TASER RISKS IN HAMILTON COUNTY OHIO
October 1, 2012
Introduction
Several recent Taser related deaths in Hamilton County, Ohio, have caused many members in
the local community to question their ongoing use. The families and friends of Doug Boucher
(2009, Mason), Kelly Brinson (2010, University of Cincinnati), Everette Howard (2011,
University of Cincinnati), and Corey McGinnis (2012, College Hill) have raised serious
questions about the propriety of the Taser deployments that led to the deaths of their loved ones.
The Community is speaking up and law enforcement should listen. Some residents want Tasers
banned. Others want their use severely restricted. This report, prepared by the law firm of
Gerhardstein & Branch Co., LPA, seeks to inform the local dialogue with helpful facts. Which
local law enforcement agencies use Tasers? What policies do they follow on the deployment of
Tasers? How do those policies compare to national standards? The facts and recommendations
set out here should be used by residents and local law enforcement professions to upgrade local
policies, make Taser use safer and hopefully save lives.
Executive Summary1
The Electronic Control Weapon (“ECW” or “Taser”) can help law enforcement officers
make arrests quickly and safely when used appropriately by temporarily paralyzing a suspect,
reducing danger to both officers and suspects. While all uses of force carry a risk of injury,
when Tasers are used inappropriately the risk of death or serious injury of the suspect greatly
increases. That result typically unfolds in one of two scenarios: (1) the high voltage electricity
coursing through the subject’s body captures the subject’s normal heart rhythm and causes
ventricular fibrillation,2 or (2) secondary injury occurs as a natural consequence of the subject’s
loss of muscle control, such as head trauma after the subject plummets from an elevated surface.
That tension does not exist only in the abstract. The number of deaths in the United States
involving ECWs has grown to over 500.3 And the risk is nationwide. Approximately 11,000
law enforcement and correctional agencies deploy ECWs in the United States,4 including at least
35 different local agencies within Hamilton County, Ohio.
                                                            
1

This report is compiled solely by the law firm of Gerhardstein & Branch Co., LPA. Al Gerhardstein takes full
responsibility for the contents of this paper. He gratefully acknowledges the assistance of law student Doug Walter
of the University of Cincinnati School of Law.
2
Douglas P. Zipes, Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Death Following Application of Shocks from a TASER Electronic
Control Device, 125 Cardiac 2417 (2012).
3
Press Release, Amnesty International, Amnesty International Urges Stricter Limits on Police Taser Use as U.S.
Death Toll Reaches 500 (Feb. 15, 2012), http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/amnesty-internationalurges-stricter-limits-on-police-taser-use-as-us-death-toll-reaches-500 (last visited Sept. 27, 2012).
4
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, LESS THAN LETHAL? THE USE OF STUN WEAPONS IN US LAW ENFORCEMENT, at 11
(2008).

1
 

The ECW is a relatively new tool available to help officers control dangerous situations and
its effects on the human body are still not completely known. Unsurprisingly, medical research
and field data on ECW use are growing. At the same time best practice standards are evolving
so that ECW use can be as safe as possible. Accordingly, regular training and policy review is
imperative to ensure that law enforcement practices reflect current research and data so as to
minimize risk and to maximize effectiveness.
Gerhardstein & Branch recently undertook a study of local law enforcement agencies within
Hamilton County to determine which agencies’ policies and training materials incorporate the
safest and most effective ECW practices. Public records requests were sent to 41 agencies on
July 27, 2012, to initiate this review. Multiple phone calls were placed in the intervening time to
track and to facilitate progress of the responses.
As of the date of this publication 39 of those agencies responded, and of the responding
agencies, 33 deploy ECWs capable of temporarily paralyzing subjects (the “Taser”).5 Appendix
A provides a chart displaying the various agencies’ ECW policies and procedures. Appendix B
is a chart displaying the ECW status of the agencies that were not included in the review. A
copy of the original public records request is provided as Appendix C.
Notable results of the review include:
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

94% of agencies’ materials do not adequately warn that Tasers can capture the heart
rhythm of the subject, possibly leading to death.
67% of policies permit upper chest shots despite the manufacturer’s warning moving
the preferred target zone away from the upper chest.
70% of policies do not instruct officers to consider the seriousness of the crime
before deciding whether or not to use the Taser.
33% policies do not specifically instruct officers to consider the risk of secondary
impact of falling from an elevated surface subsequent to Taser use.
27% of policies do not restrict Taser use on vulnerable populations such as juveniles,
elderly individuals, or the visibly pregnant despite the increased risk associated with
those populations.
100% of policies fail to require that Tasers output be tested to ensure that the actual
performance of the device is within manufacturer’s specifications.
73% of policies do not require an investigation that includes a data download from
the Taser’s memory chip after use to independently verify the number and duration of
shocks delivered to the subject.

                                                            
5

Addyston Village and The City of Norwood Police Department have not provided responses that would make it
possible for them to be included in the results. Both employ ECWs capable of temporarily paralyzing subjects.
Sycamore Township contracts with the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office for police support, and so Taser use
policies and procedures employed in that jurisdiction will mirror those of the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office.

2
 

•
•
•
•

15% of policies explicitly authorize officers to use their Taser on a fleeing subject,
regardless of the crime or the threat to the public.
At least 16 of the agencies deploy Tasers that are older than their estimated useful
life.
Two agencies that deploy Tasers maintain no Taser-specific policy.6
One agency deploys Tasers even though the agency’s policy prohibits their use.7

This paper sets out a standard of care that is well accepted by the law enforcement
community nationally. Compliance with the standard delineated below will increase safety for
both officers and subjects. A comparison of local law enforcement agencies’ policies to the
standard of care is set out so the stakeholders in the community can assess the challenges we face
in making Taser use more safe in Hamilton County. The paper concludes with recommendations
for immediate policy changes and a recommendation that a county-wide task force be formed to
create local standards for ECW policy and training so that ECW use in our communities can be
as safe as possible.
How the ECW Operates
ECWs are often referred to as a “Tasers” after a leading manufacturer of the devices, Taser
International. The most widely used device is the Taser X26, which is shaped like a handgun.
When the trigger is depressed two barbs fire at the subject. The typical range of the weapon is
15 to 35 feet, depending on the cartridge that is selected. The barbs penetrate the subject’s skin
or clothing and remain connected to the weapon by thin wires. The device delivers high voltage,
low current electricity through the subject’s muscles in a manner that commandeers the subject’s
skeletal muscles, causing temporary loss of control of those muscles. This phenomenon, termed
“Neuromuscular Incapacitation” (“NMI”), allows officers to approach and subdue the subject,
quickly ending the struggle.
The Taser X26 is programmed to deliver the electricity in five-second cycles, one at each
depression of the trigger. The officer may deliver continuous shock to the subject by persistently
depressing the trigger or may end the cycle by switching the safety switch to “on.” The Taser
X26 can also operate in “drive stun mode,” where the user applies the device directly to the
subject, causing severe pain at the impact point but not causing NMI.
Taser International has estimated useful life of the X26 to be 5 years. The weapon is
designed to operate between the temperatures of -4 °F (-20 °C) to 122 °F (50 °C) and in a
humidity of up to 80%. To accomplish NMI, the X26 delivers electricity in pulses. Taser has
                                                            
6

The Village of Elmwood Place Police Department and the Wyoming Police Department.
The Village of Elmwood Place deploys approximately 4 Taser X26s despite those weapons not being authorized
under its own policy, which states: “Officers will only use those Less Lethal weapons issued and authorized by the
Elmwood Place Police department. The Less Lethal weapons currently authorized are the ASP Baton, Oleoresin
Capsicum (OC) Spray and the Shotgun Bean Bag Round.” (emphasis in original). ELMWOOD PLACE POLICE
DEPARTMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL at 5-14. See also id. at 5-25.
7

3
 

published the following “delivered” output specifications: 19+ 1/-2.5 Pulse Per Second (PPS)
pulse rate (may be significantly lowered by low temperature and low battery); 105-155 μs pulse
duration; 0.0020 to 00.29 s of total discharge time (at 19 PPS); 80-125 microcoulombs; 0.0015 to
0.0024 A average current; 0.095 to 0.125 Joules energy per pulse; 1.8 to 2.3 Watts at (19 PPS);
1,400 to 2,520 Volts peak voltage. Taser has published the following “internal” output
specifications: approximately 50,000 Volts arcing voltage; approximately 0.36 Joules energy per
pulse; approximately 6.8 Watts power.
Methodology for This Report
On July 27, 2012, the law office of Gerhardstein & Branch mailed a public records request
pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 149.43 to every local law enforcement agency in Hamilton
County.8 Every opportunity was given to the agencies to respond; multiple phone calls were
placed to non-responding agencies to ensure those agencies were aware of the request, clear on
what information was sought, and were able to fill it. Once the responses were received, the
information was analyzed and organized into a chart that could readily display which agencies’
policies reflect the current standard of care for safe ECW use.
The standard of care that Gerhardstein & Branch is using was developed by combining
multiple model policies and recommended Taser use guidelines including Taser International’s
training materials and Taser use guidelines published jointly by the Police Executive Research
Forum and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(“2011 PERF Guidelines”).9 The standard of care is addressed separately below.
Most important to the goals for this paper are the unique and serious risks associated with
NMI. Accordingly, the ECWs deployed in Drive Stun mode are not addressed.10 The term
“ECW” in this review is used to describe electronic control weapons generally,11 whether
capable of inducing NMI or not. “Taser” refers to the Taser M26, X26, or the newer model X2,
all of which can deploy barbs and cause NMI. Thus, any statistics listed in this review, unless
specifically otherwise noted, refer only to agencies that deploy an ECW capable of NMI.
Currently all ECWs deployed in Hamilton County capable of NMI are manufactured by Taser
International. At least 32 of the responding agencies use the Taser X26. One agency has

                                                            
8

A copy of the request is attached as Appendix C. Public records requests were not pursued with the University of
Cincinnati Police Department and the City of Cincinnati Police Department as those policies were already available
to the firm.
9
See POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORUM & COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, 2011 ELECTRONIC CONTROL WEAPON GUIDELINES (2011), http://www.policeforum.org/library/use-offorce/ECWguidelines2011.pdf (last visited Sept. 13, 2012). PERF originally published a set of ECW guidelines in
2005.
10
Repeated drive stuns without justification can be torture but that issue is not pursued in this paper.
11
Taser International refers to such weapons as electronic control devices, or “ECDs.” Such weapons are also
sometimes called conducted energy devices (“CEDs”).

4
 

upgraded to the Taser X2, a later generation ECW with some new features,12 but still utilizes the
same basic technology to create NMI. One agency still deploys the older model M26, but that
model also uses the same basic technology to create NMI. Therefore, “Taser” is used to refer
only ECWs capable of inducing NMI.
Each column of Appendix A represents one specific aspect of an agency’s policy and
procedures. Broadly, the chart provides a snapshot of each agency’s policies towards (a)
authorized use of the Taser, (b) procedures for medical treatment and investigation after Taser
use, (c) frequency and quality of Taser training, and (d) Taser maintenance. Local ECW policies
vary widely in form and substance. Therefore, clear definitions are imperative to comparing the
policies and determining if they align with model Taser practices.
Definitions of some terms describing the agency’s policy regarding each particular column
were formed to present the information in an easily digestible format:
D/S: “Drive stun” mode.
General Factor: The particular situation or circumstance surrounding a use of force may
be considered as a factor under the general use of force policy, but it is not specifically
addressed within the Taser-specific policy.
Explicitly Permitted: Taser use is explicitly permitted in that particular situation. This
term is used to distinguish the concept that Tasers will be permitted in many scenarios
where they are not expressly banned or restricted. For example, some policies explicitly
permit officers to use a Taser to stop someone fleeing from questioning. In other policies
this topic may be “Not Addressed.” That is, the scenario simply is not discussed in that
Taser policy. On a fair reading of many of those policies, officers would actually be
permitted to use their Tasers.
Forbidden: Taser may not be used in that particular situation.
Not Addressed: The particular consideration or situation was not addressed or mentioned
in the policy.
Not Provided (NP): The information was requested and was not received.
Not Requested (NR): The information was not requested.
Restricted: Use of the Taser in this situation or on this class of individual is restricted to
limited circumstances and should generally be avoided.
                                                            
12

One of these features Gerhardstein & Branch welcomes. The X2 has a “Pulse Calibration System” which Taser
International claims can continually monitor and adjust the weapon’s electrical charge output, thus ensuring the
specified electrical output (and not more) is delivered to the subject. The problem with a failure to test a Taser’s
output is addressed below in the Standard of Care section.

5
 

Restricted to DFS: Taser use in this situation or on this class of individual is only
allowed if the circumstances have escalated to a point where use of deadly force against
the individual would be justified.
Restricted < (#): Taser use is restricted when the subject is younger than the age
following the < sign.
Restricted > (#): Taser use is restricted when the subject is older than the age following
the > sign.
Taser Use Factor: The particular situation or circumstance may specifically be
considered as a factor in whether or not to use the Taser.
TI v.__: Many agencies use training materials provided by Taser International. “TI v.”
followed by a number indicates that the agency uses Taser International-provided training
materials and the number indicates the version it uses. For agencies that simply
responded that it used “the latest version of materials from Taser” or similarly, the chart
will reflect “TI v. 18,” as that is the most recent version.
Chest Shot Policy Comply w/ Preferred Target Zone: “YES” appears for any policy
that complies with Taser International’s recommended target zone when firing the Taser
at the front of the subject (upper chest area to be avoided). “No” appears for any agency
that that lists a contradictory preferred target area. “NO – Not Addressed” appears for
any agency’s policy that either does not list a preferred target area or purports to
incorporate its training material’s preferred target area by reference.13
Use of Force Continuum Placement (lowest permissible use): This column refers to
the placement of Tasers within the agency’s use of force continuum and records the
lowest level of suspect behavior against which Taser’s use is authorized. Agencies’
policies varied so widely on this topic that the only practical way to compare them was to
compare the policies to the standard of care. The standard of care dictates “Tasers should
not be authorized as a response unless the subject is demonstrating active aggression or is
actively resisting in a manner that is likely to result in injury to the suspect or others.”
Despite linguistic variances, agencies’ policies were analyzed to determine if they
authorized Taser use only against that level of suspect behavior or above. If an agency
generally authorizes use against subject behaviors that were below the standard of care or
if in any place of the policy the agency gave an example of an appropriate situation for
Taser use that fell below the standard of care, that policy was labeled “Below Std. of
Care.” The other possible classifications are “Meets Std. of Care” and “Not Addressed.”

                                                            
13

As discussed below in the Standard of Care section, where the barbs strike the subject can greatly increase or
decrease the risk of death or serious injury. Policies should explicitly state the preferred target zones.

6
 

Multiple/Extended Cycle: This column addresses only whether the policies restrict
officers’ authorization to use multiple or extended cycles against subjects in some way.
“Restricted” will appear if use is restricted in some way, such as requiring each cycle to
be independently justified or recommending the officer use a different force option after a
certain number of cycles. “Not Addressed” will appear if the policy makes no mention of
multiple or extended cycles. “Permitted” appears if an agency’s policy specifically
addresses multiple or extended cycles without instructing the officer to reevaluate the
situation, consider the 15 second application threshold (discussed in Standard of Care
section below), or allows simultaneous applications by more than one Taser.
Medical Treatment after Taser Use: “Discretionary” will appear if it is within the
officer’s discretion whether or not to request medical treatment for the subject, or if
medical treatment is required only at the subject’s request. “Required” will appear if
medical personnel must evaluate the subject any time the weapon is used on a subject,
whether that be by emergency medical responders or at an emergency department. “Not
Addressed” appears where an agency’s Taser use policy does not explain under what
circumstances a subject must receive medical treatment.
Must Report Incident after Taser Use: This column tracks which agencies require
every use to be reported. “Yes” appears for agencies that require Taser use be reported.
“Yes, (inc. accidental)” appears for agencies that explicitly require accidental Taser
discharges to be recorded. “Not Addressed” appears for agencies that do not state
whether each Taser use must be reported.
Investigated After Deployment: This column evaluates whether supervisors must
investigate every Taser use. “Yes” appears if a supervisor must investigate every Taser
use. “Discretionary” appears if the agency requires that supervisors be notified of Taser
use, but whether to investigate the use is in the supervisor’s discretion. “Not Addressed”
appears if that is not addressed within the agency’s Taser use of force policy.
Risk of Fall/Subject on Elevated Surface: This column displays whether an agency’s
policy specifically restricts use against subjects who are on an elevated surface or are
otherwise at risk of suffering secondary injury caused by a fall due to their location (such
as on top of a fence or on a roof). Accordingly, if the policy specifically restricts use
under those conditions, “Restricted” will appear. If the policy contains more vague
instructions, such as “location of the subject should be considered” or “officers should
assist subject to the ground where possible,” without warning of the risk of injury
secondary to a fall from an elevated surface, “Not Addressed” will appear.
Known/Obvious Pre-existing Conditions: “Restricted” appears for any policy that
restricts Taser use on subjects with any known pre-existing conditions. Policies that do

7
 

not instruct officers to account for any known or obvious pre-existing conditions “Not
Addressed” appears.
ECW Weapons Classification: “Non-Lethal” will appear for any policy that refers to
ECWs as both Non-Lethal and as Less-Lethal Weapons. “Less-Lethal” will appear for
policies that only refer to ECWs as Less-Lethal. “Undefined” appears for those agencies
that do not classify the ECW.
Finally, many agency policies contain a blanket statement that instructs officers to use the
weapon only in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. It is highly unlikely that
an officer will compare Taser International’s materials with the agency’s policy before using the
Taser and, for example, follow Taser International’s recommendations on how long a Taser may
safely be used on a subject rather than following the officer’s own agency’s Taser policy. Such
overbroad statements were not considered.
Taser Use Standard of Care
To develop the standard of care set out below, Gerhardstein & Branch referred to the best
practices and recommendations of several nationally recognized organizations.14 Each agency
that deploys a Taser should also have a separate, written policy specifically discussing Taser
operating procedures that addresses the weapon’s unique aspects. An agency’s Taser use and its
use of force policies are vital to officers’ understanding of the risks of Tasers. Policies set the
standard of care for the officers and establish the permissible range for Taser use. Taser-specific
policies and procedures should address four subjects: (a) Taser Use Policies and Procedures, (b)
Post-Taser Use Policy and Procedures, (c) Taser Training, and (d) Taser Maintenance.
a. Taser Use Policies and Procedures
The agency’s Taser policy should not categorize Tasers as a “non-lethal weapon.” In fact,
Taser use can lead to serious injury and death. Officers should not be lulled into unsafe practices
by using labels that cause less vigilance associated with their Taser use.
1. Targeting Zones
Policy should reflect the Taser International recommended targeting zone, which instructs
officers to aim for the lower center of mass (below the chest) if shooting at the front of the
person and below the neck if aiming from behind the person. 15 Tasers can capture the heart’s
rhythm, leading to ventricular fibrillation and death. Research has shown that the primary factor
                                                            
14

Generally, the standard of care was developed with research and recommendations found in the following
resources: 2011 PERF Guidelines, supra note 9; AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, supra note 4; AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF MINNESOTA, SHOCKING: THE LACK OF RESPONSIBLE TASER POLICY IN MINNESOTA (2011); and
Taser International’s product warning and training materials, available at http://www.TASER.com. Other materials
used will be cited separately.
15
See, e.g., Taser International, Training Bulletin 15.0 Medical Update and Revised Warnings at 2 (Sept. 30, 2009).

8
 

in capturing the heart’s rhythm is the barb-to-heart distance, and as that distance decreases, the
risk increases.16
The policy should also instruct officers to avoid barb contact to the groin, neck or head area,
or other sensitive areas such as the location of pre-existing injuries. Contact with such areas can
cause painful physical damage, and there have been reported incidents where individuals have
suffered seizures after being struck in the head with one or both barbs.
2. At-risk Populations
Several populations have been identified as particularly susceptible to death or serious injury
from Tasers. Agency policy must dictate that officers use extreme caution when deciding to use
a Taser against a member of one of those classes. Policy should instruct officers not to use a
Taser against the following classes of individuals unless the situation rises to a deadly force
situation:
(A) Juveniles, the elderly, pregnant females, and those with low body mass
because of the increased risk of injury resulting from falls or the increased risk of
heart rhythm capture;
(B) Persons restrained because Taser use has been shown to affect respiration,
thus increasing the risk of positional- or restraint-related asphyxiation. Persons
restrained are also much more limited in their capacity to catch or brace
themselves, so risk of serious injury or death from secondary impact is greater;
(C) Persons with known or obvious health conditions including, but not limited to,
heart disease, osteoporosis, seizure disorders, or neuromuscular disorders, or
implanted medical devices because of increased risks associated with those
diseases and Taser use;
(D) Persons exhibiting symptoms of “excited delirium”17 or drugs and alcohol use
because of the increased risk of death associated with Taser use on these
populations. If Tasers are used on these individuals, medical assistance should
immediately be sought;

                                                            
16

Zipes, supra note 2; Taser International, supra note, 15 at 8. Taser International maintains that its products are
safe if used properly.
17
Excited delirium is not an accepted medical or psychological diagnosis and its existence as a condition is disputed
among medical and mental health professionals. The term can be useful, however, in describing a cluster of
symptoms and behaviors, and many law enforcement agencies describe its signs in their policies on dealing with the
mentally ill or persons who have ingested on drugs. Many individuals who died after being subjected to Taser use
were also exhibiting signs of these symptoms that are described as excited delirium. So, persons exhibiting signs of
excited delirium should be a class against which Taser use should be strictly limited to a deadly force situation. For
more information, see AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MINNESOTA, supra note 14.

9
 

(E) Persons attempting to swallow evidence because of increased choking risk if
incapacitated while doing so. Although not included in any of the model policies,
reports of these incidents are surfacing. Law enforcement officials, medical
professionals, and other interested parties should confer and determine the best
practice regarding this issue.18
3. Risk of Secondary Impact
Risk of injury resulting from secondary impact after Taser use is increased to a much greater
extent than with other less lethal force options because subjects can completely lose control of
their voluntary muscles. Subjects may fall from an elevated surface, fall while running at high
speed, may drown, or crash a vehicle under their control, for a few examples. Taser policy
should reflect these unique risks by specifically restricting use to situations that have escalated to
a deadly force situation.
This aspect of the policy should restrict use only to a deadly force situation against those on
elevated surfaces, those fleeing from anything other than a serious and dangerous felony and
who pose an immediate risk to public safety, those in or near water and at risk of drowning, those
in control of an automobile or other vehicle capable of substantial movement if not under
someone’s control (such as bikes or wheelchairs).
When warning of risk due to secondary impact the policy also should include a “catchall”
provision because of the myriad scenarios in which an individual could be seriously injured or
killed if he or she were to become temporarily paralyzed. That provision should restrict to a
deadly force scenario Taser use if the surrounding circumstances would lead a reasonable person
to believe that use on the subject under that set of circumstances would pose a substantial risk of
serious injury or death.
4. Risks of Fire and Explosion
The electrical current delivered by Tasers is capable of igniting flammable materials. Policy
should reflect this risk by banning Taser use when flammables are known or are suspected to be
present. The policy should specifically warn that some chemical irritants, colloquially referred
to as “mace” or “pepper spray,” may contain flammable chemicals and Taser may not be used if
a chemical irritant has already been used. Taser use should also be banned within suspected
“drug” houses or houses in which ether is suspected of being present in order to prevent ignition
of flammable vapors that may be present.
5. Other Considerations Unique to Tasers
                                                            
18

One such individual was Andrew Grande, 23. Mr. Grande was attempting to swallow a bag of marijuana when
officers used a Taser on him. Grande later died as a result of choking on the bag. Carlin DeGuerin Miller, Gay
Porn Star Andrew Grande Dies After Trying to Swallow Pot, and Getting Tasered Didn’t Help, CBSNEWS, Dec.
15, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5981902-504083.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody (last
visited Sept. 27, 2012).

10
 

(A) Extended/Multiple Cycles – policies should instruct officers to operate the
Taser through one five-second cycle (or less) while they attempt to control and
cuff the subject. Officers must then reevaluate the situation to determine whether
a second cycle is necessary, and each individual cycle must be independently
justifiable as a use of force. Officers must be made aware that during and shortly after
the energy cycle the subject likely is not “resisting” but completely unable to comply
with or even comprehend demands. Subjects might experience a “post-Tase-daze”
for a short time and must be given a chance to comply once the subject is again
19
cognizant of the situation. The two most likely predictors of whether a subject

will die after Taser use are if the subject was shocked repeatedly or for an
extended duration. Policies should also make officers aware of the increased risk
of death associated with exposures of more than 15 seconds – whether
consecutive or cumulative. For the same reasons, policy should restrict or ban the
use of two or more Tasers being deployed against an individual at one time.
(B) Officer Warnings – policy should instruct officers to warn the subject and
other officers when Taser use is imminent unless doing so would put another
individual at risk. The purpose is three-fold. First, the Taser closely resembles a
handgun and announcing the weapon as a Taser will reduce the likelihood that
anyone mistakes it for a gun and responds inappropriately. Second, announcing
an officer’s intention to use the Taser will reduce the likelihood that other officers
make the same decision, thus reducing the chance that multiple Tasers are used
against an individual at one time. Third, announcing an impending deployment
will cause many suspects to surrender and avoid the use of force altogether.
Agencies should also consider deploying brightly colored Tasers to further reduce
the risk that a Taser is mistaken for a gun.
(C) Level of Offense Should Be Considered – because of the unique and serious
risks associated with Taser use, policies should instruct officers to consider the
nature and seriousness of the suspected crime as a factor before deciding whether
or not Taser use is necessary.
(D) Control and Cuff Under Power – policies should clearly instruct that if the
situation allows, back-up officers should be placed in an appropriate position
surrounding the subject to allow them to control and cuff the subject under power.
                                                            
19

See Ron Martinelli & Jerry Staton, The Forensic Force Series: Psychophysiological Responses to TASER-ECD
Influence, 10 Law Enforcement Executive Forum 101 (2010). Not only might subjects be unable to comprehend
instruction during and shortly after Taser application, but subjects might also experience an involuntary
“Pain/Escape Response (PER).” It is postulated that the brain’s survival instinct orders the body to escape from the
immense pain caused by NMI. In Dr. Martinelli and Mr. Staton’s study, 54% of subjects experienced PER, and 13%
experienced “panic, confusion, and a loss of all rational thought,” id. at 104. Thirty-nine percent of subjects
reported a difficulty or complete inability to comprehend instructions, and 87% of subjects suffered either difficulty
or a complete inability to perform physical tasks. Id. at 109-111.

11
 

This increases the likelihood that a subject will be controlled within one fivesecond Taser cycle and decreases the likelihood that subsequent cycles will be
necessary. This aspect of the policy should include information that it is safe for
officers to handle suspects experiencing NMI, so long as they take care not to
make contact either with the barbs or with the subject in between the barbs, where
the circuit runs.
(E) Use of Force Continuum Placement – placement of Tasers on agencies’ use of
force continuum should reflect the increased risk of injury to the subject.
Accordingly, Tasers should not be authorized as a response unless the subject is
demonstrating active aggression20 or is actively resisting21 in a manner that is
likely to result in injury to the suspect or others. The policy should ban Taser use
on compliant or unconscious subjects, against whom there is no justification for
use.
(F) Personal Weapons – personal Tasers should be discouraged. If the agency
allows personally owned Tasers or other ECWs capable of NMI, they should be
subject to the same standards under agency policy, including training and
maintenance standards.
(G) Routine Data Downloads and Review – policies should require supervisors to
download every Taser’s stored usage data once every three months. This data
should then be reviewed for any unreported or suspicious Taser use as well as for
general trends in Taser use. Each Taser contains an internal memory card that
logs data about the weapon’s use. Review of this data will ensure that officers are
using their Taser appropriately and that every use other than daily spark tests,
including accidental discharges, are reported. For officers and departments that
are inappropriately using their Tasers, this will allow for early intervention and
correction.
b. Post Taser Use Policies and Procedures
Agency policy should make clear that emergency medical services (EMS) must be called to
the scene after any use of a Taser to evaluate the subject for any physical injuries and for heart or
breathing abnormalities. Before paramedics arrive, officers should be prepared to deliver
necessary medical attention, such as CPR, to sustain the subject’s life if necessary until EMS can
arrive. Officers must inform the medical personnel the circumstances surrounding the
                                                            
20

2011 PERF Guidelines defines active aggression as: “A threat or overt act of assault (through physical or verbal
means), coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault
or injury to any person is imminent.”
21
2011 PERF Guidelines defines active resistance as: “A subject’s physical actions to defeat an officer’s attempt at
control and to avoid being taken into custody. Verbal statements alone do not constitute active resistance.”

12
 

deployment so that the medical personnel may inspect the subject for secondary injuries. Where
possible, EMS should be notified in advance when Taser use is probable.
Any subject that experienced a Taser application greater than 15 second, whether continuous
or cumulative, should be transported to an emergency department for medical evaluation. Barbs
that have penetrated the subject’s skin should only be removed by personnel trained to do so.
Barbs that have penetrated a subject’s sensitive areas or are difficult to remove should only be
removed by medical personnel. All subjects exposed to a Taser should be regularly monitored
once in police custody even if they have already received medical care.
Agency policy should require that any discharge of a Taser must be reported, including
accidental discharges. Any time a taser is used on a subject it must be investigated fully by a
supervising officer. A proper Taser Use of Force report and supervisor-led investigation will
capture information and document evidence that will enable review of the incident to ensure that
Tasers are being used in appropriate situations and in a safe manner.
The officer’s Taser Use of Force Report should require the following information: (1) date,
location and time of the incident; (2) whether the officer verbally warned, “laser painted”22 the
subject, or used arcing23 and the effects of these tactics; (3) the type and brand of ECW used; (5)
the number and duration of activations used; (6) the level of aggression the officer encountered;
(7) any weapons possessed by the subject and whether those were visible prior to Taser use; (8)
the suspected crime involved in the incident; (9) a determination whether deadly force would
have been justified; (10) the type of clothing worn by the subject and the barb’s success
penetrating that clothing; (11) distance from the subject when the Taser was fired and the type of
cartridge used; (12) whether the suspect was believed to be under the influence of drugs or
alcohol or experiencing excited delirium; (13) the environmental factors including lighting
conditions, terrain and weather conditions; (14) any injuries incurred by the subject or officer;
and (15) the medical care provided to the subject.
Agency policy should require the supervisors to collect all relevant and appropriate forensic
evidence. Examples of appropriate forensic evidence should include: (1) the ECW cartridge,
barbs, and wires; (2) Anti-felon Identification Devices (“AFIDs”);24 (3) a data download of the
Taser that was used; (4) any audio and video of the incident; (5) photographs of any injuries to
the subject caused from direct impact of the Taser barbs and subsequent use (may include burns)
                                                            
22

“Laser Painting” is aiming the laser sight affixed to the Taser at the subject’s body. This is a visible
demonstration that the officer is serious about using the Tasers and has taken aim at the subject.
23
“Arcing” is displaying an electrical arc on the Taser, which is another visible warning that can be given to the
subject.
24
Each Taser cartridge automatically releases 20-30 AFIDs containing the cartridge’s serial number when the
cartridge is fired. This was originally included as a feature of Tasers to help prevent illegal use of the weapon
because they help identify the purchaser of the cartridge. AFIDs also can help identify the officer(s) who used their
Taser(s).

13
 

and of any secondary injuries (such as from a fall); (8) photographs and diagrams of the incident
scene; (7) a diagram that documents where the barbs struck the subject; (8) statements from all
available witnesses, any involved officers, and the subject, if possible.25
c. Taser Training
Clearly, no officers should be authorized to carry a Taser unless they have undergone initial
training on the weapon. Certified officers’ training should be supplemented at least once a year
to train officers on updated research and practices. As a weapon that launches projectiles, annual
training must also include operational and situational components. Tasers should be worn in a
weak-side holster. To reduce the risk of accidently drawing and firing a sidearm, officer must
practice either a weak-hand draw or a cross-draw. Officers should be allowed to transition to
their dominant hand before firing their Taser. If an agency uses more than one model Taser, the
differences between the models must be highlighted so that each officer knows the limitations of
each device, particularly of the differences in standard cycle and cycle shut-off.
Agencies should not rely solely on training materials offered by the weapon’s manufacturer.
Taser International has compiled considerable information on the weapon’s capabilities and
associated risks and routinely supplies training materials to agencies. But law enforcement
officials should not defer to a private party whose interests are not necessarily aligned with those
of the agency or the public. Accordingly, each agency should review training materials, national
standards, and their own general use of force and Taser policies to ensure that officers are
receiving adequate training on the weapon.
d. Taser Maintenance
Routine maintenance is essential for a properly functioning weapon. Policies should ensure
that output of the Taser is routinely measured to verify the device is operating within
manufacturer’s specifications. Research has indicated that some Tasers may deliver a higher
electrical current output than indicated in the manufacturer’s specifications.26 Older weapons
and those not daily spark tested appear to be more likely operate outside of the manufacturer’s

                                                            
25

See Report of Expert Rebuttal Witness Ron Martinelli, Ph.D., BCFT, CFA, CLS, Peabody v. Perry Township,
Case No. 2:10-cv-01078-EAS-MRA Doc., at 16-18 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 17 2012).
26
PIERRE SAVARD, ROBERT WALTER, ANDREW DENNIS, ANALYSIS OF THE QUALITY AND SAFETY OF THE TASER X26
DEVICES TESTED FOR RADIO-CANADA/CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION BY NATIONAL TECHNICAL
SYSTEMS, TEST REPORT 41196-08.SRC (2008), http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/taser-analysis-v1.5.pdf; for more
information and a statement on the report from Taser International see Some Tested Tasers Fire Stronger Current
that Company Says: CBC/Radio-Canada Probe, CBCNEWS,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/12/04/taser-tests.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2012).

14
 

specifications.27 Routine spark testing and measuring of each unit’s output will greatly reduce
the risk that an improperly functioning Taser will be used on a subject.28
Tasers should always be stored with their battery pack inserted and officers should prevent
exposure to extreme weather conditions or excessive moisture. Any Taser that must be returned
to Taser International for service or repair must have its data downloaded prior to shipment. Any
Taser cartridge over five years old is considered expired and should be used only for training.
Tasers must always be stored with the safety switch in the “on” position.
Prior to each shift, officers should check the life of the battery pack via the digital display on
the back of the weapon to verify that there is sufficient battery life for field use. Officers also
should conduct a daily one-second spark test to ensure the weapon is operational.
Major Findings
Agencies’ policies vary greatly in their treatment of the Taser use – a predictable, but
perilous result. The consequence is a community full of officers who may or may not have been
properly trained to use this dangerous and unique weapon. To confound the problem, the
policies of the agencies that employ those officers may authorize them to use the Taser in a more
risky manner than current standards allow. Below is a summary of the major findings of the
review.
a. Taser Use Policies and Procedures
Many agencies inconsistently describe under which circumstances Taser use is authorized.
An agency might generally authorize the weapon’s use against “violent or potentially violent
subjects, or when the officer reasonably believes it would be unsafe to approach the subject,” but
in other portions of the policy it describes the weapon as a “tool” to control “non-compliant”
individuals. This internal conflict sends mixed messages to officers and can lead to improper use
of the weapon. Would the officer be permitted to use the weapon on someone who refuses to
stand up but is otherwise peaceful because that subject is “non-compliant?” If so, that policy
allows improper Taser use in that situation. An officer should not have to resolve internal policy
conflicts in the midst of a rapidly evolving situation.
A concern with Taser use that is not present in perhaps any other weapon available to officers
is that it causes the subject to lose motor control. Injury then occurs as the natural result of the
subject’s temporary incapacitation. Accordingly, Taser policies must very specifically address
this novel effect to minimize unnecessary injury. Perhaps most common of these injuries is
trauma after the subject falls from an elevated surface. Thirty-three percent of agencies make no
                                                            
27

SAVARD, supra note 26 at 6-8.
As previously noted, the newest generation Tasers automatically test and adjust output. See supra note 12.
However, even the newest generation models should still be independently tested to ensure output readings are
accurate.

28

15
 

mention of this risk or limit Taser use against such individuals whatsoever. Seventy-three
percent of agencies do not restrict in any way Taser use against those in control of a vehicle or
device capable of movement. Agency policies must anticipate these scenarios and restrict use on
such individuals.
Another concern for Taser use is the at-risk populations that must be identified in an
agency’s Taser policy. The policy must instruct officers not to use Tasers on these populations
unless absolutely necessary. However, nearly one-third of all agencies do not restrict Taser use
in any way on these at-risk populations: juveniles, the elderly, pregnant females, persons who are
restrained, and those who are visibly frail or who have low body mass index. Only 12% of
agencies restrict use on individuals with known pre-existing medical conditions that increase the
individual’s risk of serious injury or death, such as a heart condition. Some agencies’ policies
expressly instruct officers to use Tasers on subjects exhibiting excited delirium. Some people
who have died after being subjected to a Taser were exhibiting signs of excited delirium. The
risk is simply too high that an individual will be killed, and use on this population must be a last
resort and restricted to a deadly force situation.
b. Post Taser Use Policies and Procedures
Every agency but two explicitly require that Taser use be reported, although only roughly
half require that accidental Taser use also be documented. Nearly 75% of agencies require a
supervisor-led investigation following a Taser use. Unfortunately, only approximately 75% of
agencies require a download of the deployed Taser’s data to verify the number and duration of
shocks delivered. To ensure officers are following protocol, data should be regularly
downloaded and reviewed for any anomalous or unreported discharges. Only 6% routinely
download and review this data.29 Clearly, there is room for improvement in reporting and postdeployment investigation.
Prompt medical attention is critical to detect any heart or breathing abnormalities or latent
injuries caused by the environmental factors surrounding the Taser’s use. What treatment is
required, if any, must be determined by trained medical personnel. Currently, 17 agencies
require that any person subjected to Taser be evaluated by medical personnel, while 16 leave it to
the officer’s discretion whether the subject requires medical attention, only require medical
attention if the subject requests it, or do not address the subject at all.
c. Taser Training
Every agency uses training materials from Taser International. As noted, that is not entirely
bad. However, it appears that only about one-third of the agencies supplement Taser
International’s materials with its own to ensure that the training materials are in accordance with
                                                            
29

This was required under the Cincinnati Police Department’s Taser policy every three months until its recent Taser
policy update. For an undisclosed reason, the new policy has abolished that practice.

16
 

their own policies and procedures. The number one priority of an agency’s training materials
must be to perform their duties safely, not to persuade officers the Taser is safe. Perhaps as
troubling, of the agencies that actually provided their training materials, 21% provided outdated
materials from Taser International. It is unclear from the nature of many of the public records
request responses how many agencies require yearly tactical and situation-based training.
d. Taser Maintenance
One shocking finding of this review is that not one single agency tests the electrical output of
its Tasers despite the fact that at least 48% of agencies in Hamilton County use Tasers that are
beyond their 5-year useful life.30 The age of the Taser appears linked to its ability to maintain an
electrical output within Taser International’s specifications. If we are allowing our officers to
use Tasers to course electricity through the bodies of our community members, albeit likely on
those subjects’ worst days, then we should demand that the agencies at least know how much
electricity their weapons are delivering.
Nearly one-third of agencies’ Taser policies do not establish routine maintenance
requirements. Tasers must be cared for so that if the decision to use them is made, they will
work properly. If a Taser somehow malfunctions it could greatly exacerbate the situation,
leading to a more hostile confrontation between the subject and the officer. It is recommended
that agencies without a written maintenance policy develop one, and that all policies require
daily spark tests to increase the likelihood that the weapons operate within Taser International’s
specifications.
Recommendations
Local law enforcement agencies should immediately correct obvious deficiencies in their
policies and training. Chest shots should be banned except in deadly force situations.31
Consideration of the environmental hazards posed by Taser deployment (elevated surfaces, etc.),
seriousness of the crime, the risk posed to officers and the public and whether the suspect is
fleeing should be required before any Taser deployment.32 Agencies should regularly test their
weapons and conduct thorough reviews after Taser deployments.
Local law enforcement agencies should confer and form a task force charged with bringing
Taser use in Hamilton County up to the safest possible standards. The purpose of the task force
                                                            
30

The actual percentage may be much higher. Of the 33 responding agencies included in the review, the age of the
oldest Taser owned by the agency could only be determined for 23 agencies. Of those 23 agencies, 16 deployed
Tasers older than the 5-year useful life. Forty-eight percent assumes that every Taser owned by the other 10
agencies is within the 5-year useful life, but the actual percentage could be as high as 79%.
31
The City of Cincinnati recently took this step. This is a better practice than allowing chest shots but attempting to
target the lower chest. Officers are trained to shoot their firearms at center mass which includes the upper chest.
The training actually creates a “muscle memory” so that the aim is automatic when the firearm is drawn and pointed
at the suspect. Attempting to adjust that muscle memory when a Taser is in hand is probably not realistic.
32
The City of Cincinnati has also recently amended its Taser policy to include this provision.

17
 

should be two-fold. First, the task force should create a model Taser policy that reflects current
research and national standards on safe Taser use that each individual agency can then
implement. Second, the task force should review training materials used by all agencies and
establish a model curriculum that specifically warns of the dangers unique to Taser use and that
trains officers how to address adequately these risks. Both goals – a model Taser policy and a
model training curriculum – should be revisited once a year in order to incorporate updated
research and safe practices.
A Taser task force as described above will serve multiple interests at a minimal cost. Taser
use will become safer, which will lead to fewer injuries and deaths. Further, law enforcement
agencies will increase the care with which officers use their Tasers. That will reduce potential
civil liability and save local tax payers money.
Further research on Taser use in Hamilton County could analyze Taser Use of Force reports
to compare how well past incidents have been documented, how closely officers adhere to their
agency’s Taser use policy and how that compares to the national standards. A study of that
nature could reveal deficiencies in training curricula and policies and would better inform the
discussion of how to make Taser use safest in our community.

October 1, 2012
Alphonse A. Gerhardstein
Gerhardstein & Branch, CO. LPA
432 Walnut Street, Suite400
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 621-9100

agerhardstein@gbfirm.com
www.gbfirm.com

18