 points of emphasis during the training:
• The preferred mode of control in any police/citizen encounter remains verbal dialog. While the
Taser (and a few years earlier, the less lethal projectiles) offer alternatives not previously
• available,officers still need to attempt to gain control through verbal dialog in all but the most
severe circumstances;and should not accelerate the transition from verbal dialog to physical force
simply because of the Taser.
•
• While the Taser is generally an effective tool,in the field it will not.always be effective, and
officers need to be prepared to rely on other tools/techniques if necessary.
• • Officers need to be aware of their environment prior to deploying the Taser (presence of
flammables,other hazards,etc.).
• Officers should be aware of the symptoms .of Excited Delirium, and seek medical -
attention/evaluation for those subjects once they are in custody.
Training was provided to operations sergeants,and a selected group of operations-assigned officers(drawing from the
pool of officers who had been trained in the use of the less-lethal shotgun).
• One additional training session was held in October of 2004,bringing the total number of MPD Taser trained personnel
to 113.
The Tasers were deployed to the CCB and District Stations for checkout by Taser trained personnel.Throughout 2004,I
was able to expand our Taserinveittory somewhat,and the Task Force also purchased three Tasers(from Task Force
funds). We currently have 40 X26's deployed as follows: •
•
• . , District Tasers Deployed
CCB • 12 •
• NPD 8 •
SPD 8
• WPD 9
DCNAGTF 3
ANALYSIS OF DEPLOYMENTS
• As of January 31, 2005,MPD officers have deployed Tasers (M26 and X26) 92 times, in 83 incidents. In some
instances,one suspect/incident was responsible for multiple deployments(for example,a probe shot where the probes
missed followed by a drive-stun). .
• From the beginning of MPD's Taser program,all Taser re7orts have been routed to me. I have maintained a database of •
information regarding Taser deployments,and have analyzed a variety of factors related to MPD's Taser deployments:
Success Rate/Failures
4 i Of the 92 Taser deployments,71(or 77%)were effective(Meaning the weapon functioned and allowed the suspect to be
taken into custody). Of the ineffective deployments,the causes were:
. • Failure Cause Number Percentage of Total
Deployments
44 Probes Missed(one or both) 8 9% '
Thick/Heavy Clothing 6 7% .
Wires Broke During Fall or 3 . 3%
Handcuffing
t • Drive-Stun Failure 2 2%,
Weapon Malfunction 1 1% _ j
Williamson Street Incident 1 1%
•
t •.;,..,•`.:1,4
aka;";-1,1,,• .,
f
Note that in some of the"failure"cases the suspect still col.plied. For example,in several incidents the suspect did not i
receive any-significant Taser current due to heavy do .•.:,but still chose to comply with no escalation in force use.
Recall that the Taser can be used in two modes,a probe de loyment(an attached air cartridge fires two probes a distance ;-,,.•,„*
of up to 21 feet),and the drive-stun mode(with the air c: •'dge removed,the weapon can deliver a contact stun).While
the probes will deliver an incapacitating EMD effect(as•escribed above),the drive-stun mode only results in a stun ;i . ,
effectawful stimulus). Asa general rule,therefore,the drive-stun is not nearly as effective as a probe deployment.
(P
The drive-stun failure category includes incidents where o:.cers delivered drive-stuns and the suspect did not respond , •
Some other drive-stun instances resulted in different res.onses and varying degrees of effectiveness,so quantifying '"- f.,.
these deployments was somewhat subjective.
A Taser malfunctioned during one field deployment •' officers were struggling with a subject, and an officer
Y r
attempting to deliver a drive-stun to the subject noted that the Taser was not functioning(no spark at all). The subject :
was controlled after the Taser malfunction,and no injuri>s resulted. -
Williamson Street Incident–On June 14,2004,David Lo.ez,having just engaged in a violent confrontation,physically -
attached MPD Officer Deanna Reilly,stole an MPD squa• (crashing it a short distance away),then physically attacked - ;,,s
and attempted to disarm MPD Sergeant Karen Krahn,ca .g her to use deadly force(Lopez survived). A Taser was ,,,r'
deployed earlyin the incident,but Lopez was not incapaci • ed. The failure of the Taser to incapacitate Lopez generated
almost as much media attention as the officer-involved .•oting did.To understand what I believe happened with the t "�•`,
Lopez Taser deployment,two facts about the Taser must.e recalled. First,as a general rule,a wider probe spread will 2
lead to a more effective Taser deployment Probe spreads.f a few inches or less will generally result in a painful effect r.,L-'•
to the suspect,but not a full EMD incapacitating effect. •e second issue to recall is that the Taser works by causing •
_ • £ '
involuntary contraction of muscle tissue. As such,if the .robes impact an area on the body that has a low volume of a •
muscle mass,the Taser will be less effective. '..,:.."...r..7,-
_
As Lopez initially assaulted Officer Reilly,he was in ye close proximity to her(a few feet away). Officer Reilly ,{
t ''recalled seeingthe laser aim point from her Taser on Lops upper sternum just prior to deP toYent. Officer Reilly
stated that Lopez tensed up somewhat and screamed as a esult of the Taser deployment,a reaction consistent with a
close probe spread in an area of low muscle mass. Lopez .ed and,in a rigid manner,walked a few steps awayfrom
P P � P •0,`",,,r. •
• Officer Reilly. From Officer Reilly's description,it is cl•ar that Lopez was feeling an effect-albeit a limited one—
from the Taser. However,Lopez was suddenly able to . and resume his aggression towards Officer.Reilly. It is not - nti, ''
clear what allowed Lopez to regain full control of his bod but the most likely possibility is that one of the probes came "" -`'
loose. Testing of the Taser after the incident showed it t• function properly. After the shooting,Lopez continued to '�came ',,,-
resist and several drive-stuns were delivered to him. The e were described as having some effect on Lopez. .-`i-
While this incident was widely cited as a Taser"failure," t appears to have simply reflected two known limitations of '
the Taser (close probe spreads and low muscle mass .'ts).. Also, Lopez's ability to resist on that evening was 'r
extraordinary;after crashing a squad car into a tree at . gh speed and being shot four times,he continued to resist . k
violently.
Deadly Force Avoided '":;,'
A review of MPD Taser deployments shows that in six c: es it can fairly be said that the Taser deployment allowed
officers to avoid having to utilize deadly force. Exampl:s: ,-, . ``
''it
~
• • An armed robbery suspect.fled on foot fro.. officers, then was surrounded but refused to 3." r'
surrender. The suspect indicated that he had• weapon,and reached into his waistband as if he
'
was attempting to draw the weapon. The T••er was deployed and thesuspect was taken into
custody without injury to officers or the suspe et. After the incident,the suspect told the officers
he was trying to force them to shoot him and .• ed them for not doing so. ..,';:
• A suicidal subject sat on the edge of his bed,. ..ed with a large butcher knife. He repeatedly told ,-
the officers that he was going to charge them • 'th the knife and force them to shoot him. The
Taser was deployed and the suspect was tak•n into custody without injury to officers or the
suspect.
a
• Officers knocked on an apartment door, atte• pting to contact a sexual assault suspect. The1",•••-...-4 '
suspect opened the door with a small knife in. hand. The suspect refused to drop the knife,and • '7.,,,,,:".,
began to raise it to the officers. The Taser was deployed,and the suspect was taken into custody ,
without injury to officers or the suspect.
. • A suicidal subject in a hotel room armed himse f with a box cutter. The subject refused to comply '' - •
with officers,telling them,"You're going to ha e to kill me."The individual had inflicted cuts to ?"- -', u''-•f.„-
both
f-both of his wrists,and was bleeding as a res t. The Taser was deployed,and the suspect was `°;. „
taken into custody without injury to the officers or further injury to the suspect. y ` '
I
Y
ra
Also,several of the instances in which Taser use was threaten•or the Taser was displayed(but not deployed)involved
armed subjects. Those incidents easily could have rapidly esca ated to deadly force encounters without the presence of4111
•
the Taser.
•
• Qther Notable Deployments
The first MPD Taser deployment,on July 18,2003,demons••ted the benefits of the device. A subject needing to be
taken into custody for a mental health commitment had barric.•ed himself in an East Side hotel room. The individual
was extremely large(6'5",265 pounds),and had a history of re isting officers. In fact,during a previous incidentwhere
officers had confronted the individual,it took 10 officers almo 10 minutes to subdue him(OC spray and baton strikes
• were both used with no effect).The individual and several offi.ers sustained minor injuries during that encounter. The.
officers attempting to extract this subject from his hotel room• ere aware of this,and requested that I respond with a
Taser(at that time I was the only one on MPD trained to use .e Taser). After lengthy efforts to get the individual to
exit voluntarily were not successful,we entered the room. .e subject was in the small bathroom,crouching on the
toilet,completely nude. He was shouting incoherently,and ad flooded the bathtub,making the tile floor wet and
• slippery. I deployed the Taser,and the individual was taken in o custody in a matter of seconds,with no injuries to the
subject or officers. Had officers been forced to take . into.custody with traditional police use-of-force
• tools/techniques,there can be little question that a high degree of force would have been required,and that injuries
would have resulted. •
Other Taser deployments have demonstrated the great benefi•provided by the Taser. Examples:
• At about 2 a.m.on a weekend,officers responded t.the 500 block of State Street for a large fight
involving more than 100 subjects. The first offic who arrived noted that the disturbance was .
being instigated by a large individual(6'4,",235 .•unds),who was actively fighting with two
individuals.Numerous bystanders were hgstile to .e officers;and some physically attempted to -
prevent them from•intervening. An officer deployed the Taser,which incapacitated the subject,
allowing him to be taken into custody without inj . The Taser deployment also caused the rest
of crowd to back away and cease their aggressive .ehavior. This incident would undoubtedly
have required the use of much more intrusive use-o,-force tools/techniques without the Taser,and
injuries would likely have resulted.
•
• An officer responded to a two-car accident on the I ity's east side. The officer observed that two •
subjects from one of the vehicles were acting in a <.icious manner,and also determinedthat one
of them had battered the driver of the other vehicl' prior to police arrival. As the officer—still
alone—attempted to frisk onetf the suspects,the s spect(6',200 pounds)turned and attempted to•
• punch the officer. The officer backed away,and the suspect moved towards him in an aggressive
•
•manner. The officer deployed the Taser,and w.• able to take the suspect into custody. This
incident—a single officer facing multiple,hostile spects—would likely have resulted in injuries
to the officer or the suspects without the Taser. •
•
• ' An officer working the night shift was attempting to locate a motorcycle that was fleeing from i
him. The officer located the motorcycle and ride ,laying in the roadway on a curve. As the
officer pulled up,the rider got up and began liftin_the cycle to continue his flight. The suspect
refused to comply with the officer's directions,an. a brief struggle ensued. The suspect broke • .
free from the officer and again tried to flee on the•.•torcycle. The officer deployed his Taser,and
• the suspect was taken into custody. The Taser de• oyment in this incident prevented the risk to
officers and citizens associated with vehicle pur ts.
• MPD officers were assisting an outside agency . 'th a barricaded suicidal subject who was
believed to be armed. The subject refused to surr .der,and indicated that he was armed. During
the incident,the subject also illuminated officers o: the perimeter with a high-powered spotlight.
The subject indicated that he had taken an overdo•e,then exited the residence,still refusing to
comply with officers. .An MPD sergeant deplo ed the Taser,and the subject was taken into
custody without injuries. This deployment preve. ed the subject from re-entering his residence .
and arming himself,and allowed officers to provi•e emergency medical care to the subject.
• Officers responded to a robbery that occurred do• •town. Six suspects had fled on foot,and
officers engaged in multiple-foot pursuits. One •fficer chasing a suspect drew his Taser,and
projected the Iaser aimpoint on the ground in fent of the suspect. The suspect immediately
stopped and complied. Elsewhere,two officers ha. flushed four of the suspects out of a wooded
area. The four suspects fled towards perimeter o i cers,one of whom drew her Taser.One of the
suspects recognized this,telling the others,"She' got a Taser." All four suspects stopped and
complied at that point.
• Two night-shift officers contacted two subjects b:lieved to be involved in drug activity in a bar
parking lot. The driver quickly started the car and:ttempted to put it in gear. One of the officers 1'
•
•
leaned in the car and struggled with the suspect,attempting to prevent him from starting the car.
Before the driver was able to put the car in gear,the Taser was deployed,preventing him from
operating the car. The bar parking lo was crowded with people,,and the Taser deployment
• • prevented the suspect from posing a ri to the officers and bystanders.
Distance
The maximum range of the Taser probes is 21 feet note that a new air cartridge manufactured by Taser International but •
not yet deployed by MPD has a range of 25 feet The Taser probes/wires spread out as they travel away from the
officer(the probes spread 1 foot for every 7 feet they travel),resulting in a wider spread between probes at longer
distances(the bottom probe will impact 3 feet belo• the top one at the maximum range of 21 feet). As a result,it can be
more difficult to ensure that both probes will impa t the target at long distances.As might be expected,the majority of �•
Taser deployments occurred at relatively close r••ge(11 feet or less):
Distance Deployments(92 total)
Drive-stun 31 •
1-3 feet • 12
4=7 feet 20
8-11 feet 20
12-15 feet 6
16-21 feet 3
Injuries '
The Taser fires two small metallic probes which if they impact the body, create very small punctures (similar to
mosquito bites). In many cases the probes.don't "pact the skin,and simply connect with the clothing. Only a small
number of the incidents in which Tasers were depl.yed resulted in any injury(to either officers or suspects)beyond the
minor punctures sometimes caused by the Taser p obes:
Incidents in which suspects were inj ed(beyond probe punctures) 6
Suspect injuries requiring medical tre,tment 2
Incidents in which officers were injur.d 3
Officer injuries requiringmedical tre.uuent 1
•
Of the suspect injuries,two were due to the suspec falling as result of the Taser incapacitation(both resulted in minor
injuries,one required medical attention and 7 su. es). Three of the suspects sustained minor scrapes struggling with
officers or being handcuffed(none requiring medic' attention). One suspect was shot with a firearn during the incident
(requiring medical attention).
Of the officer injuries,one was a minor scrape ca sed by an officer falling during a foot pursuit(the Taser had been
deployed prior to the foot pursuit but was ineffe e,likely due to a probe falling out or wire breakage),no medical
attention was required. Two officers sustained minor injuries during the incident in which the suspect was shot(not
requiring medical attention). One officer sustained a dislocated shoulder in a struggle with a suspect after Taser
deployment(the Taser was only marginally effective,due to heavy clothing),medical attention was required. •
•Time of Day
The majority of Taser deployments occurred on MPD's 2°d and 3th shifts:
Shift Deployments Percentage
1" 9 10%
2m 40 • 43%
3m 43 47%
••
While Taser-trained officers were distributed across patrol shifts fairly evenly,a number of neighborhood officers and
CPT officers-all working primarily evening hours—were Taser trained. While this may have contributed to the
•
disparity in Taser deployments between day hours and evening/night hours,it is likely that the difference simply reflects •.
MPD staffing allocations,as well as the volume and nature of calls for service on the different shifts.
9
•
Subject Age •
•
The majority of Taser deployments were against subjects between the age of 19 and 43.The youngest subject a Taser
F�_T
was deployed against was 14,the oldest was 60.
•
•
- - • -. .. .. - a.%A^,, ....,t�:] N -.°L.Y ., +�V. iM1'...K-�'Y J`!bM' 1;. .ri.
ri
r
• Ale Ran:a Number of Sub'ects Percenta l e*
14-18 7 . 8% -
19-23 15 18%
��-
' 24-28 17 20%
14%29-33 . .12 •
16%
39-43 13
34-38
10 12%
44-48 5 � 6%
2 • 2 0
/0
� 49-53 . .
54+ . 2 2% '
1. * Percentages are rounded,as a result they do not add up to 100 .
`�+ groups in It is not clear if other use-of-force tools/techniques employed by MPD officers are applied to variousagegr P
pattern similar to that of the Taser. However,a review of MPD arrest data(for 2003)—showing percentages of total
1vjPD arrests by age-is relevant: .
0
A!,eRan:e •
Percenta a of Total MPD Arrests
14-18 24%
19-23 • 34% .
24-29 12%
' 30-34 7%
35-39 7%
40-44 7%
ts
45-49 5% •
!,
1 ' 50-54 3% I
55-59 1% - I
' 60-64 __ Less than 1%
65+ Less than 1% 1
While the utilization of the Taser against subjects in the 14-18 year-old age range has created some controversy locally,
this data suggests that MPD officers exercise considerable restraint with respect to deploying Tasers during arrests of
t .` subjects in that age range(accountiin g for 24%of arrests but only 8%of Taser deployments).
Race/Gem
-The race and gender of the 83 subjects against whom the Taser was deployed:
* Gender/Race De lo ments
Per centa l e
M/W 36 43%
t - MB 30 36%
M/A 1 1%
M/H 5 6% I
`3 F/W . 7 8%
�• • FB
4 5%
•
"" MID arrest data(from 2003)shows that MPD arrest rates(by race)are comparable(arrest rates:white:63%;black:
44 34%)to Taser deployment rates(by race).
Location
' Taser deployments by MPD district:
ri.
District De.lo ments Percenta l e
._. East 12 13%
• ;, _ . North 20 22%
20%
r Central lg 17% -
.iti South 24 26%
West
'y ^ Outside City* 2 2%
* One of these incidents was an MPD officer assisting an outside agency;one was an MPD
• , pursuit that ended outside of the City.
r
;�, ' For comparison,this data can be compared to MPD calls for service and violent crimes reported(by MPD Distfict):
Vr. ;
•
•
•
District 2003 Calls for Service(percentage of 2003 Violent Crimes
• • MPD total) (percentage of MPD total)
• East 14% 13%
North 17% 15%
Central . 28% 29%
South 15% • 19%
West 23% 25%.
When determining which officers to tain in use of the Taser,consideration was given to district,so Taser trained
personnel(in 2004)were split across districts fairly evenly. These numbers indicate that Taser deployments by
geographic area are fairly consistent with overall demand for police services.
Criminal Charges
The 83 subjects who were.taken into custody during incidents in which the Taser was deployed accounted for a total of
30 felony and 144 misdemeanor charges(as a result of the incidents). 13 of the subjects were taken into custody for a
non-criminal reason(protective custody,mental health commitment,emergency detention,etc.).
Resulting Charges to Subject Number Percentage
Misdemeanor Charges On y 49 .59%
Misdemeanor&Felony Charges 20 24%
Protective Custody,Emergency Detention,etc. 13 16%
*Resulting charges in one:.ncident-where an MPD officer deployed the Taser while assisting
another police agency-are unknown. •
Weapons.
Officers trained to use Tasers are clearly instructed that the Taser is not a substitute for deadly force. It would be
inappropriate under MPD policy for an officer faced with a potential deadly force encounter to utilize a Taser.
However,if another officer is present at a scene with the ability to immediately deliver deadly force,it would be
appropriate for an officer to arm him or herself with a Taser(and deploy it,if appropriate). That being said,some of the
suspects involved in Taser incidents were armed:
Number of armed suspects(actual Taser deployments)"' 6
S . Number of armed suspects (incidents where Taser was displayed or Taser use was 3
threatened)
Taser Display Or Threatened Use •
In Spring of 2004,when the Taser pro am was expanded,Taser-trained officers were instructed not only to forward all
reports involving actual deployments o Tasers to me,but to also route reports where officers displayed or threatened to
deploy a Taser in order to gain compli ce from a suspect. In 47 instances,officers gained compliance from suspects by
•
• displaying or threatening to deploy the aser. These suspects-were taken into custody with no physical force being used, •
and with no injuries to officers or susp cts. Notably,some of these instances involved suspects who refused to comply
when confronted with firearms;only en the Taser was displayed did the suspect comply.Some suspects reported
being aware of the Taser and its capa 'ties,and consciouslychoosing not to resist as a result.
Officers initially trained in the use of e Taser(in 2003)were not instructed to forward these reports to me,so it is
likely that the total number of these c es is slightly higher.
Many of these instances involved susp cts that were displaying behavior indicative of significant resistance. There can
be little doubt that most of these ins ces would have resulted in physical confrontations without the presence of the
Taser,and that at least some of these p ysical confrontations would have resulted in injuries to the suspect,officers,or
• • both. Several of these incidents invol ed subjects who were armed;those easily could have escalated to deadly force
encounters without the Taser's presen e. •
Citizen Complaints I • •
-
The department has received no citize#i complaints about any of the Taser deployments"
SU II CESS OF MPD TASER PROGRAM
At the outset of the MPD Taser prog our belief was that deploying the Taser with MPD officers would achieve'two
primary goals:
1110 • • . A reduction in injuries to o leers and suspects from use-of-force encounters.
• A reduction in officers'uti ation of deadly force.
•
I
•
K I
•
eTofullyunderstandthebenefitsofthe'Taser,abriefdisc sion ofpohce use of force is in order. The purpose of police
..
use-of--force is to gain control of a subject in pursuit of•legitimate law enforcement objective. Officers can use that
i ,; degree of force that is reasonable and necessary under th=circumstances. The U.S.Supreme Court has articulated three
'‘ general factors that will be used to evaluate the reason .leness of a police use-of-force: ,
t`.. . • The severity of the crime.
i` '
Clv',' 4 • Whether the suspect poses a threat to the saf- of officers or citizens.
„1,-'1' ° Whether the suspect is actively resisting arre t or attempting to evade arrest.
The reasonableness of an officer's actions will be judge.based on what information the officer knew at the time of the
'' incident(not through 20/20 hindsight). Officers are no required to use the minimum amount of force in any given
a. : situation;the constitutional standard is reasonableness.
wIn Wisconsin,a force continuum serves as a framewor,.for officers in making use-of-force decisions:
Mode Tactic Purpose
Presence Professional Presence To present a visible display of authority
i^ Tactical Communicatio To verbally persuade
4 ,
� Dialog
:r:'i
v.' Empty Hand Control Escort Holds To safely initiate contact
' Compliance Holds To overcome passive resistance
OC Spray To overcome active resistance or its threat
:' a Passive Countermeasures To decentralize
,r -. [Taser]
`4 r Active Countermeasure To create dysfunction
",4,...-:-'' Incapacitating Techniq es To cause the immediate,temporary
:w_, cessation of violent behavior
h 4
Intermediate Weapon Intermediate Weapons To impede a subject
''• [Less Lethal Projectiles
Deadly Force FireTo stop P the threat
a` [Note that the State of Wisconsin does nc1t currently incorporate the Taser or less lethal
a',_ia projectiles into the force continuum,they are reflected above as placed in the continuum under
f .. MPD policy.]
>3r
Officers are authorized to initially use the level and de e of force that is reasonably necessary to achieve control;it is
-51 . not necessary to escalate step-by-step through the c tinuum. Tools/techniques located near the bottom of the
continuum(tactical communication,escort holds,etc.) e very unlikely to cause injury,but are also very unlikely to
,c' t +; gaincontrol of a non-compliant subject. Tools/techni ues located near the top of the continuum(the intermediate
weapon—the baton;or active countermeasures—punch s,kicks,forearm strikes or knee strikes)are more hkelyto gain
control of a non-compliant subject,but are also much ore likely to cause injury. So,tools/techniques that would be
' used as alternatives to the Taser are more likely to cause jury(indeed,if they are done properly,they will cause injury)
than the Taser, but are less likely to be effective an.the Taser (particularly when dealing with extremely
"' resistive/violent subjects).
RC1 `;,.
A
Injury reduction-As indicated above,use-of-force inc dents involving the Taser resulted in very few injuries.There
were 130 total use-of-force incidents involving Tasers( 3 incidents involving actual deployments,and 47 where officers
6'-'40' ' ' threatened to use or displayed the Taser). Given the alt rnative use-of-force tools/techniques(baton strikes,punches,
,''',';',4!• w kicks,etc.) officers would have employed in many o the incidents where the Taser was deployed, and the high
rte, .,. propensity for those tools/techniques to cause injury,there is no question that both the number and severity of injuries
(to both officers and suspects)would have been far higher but for the Taser,
111, , f,.• Injury Type Number Percentage of Taser Incidents
•
1 r Incidents in which suspects were injured 6 . 5%
Suspect injuries requiring medical treatment 2 2%
r.--; rws:i, Incidents in which officers were injured 3 2%
'+
,.;;..t , .rOfficer injuries requiring medical treatment 1 Less than 1%
VT 1.x s:-°>. National studies have consistently shown that police !e-of-force encounters often result in injuries to officers and
'f =-Y.1-.,:- suspects. Comparing these figures to injury rates from D use-of-force encounters involving.the Taser shows that the'
Taser does lead to a reduction in injuries to both office and suspects:
I
k 6+
•
Percentage of MPD use-of-force National Averages,all use-of-force
incidents involving Taser incidents
Injuries to 2% 10%.
Officers I
Injuries to 5% 38%
Suspect
•
As part of the process of researching the Taser and proposing an MPD Taser program,MPD officer injuries(resulting
from physical confrontations with suspects) were analyzed (by reviewing MPD worker's compensation forms).
Comparing that data(from 2002)with similar data collected from 2004 also illustrates the benefit on overall MPD
• officer injuries since the Taser was deployed:
2002 2004
Incidents where MPD officers were injured during physical confrontations 90 68
with suspects .
.Missed work days by officers as a result of these injuries (worker's comp 29 26
days)
Light duty days as a result of these injuries 54 25
Using average MPD officer salary,value of missed work time $24,714 $15,899 •
This reduction cannot necessarily be correlated only to the Taser,but it does further indicate the benefit of the Taser. It
• is also important to note that Taser deployment was not expanded until Spring of 2004(so for the first few months ofthe
year,there were only a handful of Taser-trained officers and only two Tasers available for use),that only a limited
number of officers are Taser trained,and that only a limited number of Tasers are available for checkout. Expanded
deployment of the Taser would likely further reduce officer and suspect injuries.
Deadly Force Utilization—As indicated above,a number of incidents where the Taser was deployed allowed officers to
• avoid having to resort to the use of deadly force. Also,some of the incidents in which displaying or threatening to use
• the Taser resulted in compliance could have very easily escalated to deadly force encounters.As such,the Taser clearly
has reduced MPD officers'utilization of dadly force. . •
• TASER SAFETY
When we first researched and deployed Tasers in 2003,there was strong evidence demonstrating the Taser's safety.
Since then,several new reports on Taser safety have been released. The most notable was conducted by.the Department
of Defense (Human Effgcts Center of Excellence). While the full report is not yet available,a summary has been
• released. The summary states:
•
[U]se of the Taser M26 and X26,as intended,will generally be effective in inducing the desired
temporarily incapacitating effect without presenting a significant risk of unintended severe effects.
•
The summary also stated: . . •
...increased use of the Taser M26 or the Taser X26 has decreased the overall injury rate of both•
police officers and suspects in conflict situations when compared to alternatives along the use-of-
• force continuum. _
•
Another Taser safety study was recently pu'lished in a peer-reviewed cardiac physiology medical journal(Pacing and
Clinical Electrophysiology),concluding that the X26 Taser has a wide margin of safety. The study concluded that 20
times the standard X26 output is required to induce ventricular fibrillation in a subject weighing 100 pounds.The safety
margin increased with larger body sizes:
• Body Weight(pounds) X26 Safety Margin
66 15x '
82 • 18x
108 22x
119 • 3Dx
183 36x
•
258 42x
The study also showed that heart rhythm d blood pressure remain unchanged during the Taser cycle.The study's
conclusion stated:
41)
. •
This study confirmed the cardi safety of an experimental NMI(Taser)device emulating the -
performance of commercially us d devices. An NMI discharge that could induce VF(ventricular
fibrillation)required 15-42 times the charge of the standard NMI discharge. Furthermore,this
'
1
,.
•
study demonstrated a safety index strongly correlated with increasing weight In addition,the
observation of the hemodynamic stability of the animals suggests that these devices maybe safely .
•
• applied multiple times if needed. Discharge levels output by fielded NMI devices have an •
• • extremely low probability of inducing VF.
• Also,the Defence Scientific Advisory Council(United.Kingdom),undertook an extensive research study into Taser
safety. The study's conclusion,released in July of 2004: "The risk of life-threatening or serious injuries from the M26
Taser is very low."
Over the past year,however,a number of media outle have questioned the safety of the Taser,suggesting that Taser.
deployments havebeenresponsible for the deaths ofa ber of subjects. These media outlets--primanlyThe Arizona
Republic (a daily newspaper in Phoenix, AZ)—hav cited a number of cases where subjects died after Taser
deployments(so called"Taser related"deaths). A clos analysis of these cases,however,demonstrates the inaccuracy •
• of the media implications. I reviewed 90 cases(mostly eported by The Arizona Republic)occurring between 1999 and
2005 involving the Taser and the eventual death of a s spect. That review showed:
Of the 90 cases: • •
• 89 involved significant physical exertion(fl eing or fighting)on the part of the suspect.
• In 41 out of the 51 cases for which informati n was available,the suspecthad ingested controlled
substances usually cocaine,but also inclu ng PCP and methamphetamine priorto police contact
(in 39 of the cases drug information was no available).
•In 54 out of the 59 cases for which information was available,there was a significant time delay
• • between the application of the Taser an the suspect's death—sometimes up to a week
(information was not available for 31 case).This is a clear indication that the Taser did not
contribute to these deaths(electricity is not ored in the body—if an electrical current is sufficient
to cause ventricular fibrillation,it will do s immediately). - . -
• Most involved violent struggles with police, which other use-of-force tools/techniques(such as
OC spray,baton strikes,beanbag rounds, empty hand techniques)were utilized.
•
These cases were included as"Taser related"deaths:
• 2 subjects who were shot(with firearms)b police.after Tasers were deployed unsuccessfully. . •
• 2 subjects who died from head injuries(1 i om a fall after Taser deployment, 1 prior to police
• arrival).
• 1 subject who slit his wrist prior to police ntact and died as a result.
• 1 subject who filled his home with natura gas prior to police contact—when the Taser was
deployed the house a Fploded,killing the su'jest and injuring two officers.
. 'What did the coroners/medical examiners in these '0 cases say?
• In 46 cases the cause of death was unknown,•rthe autopsy is unavailable. Most of these cases involved drug
• ingestion and/or adelay between Taser app;cation and death.
• • In 23 of the remaining 44 cases,the death as attributed to lethal drug consumption •
-
In 8 of these cases the autopsy re..rt specifically excluded the Taser as a contributing factor
ln.3 of these cases the role of the Taser was deemedto be unknown
• In 9 of the remaining 21 cases,the death 'as attributed to medical causes,usually cardiac arrest due to
physical exertion or pre-existing disease
In 5 of these cases the autopsy re.ort specifically excluded the Taser as a contributing factor
In 2 of these cases the role of the laser was deemed to be unknown
• In 6 of the remaining 12 cases,the death w• attributed to trauma unrelated to the Taser(gunshots,etc.)
• None of the autopsy reports ruled or sugge•ed that the Taser was a primary cause of any death.
• In 6 cases the laser was deemed to have contributed to the subject's death; all 6 findings are highly
• speculative and a review of the incidents su••,_ests that the Taser played no causative role in any ofthe deaths:
James Borden 47 ears of ale Monroe Co n Indiana
Multiple drive-stuns delivered to lower abdImen and buttocks during struggle in jail.
• • Borden had a massively enlarged heart(twic the normal size)and had toxic drug levels present in
• his body.
• A national forensic expert(Cyril Wecht)re 'ewed the case and concluded that the Taser did not
cause or contribute to the death.
The original coroner has since stated that th-pain from the Taser—rather than the current itself—
'frightened Bolden,causing him to have a heart attack(all police use-of-force tools/techniques will
cause pain,however,so the use of any tool/}echnique during this incident would have led to the
same result). II
• William Lomax(26 years of age,Las Vega$;Nevada) •
Lomax,under the influence of PCP,engagein a violent struggle with police. He died 19 hours
after the Taser deployment.
The coroner's report attributed the death to'Icardiac arrest during restraint procedure"with"PCP
•�Y 7.ti{.. _
.
•
intoxication"listed as a secondary cause. •
A coroner's inquest jury(not medical professionals)issued an opinion staring"the combination of
• the force of the knee in his back,the TASER,his drug use,and the restraining:they all played an S
equal role in his demise."
No experts.in Taser safety or technology testified at the inquest. •
•
•
William.Teasley(31 years of age,Anderson.South Carolina)
Large subject became violent during booking process,Taser deployed.
Teasley had numerous medical problems:his heart and spleen were enlarged,his liver weighed
twice as much as a normal one,and he had hardened arteries and a constricted airway.
' Medical examiner stated that the Taser alone did not cause the death,but stated,"in the dominoes
of this man's existence,this Taser was the last straw." '.
Greshmond Gray(25 years of age.LaGrange,Georgia)
Subject resisted officers,Taser deployed.
After first Taser deployment,subject attempted to pick up a small grill filled with hot coals,Taser
. deployed again. .
• Subject had a history of cocaine use,and an abnormal heart.
Coroner ruled that the emotional and physical stress the subject went through during the struggle
• with police,including the Taser deployment,led to a lethal heart rhythm.
Milton;Salazar(29 years of age Mesa,Arizona)
• Hours after being released from prison,Salazar began throwing rocks at motorists.
Salazar resisted officers and Taser was deployed,he died two days later. '
Tests showed the presence of cocaine in Salazar's system.
Medical Examiner ruled that Salazar died from complications from excited delirium due to
cocaine intoxication,but added that the Taser and stress from the struggle with police contributed.
•
Michael Rosa (38 years of age,Del Rev Oaks,California) a
Rosa was wandering through yards and screaming;when police approached he swung a 2x4 piece
. of wood at them.
Rosa was•taken into custody after Taser deployment,he died later at the hospital. .
The coroner ruled that Rosa died of a heart attack due to methampheJ,amine intoxication,but listed .
• the Taser and the struggle with police as contributing factors.
So,in most of the cases cited by media outlets as"Taserrelated"deaths,the Taser can readily be eliminated as a factor
in the suspect's death. In those few cases where coroners or medical examiners mentioned the Taser as a possible factor
in the death,circumstances suggest otherwise.No coroner or medical examiner has ruled that the Taser was the primary
cause of any death.
The summary of the Department of Defenle study on Taser safety(discussed above)also spoke to the subject of in-
. custody deaths associated with the Taserp "based on the documentation and research reviewed, this report
concludes that(the Taser)is likely not tle primary causative factor in reported fatalities."
The delay between Taser application and d ath in most of these incidents forecloses the Taser as playing a role in those
deaths. UW-Madison professor of bionic.1"cal engineering John Webster: •
If people are electrocuted,then ,,a heart stops pumping. In about five seconds the blood pressure
goes to near zero. Within about 0 seconds,the person faints and collapses. Most of the incidents
of persons dying after being"1'. Bred"don't fit this situation.
•
A 1991 report in the Journal of Forensic Sc ences reviewed 16 in-custody deaths associated with Taser use(those cases.
involved an earlier model of Taser,manufa tured by a different company,however). The study concluded that the Taser
does not cause death and ruled out the Tas.r as a factor in fifteen of the cases. The study concluded that in one of the
cases,the Taser could not be ruled out as • contributing factor("the subject's heart condition was such that he could
have suffered a fatal arrhythmia from the :CP,the excitement,the electrical stimulation or any of these factors").
Suspect deaths in police custody are not new; indeed, such incidents have occurred previously in Madison. It is
• estimated that between 50 and 125 polic. in-custody deaths occur each year.. These incidents are almost always
associated with a condition known as Exc. d Delirium: .
A state of extreme mental an. physiological excitement,characterized by extreme agitation,
hyperthermia,epiphoria,hos:•ty,exceptional strength and endurance without fatigue. '
•
• Excited delirium typically results from exc ssive or chronic drug use,opfrom certain types of severe mental conditions.
It is characterized by bizarre and violent .ehavior,incredible strength,paranoia,incoherent shouting,overheating,
profuse sweating,and being impervious to i.ain. The erratic behavior engaged in by these individuals results in police
. • , I .
i
•
-
.
; "' response,and a violent struggle typically ensues. Because the subject •suffering from •excited delirium is experiencing
paranoia,AT
is impervious to pain and temporarily e.i.'bits extraordinarystrengthand endurance,these confrontation are
' e.. extremely dangerous and challenging for police. i.e subject—feeling no pain and behaving irrationally—ex or
'"'°' herself far beyond the limits of the body and he. sometimes resulting in death. As the Taser continues to be usenun d
more widely by police agencies,itis not unusual at some of these in-custody deaths win occur after incidents inc ed ;
"' the Taser was used. Indeed,almost all of the incl.encs cited by The Arizona Republic appear to be instances of Ex
Delirium. To conclude that the Taser caused any of these deaths is simply ngtaccurate.
•
Dr.Jan Garavaglia,Chief Medical Examiner for I.lando,Florida,spoke to the issue of Excited Delirium and the Taser
a . (July 2004): .
It is my belief that Taser use is now a-.ociated with Excited Delirium,because it's associated;
• that'd how they're bringing them down but there's really no evidence that they're causing any of
• the deaths...Excited Delirium is now a atal disease,whether the police interact or not...I believe
these individuals would have died wi I or without being shot with a Taser.
•
A United States Department of Justice study into I e safety of OC spray(conducted in the mid-90s)also sheds some
light on the issue of police in-custody deaths. The"OJ study reviewed 73 cases in which subjects had died after being
exposed to OC spray. The study pointed out tha when OC spray was new(like the Taser is now),safety exposed
erns
•. developed: "as pepper spray use began to sprea., questions arose as to its safety, especially after several both
arrestees died in custody." The DOJ study con•luded that OC spray contributed to only two of the d ato,Taser
involving suspects who suffered from asthma. A f w points from the DOD's OC study are relevant to the topic
safety and in-custody deaths:
• .A review of the facts associated ' •the individual incidents in the DOJ study show striking
similarities to the cases cited by th• Arizona Republic(almost all of them showing symPtorns
of Excited Delirium). Most invol - suspects who have either ingested controlled substances
or have pre-existing medical con itions. The suspects engage in some type of behavior
requiring police intervention,an then proceed to engage in violent confrontations with
officers. These similarities demon to that police in-custody deaths are to be expected in a .
small number of police use-of-f rce encounters, and that the suspect's exertion while
• resisting—rather than any particul tool or technique used by the police— death.
leads to the
• Conclusions reached by medical a aminers or coroners are opinions,and necessarily entail .
some degree of subjectivity. The OJ report stated,"[T]he author did not always agree with
• the cause of death listed by the a topsy surgeon or the medicolegal officer." Indeed, a
• review of the Arizona Republic cases shows a number of very similar incidents where the
medical examil er/coroner reached different conclusions. The Arizona Republic emphasizes
the few autopsy reports concludin that the Taser contributed to a death,but discounts the
autopsy reports expressly ruling t the Taser played no role in a death.
•• The DOJ study stated,"the studie cited in this report do not and cannot prove that pepper
spray will never be a contributing ctor in the death of a subject resisting arrest" So,while
unable to definitively state that OC pray is"safe,"the DOS study concluded that all but two
of the deaths associated with the us of OC spray would have occurred even if OC spray had
not been used.
• Despite the lack of a definitive co elusion in the DOJ report,the vast majority of police
officers in the United States carry d use OC spray. .
A review of 38 police in-custody deaths during a two-month period in 2004 showed that 9 of the cases(24%)involved
Taser use,while 29(76%)did not. Since about 30%of law enforcement agencies in the U.S. deploy Taser%t e
suggests that in-custody deaths involving the Taser comprise a percentage of all police in-custody deaths proPorti
to overall Taser deployment.
None of the media stories casting doubt upon the s ety of the Taser has cited any type of medical or scientific study or
research to support their claims. Indeed, there 's no research suggesting any safety concerns with the Taser.
Information available in 2003 when MPD first depl yed the Taser strongly indicated that the device was safe.moues
past year's media attention has raised doubts about aser safety among the uninformed,available information con
to demonstrate that the Taser is a safe device. MPD s Taser experience(close to 300 deployments,including volunteer
exposures,with only a few minor injuries and no 1 ng-term adverse consequences)further demonstrates this.
OTHE TASER ISSUES
Policy • I •
laced
MPD policy on Taser use has changed in several resects since the program's inception. Initially,the Taser was p
at two distinct locations on the force continuum: ifused in the drive-stun mode,the Taser was placed at the compliant
a
+ .
I . •
hold level;if used by firing probes,the Taser we,-placed above takedown techniques but below active countermeasures.
• ,The reason for the distinction was primarily the differing propensities for injury:firing the probes creates a small risk
for injury(primarily due to the potential for an .controlled fall),while the drive-stun carries virtually no potential for
• • injury. After reviewing Taser deployments for .e first few months of expanded deployment(mid-2004),we realized
that a few deployments in the drive-stun mod , while in compliance with the policy at that time, did not reflect
• circ*imstances under which we wanted Tasers to be deployed. As a result,in June of 2004 MPD's policy on Taser use •
•
was changed,putting any Taser use at the same i.oint on the force continuum(above takedown techniques but below -
active countermeasures). 86%of agencies depl.r• g the Taser place it on the continuum at the same level as OC spray, •
`,''
and The International Association of Chiefs of P.lice(IACP)model policy on electric weapons equates the devices with
-OC spray. So,MPD's current policy is slightly..ore restrictive than the IACP recommended policy and that of most _
++' agencies deploying the Taser.
. •
• At the time the above change was made,this se tion was also added to the Taser section of the use-of-force policy:
•
The Taser shall not be used once an' dividual is subdued and under control,nor shall it be used
against subjects who are offering pas•ive resistance.
At the inception of the MPD Taser program,oficers were required to have medical staff(at an emergency room)
11 remove the Taser probes(if they were embeddedin the subject's skin). Officers found that ER staff removed the probes _
in the same way Taser International trains offi ers to remove them. Accordingly,the policy was changed to allow •
officersto remove probes in the field. Probe oval was incorporated into the Taser user training as well. Probes
embedded in a sensitive area of the body will s have to be removed by medical personnel.
Volunteer.Exposures
Since the inception of the MPD Taser program, lose to 200 people have volunteered to be exposed to the Taser. Most
of these volunteers have been MPD officers go' through Taser training(Taser exposure is highly recommended,but
not required,for officers being trained in use o the Taser;only a handful did not volunteer). In 2004,Officer Eric
Anderson provided training on police use-of-for e and possible resulting injuries to the Madison Fire Department More
than 60 MFD personnel volunteered to be expos to the Taser. One media representative has also volunteered. None
• of these individuals sustained any injury during the exposure,and no adverse effects have been reported.
Deployment Problems/Effectiveness
The Taser user training underscores the Taser's treat effectiveness. The voluntee Taser exposures most officers were
•
subject to(under controlled conditions)can crea e the belief that the Taser will always be effective.Not surprisingly,in
actual field deployments many things can(and d )go wrong that hinder the Taser's effectiveness. The primary issues
MPD officers have faced are clothing(thick orb ggy)or probe misses. Officers are recognizing that the Taser,while a
great tool,is not a cure-all. •
Reliability
MPD was one of the first agencies to purchase •e X26,and as a result our initial order of 31 were some of the earlier
ones manufactured. 16 X26's have had to be re .ed to Taser International,for a variety of problems. All-but one of
these malfunctions were detected either during ••'.'.g or through spark-testing. Only once did an X26 malfunction '.
(fail to spark when deployed)during a field dep oyment
Taser International has replaced each of these 6's,and had provided a few extra X26's at no cost to the department.
It appears that the malfunctions may be attrib table to early problems in the X26 manufacturing process. Tasers 'I
received after the initial order(with higher se • numbers,from later manufacturing lots)have proven to be more ,.
• reliable.
CONCLUSIONS
MPD's deployment of the Taser has clearly bee. a success. The Taser has been utilized to resolve more than 100 use-
of-force encounters,with few resulting injuries . officers or suspects. Given the alternative force options that would t.
have been utilized in these encounters,there is n. question that both the number and severity of injuries(to both officers
and suspects)would have been far greater had th Taser not been available. The Taser has also allowed officers to avoid
having to deploy deadly force in a handful of inc dents,and has also likely precluded other incidents from escalating to
deadly force encounters. -
The fact remains,however,that most MPD offic s have not been trained in the use of the Taser.*Each shift,mostMPD
patrol officers working the street are not equipp:d with Tasers,either because they have not been trained in use of the .
Taser,or because there are no Tasers available f•r Taser-trained officers to check-out. As a result,many MPD use-of- £
force encounters continue to be handled with. .ditional tools/techniques. These incidents are resulting in injuries to
both officers and suspects that could be avoide•with expanded Taser deployment.
•
Attachments not included: For a full summary all MPD Taser deployments and summary of al incidents where a ao
Taser use was threatened or Taser was displayed report from July 2003 — January 2005, please view: `''
http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/police/PDF Files/lraser%20Report.pdf 'VI
• _ 1 f._
•
•
1--
Force Science News .
•
• Issue #8, December 12, 2004
The Force Science News is provided by The Force Science Research Center, a non-profit
institution based at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
Subscriptions are free and sent via e-mail. To register for your free, direct-delivery subscription,
please visit www.forcescience.org and click on the registration button.
•
In This Issue:
I. Should Cops Stop Using Tasers? The Force Science Research Center Weighs In On The
Controversy.
I. FSRC STEPS INTO TASER CONTROVERSY
Should a moratorium-be declared on the laser?
Absolutely, says Amnesty International, the activist human rights organization, which has called
• fora'cease fire in theuse of "stun technology in law enforcement"until the-true risk to targeted
suspects can,be thoroughly researched and verified. _
•
Nonsense, says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center
(FSRC) at Minnesota State University-Mankato. Even a temporary ban on the use of lasers,
Lewinski asserts, "would literally create a catastrophe for peace officers. Lawsuits would
increase, officer injuries would increase, subject injuries would increase-all guaranteed. We need
additional research, but we don't need to stop using a unique tool that experience has proven is
effective and overwhelmingly safe while more investigation is underway." . •
,
A prominent litigation attorney who assesses risk-management issues facing law enforcement.
agencies emphatically agrees. Bill 'Everett', a veteran use-of-force trainer and a litigation
management attorney for the League,of Minnesota Cities, which provides lawsuit defense, policy
guidance and liability insurance coverage to more than 800 municipalities, told Force Science.
News (FSN): . ' • . • • , • . .
"A moratorium 'on the laser would have a consequence." And that consequence, he insists,
would be "a more robust and frequent use of deadly force" as the most likely alternative for
controlling threatening-offenders. "It is irresponsible and unconscionable, based on what we know_ •
today".about the Taser,,to advocate a policy that would result in "taking people's lives rather than
subjecting them to a transitory experience"of physical immobilization.
Everett says calling fora ban because a relative handful of suspectshave died after Taser use,
with pd direct causation having been established, "is somewhat like saying, 'I.heard of a guy who
drowned in a car because he couldn't get his seatbelt off, so we should outlaw seatbelts.'"
Everett, who is a member of FSRC's National Advisory Board and 'a former LEO, recently
addressed, the growing laser controversy in a closed-door meeting of more than 70 of the
country's top governmental risk managers.
His comments,included these observations, which he shared with FSN: •
• --The laser is a "device that generally is very, very effective at reducing injury to officers and
' subjects."
•
made to involve mental health specialists" in resolving the situation and "policing •
methods based on force should be used only as a last resort."
• "Tasers should only be used in stun gun mode as aback-up to dart-firing Tasers and only
when no other options are available and there is an immediate threat of death or serious•
injury." ,
In other words, in formulating these recommendations Al is considering the Taser to be very
close to if not equivalent to a firearm.
This, Lewinski charges, "is insane," based on the current experience with and knowledge about
the device. Adds Everett: "If we restrict the Taser to a very limited subclass of cases, then the
consequence of this is going to be officers hitting uncontrolled people more with batons, breaking
more bones and tearing more flesh. You'll have a whole bunch of cops and arrestees hurt very,
very badly wha don't need to be."
In Lewinski's professional opinion, the Taser should be placed on the Force Continuum above
OC and below the baton. He agrees with Everett that°the potential for inflicting injury with a baton
is much greater."
Contrary to Al's recommendations, street sense dictates that the Taser should NOT be relied
upon when an officer is facing an immediate life-threatening situation. "The proper weapon
response in those cases," -
Lewinski stresses, "is with a gun."
Even when no lethal threat is perceived or anticipated, good officer-survival tactics require the
use of Contact/Cover when a Taser is activated. One officer deploys the Taser and his or her
backup is ready to deploy an alternate and appropriate force response in the event the device is
ineffective and/or the threat escalates to a deadly level.
Officers have suffered severe injuries by relying too heavily on Tasers,in the absence of backup.
One Iowa case in which Lewinski testified during grand jury proceedings_involved a paranoid
schizophrenic who was delivering karate kicks and chops against a telephone pole. The subject
Walked toward a lone responding officer, raving at him in "Klingon language."
When the suspect pulled a knife from his rear waistband, the officer attempted to stop him by
firing a Taser. The suspect pulled the barbs out, rushed the officer and knocked him flat. The
,attacker was astride the officer, stabbing repeatedly at the officer's chest, when backup showed
up and shot the'assailant dead. All that saved the officer from fatal wounds was the trauma plate
in his vest.
"Good as the Taser is, it is not perfect," Lewinski says. "Tasers fail more often than guns jam.
When your life is on the line, your best option in most cases will be deadly force. The Taser is for
a lower level of response to a lower level of danger." .
•
In some parts of the country, strong emotions have been stirred among civilians by the use of
Tasers to control offenders who were children or elderly. In Florida, where the device was used,
without known injury, in separate incidents against a 6-year-old and a 12-year-old, a county
commissioner declared this week that she was "shaken," "angry," and "appalled" and would "go
ballistic" if someone used the weapon on her 6-year-old grandchild. In South Carolina recently,
the media headlined the fact that a Taser was used against a 75-year-old woman during an
altercation at a nursing home. •.
"In a confrontation," Lewinski explains, "you don't look at age, sex, height,'weight-you need to
look at behavior, the violence.and potential violence you're encountering: A 6-year-old in a
complete psychotic temper tantrum can really hurt you. Unlike some mental health workers, cops
'-
II
a
!
111 0 Ce
Sheriff's
Coml„.'s'
•
Orange
:. ,.....,„..,:, • ,
„2:.,•,, ..,,,,...,
.r. •!-,•,--.,,,,:.,4,-,,,,,•• _
., , ..
..,
. ,,,,:.>•-..",:::,;:..-:,:„..'.!...i'•;.;-,:../.i.,....:::,1.:,,...;.i.,;••,,;2..:::,.2-,..:::-; ' . . fr-,1- . '
...,,.•...„,-„,.."„.„,:,, , . .._- 7 ‘
.. .-.--,... --,
. -.,••-• .
. _
.,,,,,-„,,,,,,,,:,,,....„...„:„.,,..,.:- .: .•
TASER TASK
,,,,,,•_.,,,,,„„,...,,.,.....,...„.„,„,,,,,,,,,....:::,
,,,,':,',;:j..•:-.:':::k-•::?-:',,,''.t.':1`,:',2i•' i
'iii,,.i:.-.:-.4q,c '•
FO RCE
;- , .
„.„.,..s.........,.„.....„,„. .: .
.•.:',.,•:,,i.-;..,Z
••.:4.'•'-'-..:,' r.:,:j;;;,":,','1,t,, ' •
• .
,. . „, ,. ....
..., . .. ,
,,....
. ..,
, ORT
, ,. ., ...„......, ....
.,.,
,,..,,, ...,•,-..'
-..,-_,
','..1',.:.1.,
(
fli:3',...!:]II, . .• ^
„, . .. .....__.
4,f....,,, ,, ;:,,,, -- ' -•
• „ % ., !,., s,
v4:•,.,..,-,t,-_,.74 ,..i.;;;-.. ,,,c--...' -r'.
gill
..:
k:!.'.ttg'.:'k''...t,.t.;,-,..'i•::'- '.r.'t.?'.''':'
. , .
i
;:4'.:;:i''',".:',.;:,,-4. -F.'..:':,:•.!•. ,‘'','.•?':.,:',':..
.,..,1,,..',-`,,,,-._;;-,12:•-,4'.-,:.11'':,..,,.:”. ::,:. ',.-...‘-,•.-,,,----,..;..-,1'",;';r::.,':•,,...:::'',.....---,,;:
,;,:it.,;•,,,M!:.'c-,.,,,•.-.-•.,. -''-,
.-,,..1,.....Q.....,..„,..,..:..... ._ .
.......
;,,,;-,:,-"..-,'.;a:.•-,.;.:".•. ;.,.• •.:
!;-,..:-„,,-,,,...-';',',:.4.•.'.-,:".'-'--. -
!..-.:....;,--,.:..........g::!. ....,•-•,;:-:-:','?:: ': -.
.•:.'?,,..'.;':....,t'.1,:.ut.';',!./.;.-,;,:',•:,..-:-.17,..-,:....',.
,e7L,.,:',-:..;•.!-F?•i-:;.',,`.!...-:,',..'....j.-- ".•
,“:;:f..r:rirs",,••!-,g'',', ,:'....' ' '
•
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
it
Report Prepared Bv:
Lieutenant David A. Ogden
March 4, 2005
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the members of the Orange County Sheriffs 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 E. 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
t
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
Xl. Additional Reviews 40 - 41
3
•
•
Introduction:
In an effort to promote safety within the community and that of law enforcement officials,
the Orange County Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 high-
current 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
Fonanarosa PB,in Tintinalli JE Emeroencv 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)."
II
"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.
I a
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
Tactile Hallucinations: 3 5
Auditory Hallucinations: 36 50
Persecutions Delusions: 49 74
Identity/Grandiosity/Possession Delusions: 30 0
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 free-
base 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
•
aI officers, and specifically a large percentage of those who die while in custody, are
P Y g P 9
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.
2d
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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs
Office.
Orange County Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs
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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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.
'es and
to ensure that its olid
The Orange County Sheriffs Office supervises its officers P
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 Sheriffs 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).
i I
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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs Office fielded over 740,000 of those calls. The Sheriffs 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 palls 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
1 in 2003, deputies have used less force as compared to the previous year's data.
v -.
z 1 -''ems o-i '0„ ,r` zi3ir, �5
800,000 >Z- _l _ r -,° - t °oma
' as
' s wK k,; 4r - +af�-,� ',.-gnr -,§` -.'TM' ,t �, 0,M k r �d
F w, ",.-4,-::7- y' " `may
700,000 4 r{ ,
a x ,:x .ori. 9 �tv n k� E`- �i N. 4 Ott
I..7 - ..4 „
.600,000 ,
r w �,4
k— ?.4�"s � v
a
vc
Y F q S4 ?500,000 1
,,... ..,,,,,,-,,,,,, ,! ..2-,—'±-, _ -, 1E,, ,,....,, ,,A,XA.,,,c 4-A 4.b,,,,'''..' "Aafkilt. 1.'41;Y 0 n.,4,
400,000 t
s. - `.a,, '- tom 4,-i,. Y`� `,„
- ,: al' r'' ,t 4 mea --# ^ ,
"' TSS,.,- '! r.Z,—.' 'mFC^yt.&,kvy.,z - Y''X a `T,- 4�' <r} r� ;,
200,000 ,�5, - w; <��r�.
r
100,000 = 2004
_ ... 'f 2003
CALLS FOR
SERVICE ARRESTS
USE OF FORCE
ENCOUNTERS
CALLS FOR SERVICE ARRESTS USE OF FORCE ENCOUNTERS
31844, 657
740,000 607
®2003
m 2004
763,650 .45,033
i
1 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.
Mr. John Myrick. Mr. Myrick stated he was personally
Committee also heard from v Y P Y
Tased on January 14th, 2005, by the Seminole County Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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.
II
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
1
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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 CountySheriff's Office has done an
9 9
outstanding job tracking and monitoring the use of the Taser since its entry with
the Sheriffs 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
r
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.
I �
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. M 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 Weapons-
Model Policy, August 2004.
• Madison Police Department, TASER Report (Spring 2003).
• Medical Presentations, Jan C. Garavaglia, M.D., Orange County Medical
Examiner, 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 Sheriffs 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/Read News.d bm?I D-974
41
6
. • JANUARY 2005 • VOLUME 28 • NUMBER 1 •
... . . ,.. .. .
. .
. , . ,.... .... : . , . . . .
...„
., .. ,
. •
,, .-•:•• .
. .
.• PACING
. ... , • . • .
.'. .
. . '
. .. . . .
. . .. - .
. ... ...,...,... . ... . .
• ... . . •
- ,,..,,...,,....,.. . . . . .
. , ..,...„... .. . .••. . : . . . . ,. .
- . . ,..
. •,.. . .. . .. . .
. •-
.. .....
,, :..„. :
. ,...,
......,
. D
:....: . . . . .
. .. , " .. . . . ... .. , .... ... .
.. .. •. ...... • . :,•....•., ..,•.., .• • ..
. . . . ....,,.. . . • .
. , . .
. ......,,.....;„.„..g.ift.„0„*.,.. ,„„.4„ ....:4.,..,N,..„:::::,......., :„........., , , . .. ... . .:, .. . . . • . : .......„.. ..,•. „. ..... ,. .. .. . ..• . ..: ....• :.• ..,... ... , .:......:.
,...,•:,,r,....,..,4..0...:..,„,.....,..„,„...f.,..:4:,:r,,o.,5_______ .,..,.„.,:: :...„•;„.„:„....,„,.........,...,i,..,...: ,:::!.. .;,., :...,.....i , ,::.,,,....,:. .,,.,..,....,„....... .:.,,:,.. , .,..:....,..,... :•••„....,.. .. . . ,:„. . . , .,. . ,....,:,...„
. ....,.,....„,„„i„,,,,.;, .:„.1,•, -•;4...A-•
• ....11:•::.• • ••NV-•••-•' ',14 '.t!' 4.,i'.-:!;: .•: •:. ,,: .,,,. ::,...:'..i• !.' ''.'...-... .e,:',,e'rf,,,,.n....,'0, ,:::','-2.1..'r;I.(';.:,',?,,.`K,,. ..,1,-..,,-.- - .. :• . 1 . , .. .1 i . ' ' ., . .",'
i •I'•. •-.., , '.- . • .'';:''''' '' ;4-1',itt'''44.;!;\'''''I'Vii..4.;..?',*,,:,i,:,i,i,:ii.f,,,14....,,i',Z!,..,.Z.',.?i,.......",'.....:•,.::,....,,:::,..-',-,...:. , . ,,.. •, ' • ; ' , .,',.',,
'‘:44':i.C4,-A. ,44),:zu ',. .. ....,' ,'.. .--,il':'•f,•:•;:;-:...';‘, ...•:::',.t,-1,.. .: WA-'-g:r..?i .'f-'15,,1-4-,444'.::q76-:-..,-V,i,.r...;-.':1-;:.:-. !..,:-,.;.-,.,.,,. --:• . :: -.. ,.-.. ..:',,.
.:t1,alvi, ,.4. .5‘,... , ,.. .. ::,:f-.!::.-.i...;:!•,,-,,,...w:::;-... 11:0.:''''''''"'"'..':-"''... ' .:'•''...' : ..' ' -' ''''' '''-' '":'."'
. '_'-'.....,',-...'-.PrAt.'i4:1,44-4(-4•110.0*.iii,eiit--,,,,4:3:!t:-....,.-:...:::%_:-...-,...,..;..:.::-- ....r-:.,.....,-.447.44:41...--;., ......i:-',-tz,..,.74.,•,•!,;,.,rx-Pitz-vr,,...,.:\•,..-i--:,....:,-.3,,itri:-...,:,:---,-4,-,..,:.-.,•:--,,,.f :'7,: •,, :,,....:;:i...,i„:,i,r.,..,.,.,::,,,..... ,..
. .6"l''',,"*Vt,ts--9,11,1_"4-,Pt''ILV,•'•::'4'.4 A.•4;;Iri.•ea':",r-OIV::, ..,,,,:•t•.'••,••',.;-;It':•."•!..:.#••••:,•::`,!::!•...:,:loils..:''zil:•':''.",;,-.:Z•'.•,,,e--e,•,*,:ifeit',...,"11-4 ,4.,,,..t,iTiOk••:.(Ailtifkije,,i..,IV1,,x1,•AkKk4",, `,7x,,•:, -;„'....i'.k,:::..•Ii:.....,:.•.:-,, .,.,,,;.;c*,„.•••..: ,,,...*.,,,!•'..•....' •. ...,
.• .;''''','•,'-': .4'45,!•;t'40,i.W.k .f.'r4...11,- .41r.44:4e,•V'::,::•?.,':3i'i.:::-,.''.‘,:',-:',,'..?;:..i,.:',"7..:.--,.!.i,,::.;, ,i,,,V,i';',.p;i•VA:At'4.i:ac,A%.!.'4:15'.?:','.10.t:ir.,-,14:.,',14-4.-.I.-Airks7.7.-.7,'O*111.'Vir-i :,':..i,t.iii,:::.-::::'.;Vi':',..,:;•-,:,1.7'`. .!','.1,-":;...'7::1",':',,Y;.."1Y5-...,-.Z''.;.*,.
'•:::::',I.t4:,:,-,4 ,-Ai'-gi;i-'.4440'jp.'1'14,:i. i'.14tf'''''.. .'.:•:•-4i,'•..r..''- i,:.- .'.''...,:'-,'....:1;,:-.:''''',',_,tc''il''''':':'....:',:4';''''i'';',.,:2'::-k':''':'-'''-,Z.'''.•'!..tg.'4'::‘,..1,":,'''''.:-";'*,;:;"-,'-ret'-'''4"-v..,.A;',:i'LY'''!':!...-- -Ii!..,`-'-':':,..:4'4.1v iz;'...1).•!..:1 :A24!'!:'.r...i'4,';;-i.f.Plietl!',.;',.:',-,
-.•,-,,-t..,....:.r.f.:,y,i!•ft,9,;,.V,rttliziikkt•pi.'..y '2.:•••••• .;;.'•,:,j'•.•""!5'.'.1','''' - •.''''''''''',;,"Al''''`.4,`.1,. . :=..lite."'',.•:'.hi•t'llicri..y:".4jr.rli,"`•?"-`..,-r• ';74,i,14-0,:`,..e..,A11:Tiiii,?;',M4,4.,F.,.'4.!:;',,,,44,....4..4.1.;;:i.?5..i::,,2.k.,,,,:i.,tiaT,',;,?fi-I.,:4.;
, .•‘:,.'.'','-.'7.;VAA17',0,21e,..-K,A;Taf
E.,..,,,, .-; :-,;',-;;;':. .1.',‘t'''j::::*4t. '','' p '.,1-.'•..:,1r, ',, '', riv ''' 4 '-`..=,':- --.:he,.. 4" •,,,,. ''4.:.; 4‘.......F"..:'.- ' : ..• 4' .8:t;44':'aVneliV i"..i47-?1‘7,..1;-:
.: f::44?-4fie.t.';,:114Z;';:1-kX6h. $ '',.":,:i: --,t •' 'Yti'i-i ",,n,\:-.- 4e.' ;,,r-2'4 1 ,..,..'• -'''' li„ ',AiV - 4, ,..li: :•ii:v.,:.; ';-; .f,'•;•tg.. ,..,,1 ;.i, :'," :illg.`1:-..-%'••,,..0,„:;•,1„.4.:'„,:bIkT:It:•;,;‘.. .,:lt:p,;:-,..
E
..,. ..,,:„... .„.„..:, ,.,.,It.v.,...„ ,,... 4, ..• ..*:•,- :it. :,,,-1-ig; .cgi.:, Iii; .7ii,;41% '; ','• '7'' -,!'. .;, -ir:: '`A>.?.;. ,.,, --'1!',. .',"1.7:... '':' ,Q,?-..1' ..*''...1.-ki*,..Pe..'4-..,,-st14.*:
:,: ', :',.::::.:Ar;purci-,5r-'..t.;:c-,7 i!'r,:e'. ..”, .-!'.?;,,'..i;','-;:':' .....::.;':,c,',...,,,...-.,,,Ilt,n,‘,..-,,_?;.4.,L,-,. ''-.,,,,-,. ViY::,..T.:',:., :-..,,,,? .1-r:::.-..,,Lt., '',11..,'.." ..f.ki ''•..-, ' ',-,A. •"'4.' :-. •zitA40-.444*• •;41.1,.....kcti'g-,V.:!,
-.- :.•,•,•.•.ng.....%•.-.4.>,..;e:,:•:••,.-044,•:tow?.
•. :.•:•,,•ri.-.:..?..,..••••.:.•‘.i'l,.•.i.w.V.-,'''.•••1;,;;•• ''4.-i-14'71'''...'•lifil.#4:44:14:ki-ifttu*.WilP,Ttg...4.v-•*ig:441*,41,41-tp,,,W.,4;.:44,1,70,4;tes,..,1,•Ai.,-,,,,,:si•:-.4,.,;,,TiOor-44-ilt••,41:;;•/.4,:,.,k.1-i,,,_..•.A.. .1.•.s.,i,iii;;;f:iii-t4F:i•.;.:T,Ili,..,...•..4,;;A:.,
...• .-:•:1•,,o4....,.??,%-•?.•-..'..=•i'.'41.0.:444-:•-•„,:21'..:faw.viii. .;;;v:,..04-1,';''.::•••,•4 ?:z•••:"*',,.4'.011$1f;NV-'.-',1-4X1F.Ittallif.V.WINiii*--4.1,--!&+,3frAt.:,-Peql4.,,441.i.),ip'Aff..b....,:;,..;--44,,..1•40•..,:f141..vViIIWIIV;;N:f4!Wk.4.t.--.:4 .11ii.j4:7?
...'-''.'''4:‘'''''''f-41%,104';-3'.'4'4"•:iV..iT0-`•• !f•V*Ft "Ritrstt.C.•:::;‘OP:K4i.tt.r.:::-54'-c,4:43-14,VO:Cteft.f*:*,4•14;,.18;1•)14;ii? "1.14.2Virtl•`•‘6•-els.:*1:,-44iiW-A•ta54446.: k14.:41.4,...,IF:alkaii;jk .F.;.;:r.t•j..S4.-.'
•,;y'e.::i:i.,;,4,..k.I,•,:-1".tioitf.;.•`.fkliA.f.,4,4-,.1..-.,t.,,i.,itiia.410,.:-.4:41!:7*-;,•!..-4.....,:.tl'i•-:."--P4V. it'-`,;iilailv.••.i,-17;•• •••-f•.•kiii-it*W4,..4k-vrrfili?+..,9.•fottiliVi.14-',1t?`.1',•...1-1VA••;;:.:.(1,t'--.S.,:toi.,,,, gt1/4,..,24,-,,.1.p..,iik2,,,,,I..,.c.il,:,:...i;;:;i::,,,,,...f.v.
'-='-.)i.---.. -1:1-.-'41-..t.P=.1'1"-". --gfii-,,,-,..11D,..-: ..,,g. -,..“-‘. .-vro,--4,,..i.,P,:v--ce.11.1,9 ,,,,m+Aviim.v.,,,,,,,A0,-,tto,r,,,,,,I,s,...,,,, ,,,if,i.ivesi, •. .,,.F.:,r,:,,,t.•-,,:..•.„,;.,,,5,,
!....,.:,-.,--! ..,:.4:-..•,,,..f,,:"?4••
ii) .•:.,i.4,e.-1:4,4,0,-,i4.9,- - ,t,4_-,,,v.A,-,-•••;,,,,-.7.--,•14.!:•••".•••:1'4:i..i4;::::'...41.,!v‘.••'4•7..,;•,-,',Ifk..,1: ••..".;,..',, l'ci,r-F.t.,.•:,`,•‘'..."•••-v•.,,-',....,.1:11'..r.l,"..'"..''.!'•••'.••''....•:•''''....,•.,•-•• '...i.?,cs'n..:“...:'•••.!•-.•2•":,...1-.1cIai.:-.0,4,14!.....\s,Jo.•,..:,...,•,,
i:-:;?;;;;;14.1,,iY2e4i1•2PW:2Z:."-t'',';';',i.f:44q,,0.4eP;:.#4.:Z14.40;tzt.p.c.6r.,'•.;#3.{1441•4441j,N4iiiirVIL4'4Vg2iPi•VAIIVVP:16;'42,V4'1;''''..'. .V.*4.4*•ileff.4*O'il.1°A?(,)•YOV:Igit44•;*:‘';'il.;' .',:',•;..•:':il.C-‘r
:•''''' '''''''''r''''''''''''''''''4:‘'''''':l'i'4" '''''''''*- '"'*7''''''L.:'"'''';SV;I;t2'.'.!.14t5''-'s;tg4.1....'`'''ff".)' iq''',V:s45i••# '• '‘"-4/e..P'4:11'r...ii:V•;•.1?:•';'',,S,'..-11•::1."..C.''`,tligt#S4%..4•11;02ANtil.4401,ert.1.1..rf*f",'•'i:::::f'•.'1.::-'4,‘.....
, ..,,,,,,...,.....,,..1.i...,6,51,,,,,„4,,,,s.;*, ,,,..,„,.;.2.,,,,o,,,,,::,..6,,,,!,.w.,...k.r......,,,,..,„..,,,,,,..„..,..„0„,....„.,4,,,,,,,,, „ki...",„.„.:;.4....,,,i,,:-„,,...,,,Ir,,..vvoi.;.“..i,,A.3.-17,„;;,,..;.,,,..!4,i;.4:,..4.:'•-z.„,;:;.,;.•,;4•.4it.4/1•-;:et-•,.C.,•'..'.4:.4.i:i:!V:».1..;;41''It.-7:i:%:•.'-%:',•-,;'.'f.":f.';•."'".
?,k,..f.I;;.i.ttiv..,W.,..,.+,*:it.,,titif.,;';:".5!,T. Z.4,7,AL:,4:A14-itr, ..:1‘3:1121-1.?":;r1,3,44:•1,4417,,Ae,T.743,..0,45.1,,V.t. '"•141te.",t4y,i,144,•;.14r V. -,iv,1&•ili....`:t.,%,...,,Iii;;!,,f.1: 6,4,,,•4'.'24;!,.1.11;',A.-,'.-1,1.Ait-44..,,it.itiffi.A•r,i'l 11.:1;4,•44i,4.0.*;:.,. ..".•,•''•••'••... :-..••‘••••1.
„;••••z:•:;•:,0;',;•,3...4...,..,;,,y,,,,;;;k;,44,,',41'`•1111$:.Zitt,s,,,Z;:t,U.,,,fi..i510.,y...t.''.1: -:23.t,ztte„...!::,,ttr.4.t.Thr'ili:,,:i3vAt.41.;::•,4,41;•?gV:4,76;:4,449.11. 44.rid*,;...Ait,i,:,lif..V.149k.S:f......11,:r,?fi9A7,....7'i,,X:,..;Kfr,..:,,..,,,-,,,,.,tim.,,::,...,..1,t,ne.,,,t.57.z.,..t.!;14.r..,is,A744:i41,,,f.::.!•:,,,ei,,:;:it'l...:17..,:iti,AiJ..1!tii:NI-671:'..,17:.t,„331,,V.I.;,4,`4::::,Etp,....,c,_•Z••,,1:•,..4'.,:•:::,.•••r•eg.1.,:::Isil;,:....,•.,.:.:::;*:..'.:•*
,.,g;?....z.„.. .0.4.,,,i.trg,....v. .?,,,,--0.z._,,,c..1.,,,,:t......avtdo.,...., 474,,,,,i6,1,446.444.4u,,,,,,ice?..ip.;:i,.t.,K,',.-A.,,,fiztt..5.7,140.1t:t,efiv,i,tti ..,.;,,tik,;.,v,.,,4„,;',.*,sr.k.7.j,P,1,44,2,fT4,.:_r','..;..z.,,7 .--:' -..••••...!'!'1
;•6,1•444'4F.t.%,-r1_,.7 •:•"-.1:,Ptor.-srgt-4f-.4iti:„.V.:r,;64:4--.:41124F-...4,44,Tkry.i...=-4tic.••Pag&._,..,IFA.,41,,,1:4144.4Tm.x.x.,..r.il'A‘tt-.1.0.111,4ME,:,A,;&,.#:spti,.40471Xttito.:04-4.,:z1.„,,,,,,i!0,.?..;;.,7;:ii'A....:", 41.••••4-,.7..1,;:-....,...",'.,_';.•`..;.:'..:
i,'....it',..4.444•':•-.'"'-tov,,t -4 •4•, %iv 4.2 'g.i.441;••&k.sar,,,Totpc,&,-1•11-,k,,b.we•Iri-..-'4..t.e.,4:41 ,......A:c.....-:-:„:o7.,,,e;•irir:....7Y.s•74'.1-fAm•-!;4.4.7.,..:3k4,.v.t..,•!t,.‘•-•-?•.11.;.e-kNrcasF.-•coz-:i.foot:14.F.-fs1:3-i••:•......-A....:.„4-4.:,..,-.:.,,...v..,-.• _•6•:-...-•,-;... ...ty..
.7•P.:•.11'.:%aVkkt015..r..C•DNI:..'. . # ' ;1111N.I0**441:5gre,V.-11•AF'i.i .7..N114101•V.,,.,i:,?;7:,,,,.T.a..:4f.t..!.4, ,,,iiiititot,t1,11 :1*,'‘,k4ky. '11,iiv,-iy::i'.:,..A.:il.::;•1;.:4'A....'s,:•.,?• .;.,-.:,:::;i:
•:?Li-2,....,:..r.i..z.,: ,,•,.,,,..i..it .„..,.......1...,...1„,,t-...„,,z44,,elli..,.,:;.....,,,sli ,.,•s:::... 4...:...,,,,....•,:yit,o,.n.,......6..,4,..N.,tfT....,:.;..A1.5.114-..; -;..;,T:.:Kj.;:,:..f..:,- :•...,...1.:;.4-tp,.v.,',V••;p1;•?•,1V,/.14514-1rA.••::4411•74-VV.41;"*.r4,;$,Vtr'':'.;!•:124'..•••F,14.•-5••;:i':',•i't, ...4:'i..,:•;',I,:;,"r.?
VT.P01.4.914:,,tt,X,01.'4-ftAKO#A,fi'ai•Og ..'1'.•47,',-;', l&a,tjgigdtptekfAIXA,tgtb,tktllAttb4j.44Vhligfgdfrykitit.''tt;.'.;';'f,tiV;;;,cf!..-. Vittl,iit'Lis::45.!-:•,:.;.i.'t..t:
,IF•7,0•;:i•'"Ask.,''P•itAVP4t..1.`-•.*t'*.W.:'Irt.,,q.4,1*!;•.•.,it,'1:4'4440.1..tt;2•t*r".0-eiti .iv_, 4414 .`1•,444400.•4, _'ik-'-'..1,4-1..k.,__,‘40•461-1:4,4Wiigi:i.V.t,..4,6e'F.'-,'''.`.0...F.-4'4%g:44:;:t:i0,44;: '.i.z174;: :A?:;? ..:f:V:
-Afd. 0,04tAIQFOtigtt,.!'-';74401.44',:4,0tt net,9e4.4090 .17116. L„FAN.44:41364PE.IIPO ''igistip',.4. ."MA- oli*•,...4.4,i,4\-'4,.;,;-....i.:-..-"il,.-.:4.i.,..iri';•.:,'.;::',.,..,:;.-1':
mk•....,,.,,i.r,es;,4i,ocev,:hwierivez4k.,_vgtr,,,e*.0 .,.k..pr.,,-14,...14,L40.`.-6,6V1.4 . 't.,.4,--:."*',..:.'•--ar.";INg.v.,4- letvv.AIN:Witit4-.1,3,Y..:.;zkv:.-z:?',ff-,'.,:.7, 21
;;I:lit.,,.47„7..7,4a,,,,.%'2,1,_.z.i.,-..,.gkiii.".y.:,1„,-..„4, ;.e.-'i'.p.*._,..werA. I*.-70r4...... kr•,•A4[4,?..“141-ipotA,.4 .-a. ..;-...:.,•ot...,:_,_t-g,;.....,.,i,:,,,.,._04ts,-,,,11,:*0.0...11:31,3';,.41100.',.,411;y0-;f4riv,:fii..,;:,.',e
)0,4, Ai--A.--,At''v'S-'-'1,-. 0.--si. ',.4I-Ivo--. :-;;`,,t1,:*:::,--Ile -1.-,-.x,,,,-;,-.r.n..-;tat,.:4.•-,i4t--,.a:'.,,t,,f•r rk,•..-. .,..-,-'•••:•.ti!k-el.';',0.",PAIT.. ,.'4.•••;!1Fai, l'i:;;,••••,-4...:!1/4;•,:•,,,410:41i.N1i!!-:1.4:‘,-.:•::::...-ct....2.4 .V:a;• -•:••••,-.11.
.!.),..:•g;.!,...P.i.i':,-.1*4.!..;')..f,i7.11.:11':..1..•:lizZ4V;Re0j,.,4.tt,„,teA•tx.,.Z,-,e•-•.s'''r` •'ety64.'1414A64, ISA-.41iiii&V5;.'Ji: ".,-.44,41., :f.-„alt.aq9Si..Y7*•.;ciitUitt?„, ..:•6*,7:1!!,:',.t. .%,-X.'..51;..i?.!:,11-1-bOk;`,5,:V.:i-A.
3,:*,:liK,V,,n,sr '.A,i0fii.-(4),$„1-TAitrAr,_1,,,‘,4372:7a4re.7.:;',4„..44';;.z,.4-44 ilit4W7'17 '. 7•••:•c. .-Olk 7..''-::i.1°'''.'Vi:P.';%.4144411 Z;44",104414144: W;;i4vsn' iY::,?..%:4'...**
}Iriiititi.W.7.,iii:,111:45i6....4.',454:4:0WWitt.*.,4.0t040WilinItt.:.i" -.....:. '.4.016,t4,A • :. ' ''''' .6...., 41000filtrit.;,,,:rz:,.q.0§.,,,,i.,,,,:„...,g,,,,..7,,,,..:4,144.,..Ti.,:::1,..,,:.;-:,,A
0
4
:„..v:,.....ici,1.,..(4,.....:7.,..,,,,..41:5,141,,,,...t.,,,,.. ..7.t:_ ,_:s..4w,...i.ti•:••,;.•;,...,11,•,,,..?„ ,..t....,:l.,. .i.,„:4y.:::.,;e41: 41,....::::,;ti...0.1,;,_:.,:,,,,i4. ... ,:41,,....;.:„.....0.,:..*•:„. ,....1.,:;.„,..,,,,Imi ..•••.,;177,„..r...413..ti„.....1,144.4763,s1.33::::6!„1..yza4,1.v.;•47.foiw;s.:
iowim:riorzir,:r ,4!4::,,,,tg4.;,.:441, 4,,t,,Aefois,otl,,4ittuat.,,....:..4pttrtvsismotioNat4*,r.wvyo4,44tL,_e,ss..,..,,.,.,,,.:44:•:Ie.tiait:4,•.;4;f.g•i,, fq.§_:;•w:7.7„.:i,•.,„•;:.;„
3
ttp),.1:*,.:,.,:i:Ai,..4,4,,,,,i.::::i...14i.,:xii..4.vit,si,101,0,. .4.),:„„e.2,„„ ?...0.,..40,,s,..E.4x...,,L,.i.z.v.1,,,,,,,,....:110,44•.;.,11_,;,.:,Qt.,,,x.r..vtiti,„0„..*41,,....,,,?,,,t..;,...ar.4,4...x,ativ.,.14I.,,,,,,i,4„...11..,.._.•...1.4,,,s,,q;,,,,„e:04.•,...s.„,...ii,::,.•,::.„:ili,1:!:,„.,
„..4.its„,„:„.,...... .,.,,,F,,..p:,:.4.„:•„,,,44„,.. ..ri.,:i4,44,14lie„?.. :,"...,.,t"....Q.',t. f.'4i- i''...likriiit.'lit?''.ibti,,A ti,-.eta+1-:,,,,,,,egiw:----.-.3.1,-,,"%.,„iwn-,..0,14,-,.‘,.,-0,1/2Fun-,t-.A.:...iTv.1.1..ss",,...2-;.,--7,,,*--1.;
;
.i..,-k-:„...,,,,....,4,-.:#,..'7,•,,...,,,,tvi,VTere#.41,isf,t,45,,,,r-: -,,t,,,,..•.%•...•••r.
"14::_''' Z..-44-li z,,n'.-1.4111-Z'il"V44',11,,,'T'iti'st''''' '':,•:•ftv,i,.-••• ''.41,..W••••-••••-.1,4i••,.'-,t-,s-•-r,,••',ii'il';'- !-.i-W;.-4..,,,,,,,,,-.',. ,• ,--,r- ,cwits.74::-(-**54-',- .i-;:s"?.1',',54%01-,t."0-:g:.6. 44,,i.,-':,,..e...i.,:.::,_:,-60-:-Aii.;,,-;
,i,......,,,,:,..-4_,T...4„.: ::.4,i,i,..;.;,... .-fri7‘..:s.:11.,4,:z•-,,,....-q-i. .;;.4,;..4.''''...: 1*-Y- - 'if .‘,A., , -, -.,,, , - . -- .-• --.7k,y-Ti.,,.. ......,-. ---:;„. - - " .....4,...,.„. -. - " . -
. , . .,..... , . ,•..k 1 47,,- .04,,,, . , , 1/•1 -4 . ..;.....,,,,t•-•. - M....W.s4,t4V.-Ix',;4.4A,•.1....,1•I'.-'':1.1.•0,•-• ,t•-:-•,.•- .:-'• ..,i.. ?•s•-, .•."..
fiw:•107-s174,10;:.,r,,,,,-,..?•..,v,,.1,.. .pk-A.,7-...,,e .. ..voikrkt‘'.1,`., ,r.er- '',Mi.?v..• 1.4.7 .,-.1&tei,..rpait4q,',t.-7-,',.pi,P,i.t....,.1 ., 'Ilf,t4:1",. - 1,-,..-ariyANCejr,,t,..,..t.Wit ne,,i,,„ 7•Oet,,,t4,1,r4*.lAk,1Z-.40,„,-,...,;;,74..,;
..:,!.44 .14r,... =-!:".14.).U.Vf'r','4, '1';10,••• t;;M:.,.. 413,1 ' ' "P'..,` RItt,A,..., -fitit.i.:0 .4 la ' .t‘iitti,t15',..?,,R**11,,,iiIVI„:y„,',..l',,,i',..; nt•a,,,,,,,..... wp...a:0‘,..,,,, ,,,....:4.0.,..0-,,,,i, ,.:...,..u.,...,,,.,-,::::,
;10-,..11.rogg-.:,,,,f...,31:ii..9.7,-,,,,,,',,e3-41:4--,41 ., togrg,a ,.. ' 0,,,:, , t- ,Lg... • . L-- 46t,• .st'I 0:.. : A,,,...P.-- -.v10,..74,04:4- ...,,,A.A.--0,404,*.c.e;,-"*
4
,„,,,:,...t.:::::::„,...„ .....„e;..,,,..,.,..iy,:,-r•fc.?..0.:•;.r,.`,?.....,.;70p-..: r,.,••.:,,:i.A7:•:%.,::• i'V.,,=.4;.g..tt•:,.;i7L7.1;1,7,r...i..„. .1‘;t:::*:EZ:::..:4;::!-',PRil-•••4=).:4a4---iiT4Wzi.,-- •.j..- P..,•TS:'..4t...#4,14gt,igkiit.%744474441.4.,Ptar:OlgtVW.,1,1i411,,,A4M.5
1,,,,..'4.,r<IA'Cirl,4,_!,,,,V•L,,..,ItiPetiii141:,54444 ..,-„IiV4Ft62,Atifiltditgtritt.;: A;.,...14:t i r!';1144r,._'''',11.1.K‘*Zi4;.".4,4C'''''.-',,ir'ii,-;%;"AV.A•a•ii,41.44:7t-giirit%1VA:T4.4i:2?:,;!:...AfC,S;',Ijileti*JR;C!h4" -:i4ri
4.V.0,11:04- 1,F,tt'A'.4;arTeN1W0-4,1401:P,4',1..,e:041. 1 N'tilr..bir .44.; • - v.k -,..4•.r‘x . -,74,-.04.1.••'''s,'•,..'!".•,!-.: ' ''.• ••',:%'"ti041,111;-:,:41.. 4-„,•,g-'',-..1;pti'44.,,,,,,j,1,-itAl..44;t1,,,:-1.:,. .44,•kt*.,,Int:.'s-',,p•;1,..-:1'.
t-4=1,'•=4g14444,0•JJ:,114„,,e1.4.15.4,i'4,410;....ltaFP.44•`"4',As,:tinlfm•L': - •!••;1,-;,.'.•;4•1 .414'•'''•Li'-:-'''''',0!+4'4-..•l'ii,""0:,,,,,•1744,4,44.;"••.:,.;:-.L.i.,:!.: 4,,,,•t4'.434:-geiN1`1447.PWA,Z,t''•frizoit•A'•4"4-0,P4tegallik.,11,1'4114g$41,0.;74
104;kkAtOiad5liti-•rr- 14'''''AiVI4ViOlAtA.Weill ,F,,kc.,':-,A ,:.r,-• IW-7„.,;‘'''',i "'..",'- :ARY2tAtTFO•`••.,:aeiVA4eixiti:AsyS,11',434n ..,,,....:1'.:4k4";,,tditki•V4,:iii!.s.!'i',,.;4ks'',.),,,,,F'.il.:‘,
r
T:k--. §....,,a-,,,,--,,,,,-..' ...,,..--'.-Q,:s+.,....*-,-4,,...,..1:411/,..I.e,i,.. .'45 VI :,-.:'.' 1&44:-...'', ,i-„-R44,:.74,,,T4:14 .4-4A,X.44,,,.itis ,...,a'itit,it,•, .4•-,.. „ ,_.N.,',:ir.„,;44,ZL,‘4,`:::•,„t"'"_;..,1,&44,for,,•,..,,;*".•.t44,,•:1,-,,,,:14',A . . ,.• .:4,sti
•01,,Vizr.p,P•4•Ve,Al.','••' '4:4:4,4 r.'4'.I4.17-44W•;,,•••••,'1,1," •14,, -''-,'F'-' -41-4),Nfziflipft4F4•301..W"'"144ar':i''".1•'''''-%.71 •-'41'''4.441ifili.-• klf• 4,•-‘?-1q,:••1„:'t •••;i1".;;,:,,,,, -„;`,4•11.,.7,....: , ,...:4*-,-;:Yeut
•,-4i4,-"•'''..-,.'•-'-';•', .3•*0:{i:.,,',,l,t- ',14g.-i.:-.k.,-*-•1,,14--- za•44,4,-2-0k, • .4-- ,.,„- , ::-..,-I. .,-7‘..,--.., : ,..:!.q-,,.,.4..7.-%., 'f.41,...,• -..7.,,,k,V,41.- im544'-.)t, . "'41•11A if''',;7 •4•• •-: 'C -7 ,p,Siinc.',7-litie•
rIfil.:•••,AT,•?fik56-.4.4;.5.4i.W4vi.,:,---4*tr-.. '',.,'i.4.7*-WW-,......AAP. .:•,4!::::::*.-;,,,A.74....r,',V,t,.... 4,,- ..:,..',1,.....-'..,.. ,„....-'.'11.'-'.,.... ' ...i '',„:-. : --i.' ..1-770,„--,A_„11.,,.,..:140IV:;ty,....,:_,Tti -..-.-,:'. -,-,W4,41`
yt,F,,,-,5....,,,,...,- i..=,''.:Al..‘.',01.-4 i,:::.;:,Z 417',..., 't''xt,...4,17,:re.,.. ,v.,?! ,t0r-4h,,,,t.I.;,VIT)",'It.,v!.'0,,;:11.;`4v,4,•-?."...'4-...-",4-4..,A,''' ."'''iii ""` 't-••jr `...1'4,st4,441:4,',0..,444'-...--••••,4-',:o•414,4--4:,,,*,,,,,,,r;....•-•:-.•,,--4,,-,41.,,,,-4':ii=44, .,,,4.,,,•,1-1,,,r:J,
-4`••
.,;,,,7-,,..:,,4.,:,..,,,,,.••:... 'r„.*..704,,if4f''11,... 4,c4-..s.CA,:;:.-4,'„-:ii.,.-':T''nv ' .t- FM.4 141.5P-W64"41-)4:4'-01•V.It4-70•MX.P.A4-72.*Ilet.,fi'.`..::---Or:114144,,Ir„-Vii+g-'''L-ri''',1'.44-lkflt11,4:4-44
4.
X
i*,.; .I.Vi-..,;':-A;;--.4,4.•7"'t'4.:':51‘,.-E:.''`'itsli;4d4-.15:34 .?&,.. 24;it'Sf'ij'':‘-1....•:..,4:,,.i?'....c)-1. 043..Oi;•it,V#40$714617g1-70VA0f470X.*#„*Iit age' -1s.:.,;.';-Ati,qz.*.',e".;A;`:-,-;it,',.-Wzikt#:*
verig-r."!1`P.v!,;,-t.,.:".4gAIPM,,,,,trtAo:
sr
i'‘.5...gitief,;-.---''d'i'1'.. .04;,,,,,.., 10-1,10.nr* '...-,11,-A'--,tifito.: 14,:.-,-,0'•_, ofti,,,,!,;*,r.v42.44.466.0,I.',03,0t*:,7-ate..,;„f,,,.,of4 „t%..:,t.::;k ,t,-„,-„,:.:m-4_ v,7....,ifitaitopii.t.,-14
iAzt,„,;v;i.a',„,...g..k;,.-wz*otiik.,r4-.ftkvrr-E,,*,s,-.;,t*W,it4,4,t,..vzi.,,,:ziv,i-:ai.,,,,,,t,,,--ieiorlg,,,ssi;::'s*,,,,t4-,!(,?.--i§t,kc•.,:t:.:-_,e,rnir-JAI-5(,4,-,--Vf4,,'AAP-'rir4,civ'--g,ek.A,0..,4••.`4141,4454,141A'
42:te,F-01-)4a4V:44(4 ..,•31•Wili''S'A'''1!1•47i ; l'.'"-42414.'W1130,14*9§4F441..-r•AAVI';,44.1t-''''•f•AAH'''%",iVallittii,001 ,L.,Vdie‘','141YKtiV4014:44 II:ft:RIO.''.•,..'lz-,L,;,,f,4,4, '',44„'0,144414,
'-'', :•,,.1:,,'-•;- ,i:;v.,.14117 .••i!,...,v, -•••411? , .-,,;•,-, -...0..11.;14 •,,i,g.,.1t.'•4•••?,*,":4-i2A#'-,,•41'3*-,44't•-•-••• )At';k41"44,1 -'1:00.01.Vg..11ftee''''-'n1A44.1 "•'••,VeritTe‘419 ''''' -A,nitc*47.4-24:'•M-N11',4Aicif:7114'r...4;g
ws,,,!!,,,-.•-,:';,-.-1%•;,:z2q-s---..'kl:*..,-4,.t-„•,.,-.,,51,i,.1.:,.4!..',IgAig.i.g-gro .(4.14,,4.**w.,..!,..,-1-40.46.04pr.:rt.,,:--;: ...',Vegatimtw.fit: ',""41W1/2,.,;,,,:' L'--,-*.n,t.'4.,.....o:,,,t.':::...1:-.
{4N0~4.-itt. "0.04641....*fia.P4kidqvtxxi.V.4.,ti.:','. -'1-3.414,4,0-Alk,',.4.4.t,,'i.O.:4004imirttAt...-1,215,..0,.$rsr,;44.*4*:41,11,h1.;t.ii,:i,
',,,P.ii.10.7.0.,,lok,,,,,,*-.4,0,'74:..4.0, 1.4.!,...,:.--#.41*,-.00,7'..1.,44-44,,,w,..4-.0.,tvi,,f,,,,I,ovai,,,-A,,,, ,,,---,,,,,,,,,z.v4.40,,,,,a,m2::;i1,74-0,,,,,v,:m..,, Ivo,fr..,,f;.:,,, ,-,,,,,,,-;.,.::-1,,,,'"';4iii,W41' • '"''''••••••.•:•••'' •''• ''''''•-
.. . .4.,,vt,n,-4.4,-?. ,,,,,•„t4,,t4..,1,- ., ., .4.4.,..„.4.r.,4,4„,*s.„tt4,Itr4F .4,.,Xk•k.,,.,4;j•2.,r":;-1.1''••':.,...•'.':•-.'.':,•..',.:
. e.14-1,41A....:* ,--„ ---voototom,-ow. .... .-,..-.,_-:, .4...t4,..i.ory--,-,;,04y0-4rt,efetepork--- .i;,.i;,,-%---.:-..-,i44,4;0:1•••--I..---- •-..,.. ,„. ,.....,....,,,e.
.114...,$.,,,,-,,,,,,-44,". .4-;- .C7N%dv,i,,:pt.,,igc.---..,,-.P,,,.,,,,4 ,,,,,t,4.;..,,,,,.„titi,„4,,,.‘:,.,. .,:.:.,t,,...1,„.w....i..,,,,,;,.-., ,i,-;:,,,s4:::1..,..,,,,,),,,:„A‘i...,,g,,t;.;1:„..„,-,..„.,, ,..,:. ...„,„,,!,t.,, 7.4-70w.:,„I;,,,,..t•-•-•„,cr.,!•,,,,„„ ,.,,,o..?..„:14,.--.':;.';;-*?.-'--..i'''.ft4-',.....4"'•••-t6t:t
44,41,-4.VIA'e:lir.,11,k,p4:411.104&•.1-4t1 'itt.P4'.V-;„:10.-,101--**-4,1144Tesgaiv,‘,167,r,-.1,‘.$44,;.:4e-0,4t,:',4iry,Atorty...4T-1,1,,--::.,v;-.0-4.;;111.!ilz
,, .--, ., - A,-,-.1.,,,,,,,,,,,.-0.1., 'f '0,,,,,,,, .,.• ,-,,,,,'KI 0.14..f.T1.;•::';',41.0 r,,f)...IIN‘tilf0,!...".':.:•,%4, '
clt ....irri-igii•L.,''''rii r..Stly4FrjA110.74741t,,N;A:00.•,. 410,?3,1; 1 '.:.). •„''',:,....M'AniVt;•,..TA1.,-.1 " A4.0400,,,''.1,4.:•.1`,st,0,71.: .14 tee,FITAIVY",.., ,vt,I.I.W..-;•:,;3•:',,,,flirti,;;;,71.4'. ;: e':..-4,,
l'4,',-,, -',, ,-,•,,,,• -4A,,, .ti,,,',44....?',A.,, -.. .,,4;',',,, ,,,,%0R,M-A` ..-4t.,f•40.1VIN7r41-A444kt','-'•••-''•.•;44.4ge-'4'1•14'.47;t*f''•':':"•!"-4,•:At 4 'p‘i,12-44.44,411AW-•:044t"':','.:',1'4".114V..;..444'.it•'1441'ii4W4
'„,,K . c:',41A,„,.,Orlit;'.'r•ATN,4ifY, VMAtti,•'•••-4 .-tyrtAtk...44.Vt. ',f'•. •,'W,•' "IN .,• -._. .•...—.,".",.11..•',-,.-low,,enetorii-t,..,--,;,,,..:0;.;:,....:,.:4:......•.;?,,t,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,N.,,,,,,,,Iswi
‘
ttc,„,1",k,,,—,,, ,,-,f,p,-44,s-fiv-,...,,M,. .*.x4t,...p04.;.,,,,,i,x..57.1,,,,,,.,:tivw,,,....4.,...11-1 ,. ,,,...-:.kr,.,,,,,..,...44,4,0,,v,t,-i,-- .•,v4:,=-'•'' 'ttr - tqlV.NATZ-1.4.L..to.L••.:4.,1,4Wi4 Fli*OW4i6IPZVVISI 4
'L'''''''`F=. 4'e7P-VV"4.V.41,0-014.4:%§!;itettilr-447g6'4,1:;tacV440k.b547.0:41c015VSPr'. ...::;i4'.i:.41*.,,,I.,',1.'',2''''.,:Y'.;', 4164,4 If 4,0A-0.:i;#,',f,y,41.c..;,..;'.7g;,;.7.•:;.::,,...,:-.,A,"::,-,A4,1.„.„,...!:.;,vi-..,,,,:,.,T..41,4,,,„,i,*
iitgOix:-,tti,IPAIOA,-.4g0t*.;44*-;a3,,„,4ff..:04*-4gAMt4g4Af:;•,•,0-,*14:41q6:, ...:-Atb,--,ikb,,-nAkVit`.gektIrATE,OfibtIM:4;PR": '::'±:' ,.;;!,41,h0',Z0-0717#1145' .cklarrii.!0(
-04.-4••-1,4141;'-i-'41,''Aii•v•-11V•IV^,.':4- 35':-.`iPy-6'Ailo;11-76‘,.'citl,'•4i:5a7.?4'•gq.;1•:-&riiicit\%-iArvOgligq-•!4'•.-pg;TtZLi•",i'iPi'r•I'V.LirA4it:),;•- § il'A:-.:N':.tfi', ,•::?.!:f:PA.''.:•-•',..q,:,•,.,::::.•:.,;'.:;•-,...,,4.•,:•LM,41:4$,.;1;•,4f.,_,.:.,,•4; 4,„ -. •.!•,•,,,,,,,,it
pi;;;•ps-;-.,,,t .t.,,„•lv 44,41,_ ,e,,f2k4,-4.0,, t,lott_zfi,•,-,,,ip 43.-,f,,.k-N,.$1,4444..,':•.w,s..Viv‘1,A•A•01,4,40)044,,tik,'11.',A;t4;1.r,4%V-1,-,.4):1-,1,-.X.Y.,t',:4',V!-,1W:•-..iii'.'W. :•Irg'i•••!;i1• 410040:111•:Yk`'.v.4.0•Al •--1-f .i. _..7 '..'0':4'''A'
A .,,13. .,,,,WA!i_.... ...X.,.M „,..-1. i . i.g., .--i.:-...• ...‘. -st'0 ••,r,irSN, :-".•
THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL CARDIAC PACING AND ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY SOCIETY
_ . , •ma P IS k 4 !, 114 A 14A k ik .
• :0 Iv I•LOGY
•
This study did not address the safety index as it relates to individuals with arrhythmias,pacemakers,or implantable cardiac defibrillators.
•
Cardiac Safety of Neuromuscular Incapacitating -
Defensive Devices .
WAYNE C. McDANIEL,*.ROBERT A. STRATBUCKER,t MAX NERHEIM,t
and JAMES E. BREWER*
From the *University of Missouri-Columbia,Columbia,Missouri,tTASER®International,Scottsdale,Arizona,
and*Brewer Consulting,Minneapolis,Minnesota
•
McDANIEL,.W.C.,sr AL.:Cardiac Safety of Neuromuscular Incapacitating Defensive Devices.Neuromus-
cular incapacitation(NMI)devices discharge a pulsed dose of electrical energy to cause muscle contraction
and pain. Field data suggest electrical NMI devices present an extremely low risk of injury. One risk of
• delivering electricity to a human is the induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF). We hypothesized that
inducing VF would require a significantly greater NMI discharge than a discharge output by fielded de-
vices.
The cardiac safety of NMI discharges was studied in nine pigs weighing 60±28 kg. The minimum
• fibrillating level was defined as the lowest discharge that induced VF at least once,the maximum safe level
was defined as the highest discharge which could be applied five times without VF induction, and the VF
threshold was defined as their average.A safety index was defined as the ratio of the VF threshold to the
.. standard discharge level output by fielded NMI devices.A VF induction protocol was applied to each pig
to estimate the VF threshold and safety index. The safety index for stored charge ranged from 15X to 42X
as weight increased from 30 to 117 kg(P< 0.001). Discharge levels above standard discharge and weight
were independently significant for predicting VF inducibility. The safety index for an NMI discharge was
significantly and positively associated with weight. Discharge levels for standard electrical NMI devices
have an extremely low probability of inducing VF. (PACE 2005;28:S284-S287) •
•
neuromuscular incapacitation, ventricular fibrillation; electrical safety '
Introduction ,,- Methods
Neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) devices Study Design ,
discharge electrical energy at high peak voltage, The cardiac safety of the electrical discharge
low average current, in 10-100 As pulses deliv- byNMI devices was studied in a prospective con-
ered in 10-19 per-second trains.1 Parameters for trlled trial design with the standard NMI dis-
the electrical discharge of NMI devices have been charge as control, compared with discharge's that
empirically determined to maximize neuromus- induced VF in a large pig.The animals were anes-
cular stimulation, cause pain and muscle con- thetized with isoflurane,their arterial blood pres- ,
tractions, and temporarily incapacitate a human sure,oxygen saturation,respiration,and heart rate
subject.2 were continuously monitored until sacrifice. ' ,
TASER® (Taser International, Scottsdale, AZ)
is an electrical NMI defensive device which has Experimental Device and Electrodes
been widely tested.3-7 There has been no report A custom device was built to deliver an
directly related to its risk of inducing ventricu- NMI electrical discharge that matched the wave-
lar fibrillation(VF), although preliminary findings form characteristics of the commercially available
suggest that the likelihood of inducing VF by an . TASER®,model X26 device.The experimental de
NMI discharge is extremely low.2'8'9 We hypothe- vic,e allows the output capacitance to vary as a mul-
sized that the induction of VF would require sig- tiple of the nominal capacitance (and charge) for
nificantly greater discharge levels than delivered• a standard NMI device (0.008 p.F, Fig. 1). All ex-
by electrical NMI devices fielded by law enforce- perimental NMI discharges were delivered with a
ment agencies. fixed voltage of 6000 V. The waveform, as a short-
. electrical pulse,was delivered at a repetition rate
of 19 pulses per second for eseconds.The standard
NMI stored charge for the experiment control was
Partial funding received from the Office of Naval Research,con (0.008 µF x 6,000 V) = 48 µC. The standard NMI
tract N00014-02-C-0059. discharge represented the same amount of charge
Address for reprints: Wayne C. McDaniel, Ph.D., Technology (coulombs) delivered by fielded NMI devices.The
and Special' ,Projects, University of Missouri-Columbia, pulses were discharged across the thorax of the an-
• 475 McReynolds Hall, Columbia, MO 65211; e-mail: - imal, using metallic barbs that matched darts de-
mcdanielwcc@missouri.edu ployed in fielded NMI devices.One pulse delivery
S284! January 2005, Supplement 1 •
PACE,Vol. 28
[--;
•
SAFETY OF NEUROMUSCULAR INCAPACITATING DEVICE
4 10
F i
y.
L. 1
•' -10 1 1 I I I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time[us]
—Standard Waveform —16x Waveform —48x Waveform
Figure 1. Experimental NMI waveforms compared to waveforms discharged by standard NMI
devices (standard waveform, black).Experimental waveforms are shown for 16 times standard
discharge(MA,green)and for 48 times standard discharge(µA,red). The waveforms represented
a single pulse of a two-stage capacitor discharge; standard NMI devices apply 19 pulses per
second for 5 seconds. The two-stage incapacitation discharge was designed to first penetrate high
. impedance barriers (AC-like portion of waveform) and then to incapacitate neurological and
muscular activity(pedestal portion of waveform).
probe was placed at the sternal notch and another weight. Discharge data were collected during the
on the anterolateral thorax at the point of maxi- experiment for each NMI discharge applied dur-
mum impulse. ing the VF threshold procedure. Minimum fibril-
Threshold Procedure lating discharge level determined by the VF thresh-
NMI discharges were applied in an up-down old procedure was defined as the lowest discharge
method to determine a threshold for VF induc- that induced VF at least once;maximum safe level
tion,beginning with a standard NMI discharge.In- was defined as the highest discharge which could
creasing stored charges were applied to the animal be applied five times without induction of VF;VF
until VF was induced. The stored charge was in- threshold was defined as their average. The safety
creased in steps by increasing the size of the exper- index was defined as the ratio of the VF threshold
imental NMI device capacitor.Each stepped stored to the standard NMI discharge (48 µC).
charge had a capacitor value equal to a multiple Statistical Analysis
of the standard capacitance unit(0.008 µF),using All continuous variables are expressed as
an increasing number of charge multiples (2 and mean±standard deviation.Two sample t-tests for
• multiples of 4 from 4 to 48). Following the first samples with equal variance were used to compare
VF induction, a decreasing series of capacitance- mean values. For all comparisons, a P < 0.05 was
stepped discharges were then applied until VF considered statistically significant.
was no longer induced by five discharges of equal,
stored charge.The animals were defibrillated with Institutional Review •
an automatic external defibrillator. A recovery pe- The study protocol received approval from the
Hod of at least 90 seconds was allowed after dis- Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of
charges that did not induce VF. If a discharge did Sinclair Research Farms.All animals received hu-
induce VF, a recovery period of at least 5 min was mane care.
- • allowed following,defibrillatjon. Results
°4f Study Endpoints and.Safety Index Nine experiments were completed. The aver-
i`:.
o The primary study endpoint was the determi- age weight of the swine was 60 ± 28 kg, rang-
nation of a safety index for each animal based on its ing from 30 to 117 kg. All animals remained
ft
PACE,Vol.28 January 2005, Supplement 1 • S285
McDANIEL,ET AL.
• Blood Pressure Chart 0.69) and the minimum VF induction discharge
was modeled by 16.5*[weight (kg)] + 460 (n = 9,
r2 = 0.82). The analysis revealed a linear, in-
creasing relationshi110i \Ali,A „ ,. , , p of maximum safe and mini-
p { mum VFI discharge multiples(and therefore safety
�9 lj index) as a function of weight (kg). The rela-
tionship further confirmed a significantly greater
1-0—N MI Stimulation--0- discharge required to induce VF compared to
standard discharge levels for a fielded NMI
device.
Figure 2. Example of blood pressure before and during Logistic regression showed that the mean
an NMI discharge. charge multiple for a 50% likelihood of VF induc-
tion was 24 ± 13, with an odds ratio of 0.85 after
hemodynamically stable throughout the experi- adjustment for weight(95% Wald confidence lim-
mental procedures, despite an average of 26 ± 12 its:0.83,0.88,P<0.0001).Therefore,an increasing
NMI discharges per animal (Fig. 2). charge multiple was shown to be independently
The safety index for stored charge ranged related to an increase in VF induction.
from 15X to 42X as weight increased from 30 to
117 kg (P < 0.001, Table I, Fig. 3). The VF induc-
tion threshold level(1339±463µC stored charge)
was significantly higher than the standard level for. This study confirmed the cardiac safety of an
applied charge (48 µC stored charge,P < 0.0001). experimental NMI device emulating the perfor-
The charge multiple at the VF induction thresh- mance of commercially used devices.An NMI dis-
old was 28 ± 10 compared to the standard charge charge that could induce VF required 15-42 times
multiple of 1 (P < 0.0001, Table I). The maximum the charge of the standard NMI discharge. Fur-
safe charge multiple was 26 ± 9 with an average thermore, this study demonstrated a safety index
stored charge of 1,227±423µC,and the minimum strongly correlated with increasing weight. In ad-
VF inducing charge multiple was 30 ± 11 with an dition, the observation of the hemodynamic sta-
average stored charge of 1,451 ± 509 C. bility of the animals suggests that these devices
The maximum safe levels and minimum VFI may be safely applied multiple times if needed.
levels of stored charge for experimental data were Discharge levels output by fielded NMI devices
regressed linearly for significant trends. The re- have an extremely' low probability of inducing
lationship between stored charge as a function VF.
of weight (kg) was compared to experimental This study used adult domestic pigs chosen
stored charge for minimum VF induction dis- to simulate a range of adult human body weights
charge. The maximum safe discharge was mod- between 30 and 120 kg, likely to be encountered
eled by 12.5*[weight (kg)] + 473 (n = 9, r2 = in police work. Our results suggest a safety index
r
Table I.
Experimental Outcomes for 19 Pulse per Second Discharges
Weight Max Safe Safe Stored Min VFI VFI Stored Threshold Safety
Pig (kg) Multiple Charge(µC) Multiple Charge(µC) Charge(µC) Index
1 83 28 1344 32 1536 1440 30
2 54 28 1344 32 1536 1440 30
4 48 28 1344 32 1536 1440 30
5 81 40 1920 44 2112 2016 42
6 49 20 960 24 1152 1056 22
7 42 20 960 24 1152 1056 22
8 37 16 768 20 960 864 18
9 117 36 - 1728 • 48 2304 2016 42
10 30 14 . 672 16 768 • 720 15
60±28 26±9 1227±423 • 30± 11 1451 ±509 1339±463 28± 10
µC=microcoulombs;VFI=ventricular fibrillation induction.
S286 January 2005, Supplement 1 PACE, Vol. 28
•
•
•
•
• .. SAFETY OF NEUROMUSCULAR INCAPACITATING DEVICE
45
40
♦30 ♦
•
e ZS
•20 •
•
15 A
=o Figure 3. NMI safety index(A, triangle)
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 soo 210 izo 130 in relationship to weight(kg). The safety
index is the ratio of VF induction thresh-
Weight(Kg) old discharge to fielded NMI discharge.
>20 for human adults >45 kg. The standard NMI The minimum discharge that would cause fibrilla-
devices may therefore have a safety index signifi- •tion was approximately 15 times the charge of the
cantly >20 for field applications to adult humans. standard pulse when used on the smallest pig.
4 References
a1. Murray J,Resnick B. A Guide to Taser Technology. Whitewater, 6. Robinson MN,Brooks CG,Renshaw GD.Electric shock devices
CO:Whitewater Press,1997. and their effes on the human body.Med Sci Law 1990;30:285--
2. Stratbucker R,Roeder R,Nerheim M.Cardiac safety of high voltage 300.
TASER X26 waveform.Proc Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 7. Kornblum RN, Reddy SK. Effects of the TASER in fatalities
2003;3261-3262.Cancun,Mexico. involving police confrontation. J Forensic Sci 1991; 36:434-
3. Koscove EM,The TASER®weapon:A new emergency medicine 448.
ti problem.Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:1205-1208. 8. Fish RM,Geddes LA.Effects of stun guns and tasers.Lancet 2001;
4. Ordog GJ,Wasserberger J,Schlater T,et al.Electric gun(TASER®) 358:687-688.
injuries.Ann Emerg Med 1987;16:73-78. 9. McDaniel WC, Stratbucker RA, Smith RW. Surface application
5. Fish R,Electric shock,Part III:Deliberately applied electric shocks of Taser stun guns does not cause ventricular fibrillation in ca-
and the treatment of electric injuries.J Emerg Med 1993;11:599— nines. Proc Annu Int Conf I '.F Eng Med Biol Soc,2000,Chicago,
603. IL
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PACE,Vol.28 January 20'05, Supplement 1 S287