The Florida Senate
Interim Project Report 2007-109

October 2006

Committee on Criminal Justice

USE OF STUN GUNS
SUMMARY
This interim project is an extension of a stun gun
review conducted last year by specifically focusing on
the use of stun guns on children in elementary schools.
Last year’s study reviewed when it is appropriate for
law enforcement officers to use stun guns, whether
there are physical effects of the device beyond the
momentary incapacitation it produces, and whether
stun guns can be linked to deaths.
To determine whether stun guns are carried or used at
elementary schools and whether or not there have been
incidents of the use of a stun gun within the last three
school years, staff conducted a statewide survey of all
the school superintendents in the state. With a 78%
response rate, results from the survey were partially
inconclusive and conclusive. It was found that stun
guns are not purposefully carried on school grounds
but are part of a law enforcement officer’s regular
equipment and are hence on school grounds regularly.
When asked about a procedure or mechanism for
reporting stun gun usage, all respondents indicated that
there was no such reporting procedure. Despite the
absence of a reporting procedure, all but one
respondent indicated that there were no incidents of
elementary school-aged children being stunned in the
last three years. The one incident reported occurred in
Miami-Dade County on October 20, 2004. The child
involved was a 6-year old first grader and the particular
circumstances surrounding the incident are reported in
detail in the body of the report.

parameters under which a law enforcement officer
deploys a stun gun. In addition, because of the rarity of
stun gun incidents on children, staff recommended that
the Legislature not impose a reporting requirement on
the school districts. Given the low incident rate of
children being tased, the statistical value of a routine
statewide report would be minimal.

BACKGROUND
During the 2006 Interim, the staff of the Senate
Committee on Criminal Justice conducted a study and
reported on several issues of concern to the members
and the citizens of Florida with regard to the use of
“stun guns” by law enforcement officers.1
The Committee Report addressed matters such as:
• when it is appropriate or advisable for law
enforcement officers to use the device;
• what are the potential physical effects of the
device, beyond the momentary incapacitation it
produces;
• can the dart-firing stun gun be linked, directly or
indirectly, to the in-custody deaths of people who
have been stunned; and
• what, if any, law enforcement training curriculum
modifications should be made as new information
about the devices becomes available.
The Committee Report did not focus on the use of stun
guns on children. Such incidents are infrequent, and, at
the time of the 2006 Report, policy makers as well as
the citizens of Florida were quite concerned about
adults who were dying, often in law enforcement
custody, after being “tased.”

In addition to the survey, staff concluded that definitive
studies on the effects of stun guns on children are nonexistent. However, in addition to the studies reviewed
and reported on last year, staff was able to identify
multiple studies that are currently underway on the
effects of stun guns, many funded by the National
Institute of Justice.

During floor debate on Senate Bill 214, a 2006 bill that
set forth the legislative policy on stun gun use as well
as provided law enforcement stun gun training
standards, questions arose and several Senators voiced

Staff concluded this review by recommending that the
Legislature refrain from further restricting the

1

Interim Project Report 2006-110.

Page 2

concerns about the use of stun guns on elementary
school-age children.
At that time, there was discussion on whether the use
of stun guns on children should be reported. Questions
on what possible medical effects may occur and
whether there has been a scientific study were also
raised.
This Interim Project Report will address those issues
and questions. However, for adequate background on
the issue at hand – the use of stun guns on elementary
school children – it is necessary to review some of the
previously reported findings.
Stun Gun Design, Technology, Distribution
The dart-firing stun gun is referred to by many names,
including “electro-muscular disruption technology,”
“electronic control weapons” or “electronic control
devices.” There are several manufacturers of these and
similar devices.
The company that has dominated the market, certainly
among the law enforcement community, is Taser
International, based in Scottsdale, Arizona. The
TASER, the brand name of the stun gun manufactured
by Taser International, is a hand-held device that looks
very much like a semi-automatic handgun. It delivers
an electric shock via two darts that remain tethered to
the hand-held unit after firing. The darts generally
imbed in the skin of the subject, although the device
also delivers the electrical current through clothing.
The device can also be used in “touch stun” mode,
where the probes are not launched, but rather, the
device itself actually makes contact with the subject
being stunned. The devices contain a data port that
records information about the number of times, and for
what duration, a device was fired. This has been useful
in the law enforcement community as it enhances
investigations of alleged misuse of the devices.
TASER has manufactured a number of models,
including the M-18 and X26-C models which are
available to civilian markets. The M-26 and X-26 are
only available to law enforcement agencies and the
military. In October 2004, the Department of
Homeland Security’s Transportation Security
Administration approved an airline’s request that
specially trained flight attendants be able to use the
device on passenger flights. Taser Weapons, Use of
Tasers by Selected Law Enforcement Agencies, United
States Government Accountability Office Report, May
2005.

Use of Stun Guns

The TASER models available to the general public
have 15 foot tethers. The models available to law
enforcement have a 21, 25, or 35 foot range, depending
on the model.
As of May 2005, Taser International reported that their
TASER was in use by over 7,000 of the 18,000 law
enforcement agencies in the United States. It reported
more than 140,000 TASERS in use by law
enforcement officers and an additional 100,000 units
were owned by citizens worldwide. Taser Weapons,
Use of Tasers by Selected Law Enforcement Agencies,
United States Government Accountability Office
Report, May 2005. Because the TASER is in such wide
use, most of the research conducted in the scientific
and medical communities has focused on the TASER.
The Reasonableness Standard on Use of Force
The Fourth Amendment jurisprudence with regard to
the reasonable use of force by law enforcement officers
in (search and) seizure situations is articulated by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.
386, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989). In the opinion, the Court
recognized that “reasonableness” is a fluid concept,
that must be judged given the background of the
totality of the circumstances. The Court stated: “The
calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for
the fact that police officers are often forced to make
split-second judgments--in circumstances that are
tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving--about the
amount of force that is necessary in a particular
situation.”2
The Eleventh Circuit Court has interpreted the Graham
case as requiring a balance of three factors in
determining if the force applied in a given situation is
“reasonable”:
• the need for the application of the force;
• the relationship between the need and amount of
force used; and
• the extent of injury inflicted.
Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1277-78 (11th Cir.
2004).
Clearly, each factual situation is unique, and as such,
this area of the law does not lend itself to a “bright line
rule” designating one use of a stun gun under particular
circumstances as appropriate in all similar
circumstances. The analysis of each situation must take
into account the totality of the circumstances.

2

Id. at 396-397.

Use of Stun Guns

Use of Force Training
Law enforcement “Use of Force” is taught in the Basic
Recruit training program for all certified law
enforcement candidates in Florida. It is also referred to
as “Response to Resistance” or “Defensive Tactics”
training.
The introduction of the training module in the
Instructor’s Manual states: “The curriculum teaches
recruits to select and properly execute appropriate
techniques when facing various situations that make
these techniques reasonable and necessary.”3 In this
context, the concept of force includes everything from
verbal communication to deadly force.
The curriculum focuses on 6 levels of resistance and 6
corresponding levels of response to that resistance as
guides for officers to apply in real life situations.
Passive Physical Resistance (Level 3) is defined in the
Basic Recruit curriculum as: “A subject refuses to
comply or respond physically…makes no attempt to
physically defeat your actions but forces you to use
physical maneuvers to establish control.”4
Physical Control, the Response to Passive Physical
Resistance, includes five classifications of physical
control. These are:
•
•
•

•
•

3

Restraint Devices – mechanical tools or nylon
restraints that restrict a subject’s movement.
Transporters – physical techniques used to control
and/or move a subject, with minimum effort, from
point A to point B.
Takedowns – techniques that redirect a subject to
get on the ground and take a position that limits
resistance and facilitates application of restraint
device.
Pain Compliance – infliction of controlled pain to
specific points of the body to force compliance.
Countermoves – impede a subject’s movement
toward the officer or another person. Examples
include striking, kicking, blocking, distracting,
dodging, weaving, redirecting, and avoiding.5

Response to Resistance Matrix, Basic Recruit
Curriculum, Module 5, Unit 1, Lesson 1, Florida
Department of Law Enforcement Instructor’s Manual,
2005.
4
Id.
5
Response to Resistance Matrix, Basic Recruit
Curriculum, Module 5, Unit 1, Lesson 1, Florida
Department of Law Enforcement Instructor’s Manual,
2005.

Page 3

Active Physical Resistance (Level 4) is where a subject
makes physically evasive movements to prevent the
officer from taking control. He or she may brace or
tense themselves, try to push or pull away, take a
fighting stance, not allow the officer to approach, or
run away.6
The corresponding Response to Active Physical
Resistance, Intermediate Weapons, provides for the use
of impact weapons like the baton to gain control by
pain compliance at a higher level of risk for injury to
the subject than a Response to Passive Physical
Resistance calls for. For instance, the Response to
Passive Physical Resistance may include a pain
compliance technique like pressure applied to the
subject’s pressure points. In response to Active
Physical Resistance, however, the officer may be
justified in striking the subject in the thigh with the
baton, or using chemical agents such as “pepper
spray.”7
The curriculum provides guidance to the officer, but it
is stressed in the Basic Recruit classes that the “totality
of the circumstances” must be assessed, sometimes in a
split-second, in the decision to use force. These factors
include the physical characteristics of the subject,
seriousness of the crime, environment, number of
subjects, availability of weapons, history of violence,
citizen by-standers who may be in harm’s way, legal
requirements, and agency policy.8
Each officer-citizen encounter is unique. In the end,
law enforcement officers are called upon to make
lightning-quick decisions based on their training and
judgment under the unique circumstances. Whether the
citizen involved in the encounter is an adult or a child
is one of the many circumstances that must be
considered by officers equipped with stun guns.
Development of Stun Gun Policies
As of June 28, 2005, 240 law enforcement agencies
within the state had stun guns in use. “Best Practices”
policies were being adopted or at least discussed by
these agencies. For instance, in the Orange County
Sheriff’s Office, the level of resistance corresponding
to the response of stun gun use was raised from Passive
Physical to Active Physical.

6

Id.
Id.
8
Id.
7

Page 4

A “Taser Advisory Group” was formed to assist the
FDLE Professionalism Program in creating a
presentation on stun guns for the High Liability
Trainers’ Conference at the end of August 2005. Over
a three-day period in May 2005, detailed discussions of
the Advisory Group included topics such as training,
deployment criteria, legal issues, equipment
maintenance, and use reporting. The group included
officers and legal staff from agencies throughout the
state who discussed the stun gun-related issues, and
prepared the presentation, which included a Model
Policy.
On the topic of deployment, the Model Policy stated, in
part:
“No policy or guideline can anticipate every
situation that officers might face, but in general
terms, the following deployment procedures are
established.
An officer’s decision to deploy the (stun gun) shall
involve an arrest or custodial situation wherein the
subject is at a minimum exhibiting active physical
resistance or is escalating resistance from passive
physical resistance towards active physical
resistance.
An officer’s response to a subject’s resistance
should always include consideration of
subject/officer factors such as age, size, weight,
physical condition and/or the subject’s apparent
ability to physically challenge the officer or do
harm to himself or others, balanced against the
seriousness of the incident.”9
Comparing the Model Policy with the language of
Chapter 2006-298, Laws of Florida, set forth in full
below, one difference should be noted. The new law
requires that a subject “escalate resistance …from
passive physical resistance to active physical
resistance…”,10 whereas the Model Policy would have
only required that the subject “is escalating resistance
from passive physical resistance towards active
physical resistance.”11 The statute is somewhat more
restrictive in that it actually requires escalation to
active physical resistance before the deployment of the
stun gun by a law enforcement officer.

Use of Stun Guns

Lethality, Risk Reduction
Studies have demonstrated that in those cases where
officers could justify using deadly force -- their
firearms -- but choose to use a stun gun instead, citizen
lives are saved or at least less endangered than they
otherwise would be.
A 1987 study examined 218 emergency room patients
who had been “tased” by police, compared to 22
patients who had been shot with .38 caliber handguns
by police. The mortality rate for tased patients was 1.4
percent, and for gunshot victims it was 50 percent. All
three of the tased patients who died had high levels of
PCP in their systems. One had a previous history of
heart trouble – this particular patient went into
respiratory arrest followed by cardiac arrest 25 minutes
after being tased. The other two patients went into
cardiac arrest 5 and 15 minutes after being tased. The
coroner reported all three deaths as due to PCP toxicity
with no signs of myocardial damage, airway
obstruction, or other pathology.12
The British Columbia Office of the Police Complaint
Commissioner undertook a comprehensive review of
stun gun-related issues. In the final report, a research
project collaborated on by the Orange County Sheriff’s
Office and Florida Gulf Coast University was
reviewed. The research found that many lower lethality
options have a high potential for causing injury and do
not necessarily put an end to the citizen-law
enforcement officer confrontation. Some of the
reported facts include:
•

•

•
•

•
9

Florida Taser Advisory Group Electronic Control
Device Sample Policy, Summer 2005.
10
Ch. 2006-298, L.O.F.
11
Florida Taser Advisory Group Electronic Control
Device Sample Policy, Summer 2005.

12

lower lethality munitions (ex: bean bag rounds,
rubber bullets) produced injuries in 80 percent of
the instances of deployment – usually bruises or
abrasions; in 373 deployments, 8 deaths occurred;
conventional impact weapons (batons) produced
blunt trauma injury; they had a very high potential
for escalation of subject resistance if they were not
immediately effective;
chemical agents (O.C. or “pepper spray”) have a
very low associated injury rate;
conventional defensive tactics (hand-to-hand
techniques used to subdue subjects) were
ineffective 29 percent of the time and resulted in
the largest number of subject and officer injuries;
and
the TASER had the highest level of de-escalation
and provided a substantial deterrent effect when

See the January 1987 study entitled, “Electronic Gun
(Taser) Injuries,” published in the Annals of Emergency
Medicine; Ordog, et.al.

Use of Stun Guns

Page 5

displayed but not used; the study examined 870
deployments during which one death occurred.13

darts that are capable of delivering an electrical
current.”17

Accounts of deaths following the application of stun
guns indicate that at least one of three variables are
present in the vast majority of cases: multiple
applications of the device, heart-damaging drugs
including cocaine and methamphetamine are in the
subject’s system, and/or the subject is in a state of
excited delirium.

The new definition of dart-firing stun gun deleted
reference to the 16 foot tethers that are a productspecific characteristic, and reference to the
identification and tracking system, that is a
manufacturer-specific (TASER International) feature of
its version of the product.

Excited delirium syndrome is seen by law enforcement
officers where subjects seem to possess super-human
strength and appear to be completely out of control.
Pain compliance control responses seem to have little
or no effect on the subject.
According to a Potomac Institute report, in the state of
excited delirium, subjects theoretically “out-run their
aerobic reserve and expire, either through fibrillation or
otherwise. A key point should be made here: excited
delirium syndrome implies mortality caused by
multiple factors over-driving the cardiovascularpulmonary system, and not heart failure produced
through electrical surge (from a stun device) applied to
or conducted to the heart.”14

Legislative Policy on Use and Training
The new law on stun guns also set forth the legislative
policy on two of the topics studied in Interim Project
Report 2006-110. The law specified when it is
appropriate or advisable for law enforcement officers to
use the device and what level of training should occur
before a law enforcement officer is issued a stun gun
by his or her agency.
Appropriate Use of Stun Guns. – Newly created
s. 943.1717, F.S. (Chapter 2006-298, L.O.F.) states:
943.1717 Use of dart-firing stun guns.—
(1) A decision by a law enforcement officer,
correctional officer, or correctional probation
officer to use a dart-firing stun gun must involve
an arrest or a custodial situation during which the
person who is the subject of the arrest or custody
escalates resistance to the officer from passive
physical resistance to active physical resistance and
the person:

Chapter 2006-298, Laws of Florida
During the 2006 Legislative Session, Senate Bill 214
was filed, passed, and became law on June 26, 2006.15
Statutory Stun Gun Definition
This new stun gun law revised the previously existing
definition of “stun gun” found in s. 790.001, F.S.,16 in
view of the likelihood of future advances in the
technology behind the weapon. Specifically, “remote”
stun gun was amended to read “dart-firing” stun gun,
which now means: “any device having one or more
13

Taser Technology Review Final Report, Office of the
Police Complaint Commissioner, OPCC File No. 2474,
June 14, 2005, pg. 26.
14
Efficacy and Safety of Electrical Stun Devices, Potomac
Institute for Policy Studies March 29, 2005.
15
Ch. 2006-298, L.O.F.
16
Prior to the passage of Ch. 2006-298, L.O.F.,
s. 790.001(15), F.S., defined the “remote stun gun” as
“any nonlethal device with a tethered range not to exceed
16 feet and which shall utilize an identification and
tracking system which, upon use, disperses coded material
traceable to the purchaser through records kept by the
manufacturer on all remote stun guns and all individual
cartridges sold which information shall be made available
to any law enforcement agency upon request.”
s. 790.001(15), F.S.

(a) Has the apparent ability to physically threaten
the officer or others;
or
(b) Is preparing or attempting to flee or escape.
This policy statement took into consideration the
interwoven factors of the risk of injury to the subject
being “stunned,” risk of injury to the law enforcement
officer, and the appropriateness of the use of the stun
gun as opposed to other methods of force available to
the officer.
Officer Training. -- The Criminal Justice Standards and
Training Commission is required to establish
instructional standards for training law enforcement,
correctional, and correctional probation officers in the
use of stun guns. The training must, under the new law,
include training on the possible effects a stun gun may
have on subjects who are “tased.” After completion of
the initial four-hour training, those officers who have
17

s. 790.001(15), F.S.; Ch. 2006-298, s. 1, L.O.F.

Page 6

Use of Stun Guns

been issued stun guns by their agencies must annually
complete one hour of training.18

No responding school jurisdiction has a policy or
procedure in place for reporting the use of stun guns.

METHODOLOGY

One Incident Reported in Survey
Within the previous three school years, there was one
reported incident of the use of a stun gun on an
elementary school-age child, on campus. That incident
occurred in Miami-Dade County on October 20, 2004.
The child involved was a 6-year old first grader at the
time. The Miami-Dade Police Department and Miami
Dade Schools Police Department incident reports
indicate the following scenario reportedly took place:

With the assistance of the Legislative Committee on
Intergovernmental Relations (LCIR), a survey was sent
to every school superintendent in the state. The
responses were compiled by LCIR and forwarded to
committee staff. Additionally, staff researched
scientific and medical websites for studies involving
the potential or actual effects of stun guns on children.
Also, recent news accounts of stun gun use were
reviewed for information pertinent to this report.

FINDINGS
Stun Guns on Elementary School Campuses Survey Results
Of the 67 surveys sent out to county school
superintendents, 52 were responded to, for a 78%
response rate. Among the questions asked and
answered were the following:
• whether stun guns are carried or used on
elementary school campuses in the county
• whether there have been incidents of the use of a
stun gun on an elementary school student within
the previous three school years and, if so,
o what were the circumstances
o the name of the agency involved and the
officer’s name, if known
o the age and grade level of the child
o whether any injuries resulted
o whether any type of legal action resulted from
the incident
o whether and to whom the incident was
reported, and
o whether there is a policy or procedure in place
regarding reporting stun gun use.
The question regarding whether stun guns are carried
on elementary school campuses generated some
confusion among the survey responders. It appears that
stun guns are not carried “purposely” on elementary
school campuses, but rather may be a part of a law
enforcement officer’s regular equipment, and that
officer “just happens to be on campus” (for instance,
responding to a call). Only one response indicated that
the county-wide School Resource Officer carries a stun
gun, but it is noted that he would only use it at the high
school in case of extreme emergency.

18

Ch. 2006-298, Section 5, L.O.F.

The Miami-Dade Police Department (Officers Abbott
and Rivera) responded to a 911 (emergency) call for
assistance at the Kelsey L. Pharr Elementary School
and were directed to the principal’s office upon arrival.
Officer Staten from the Miami-Dade Schools Police
Department arrived sometime thereafter.
In the principal’s office, Officers Abbott and Rivera
found the child “backed into a corner with a piece of
glass in his left hand, which (sic) he had broken a
picture frame in the office with his fist. He had selfinflicted wounds under his right eye and was bleeding
from his right hand which he (sic) puncture himself
with the glass.”19
Both officers told the child to put the glass down.
Officer Abbott attempted to calm him. She then slid a
trash can over to him and tried to get him to throw the
glass away. He refused and “clutched on to the glass
tighter in his left hand.”20
Officer Rivera contacted Sergeant Laurent to advise the
superior officer of the situation and the officers’
assessment that the child may have to be “tased.”
Sergeant Laurent authorized the use of the stun gun if
the child continued to refuse to let go of the glass.
The child was told several more times to put the glass
down and he “continued to hold on tighter to the piece
of glass.”21 Officer Abbott then took out her stun gun
and activated it, striking the child in the mid-abdomen.
The child was examined and “cleared” by Miami Fire
Rescue, under the direction of Lt. Gustin. He was then
transported, under the Baker Act,22 to the Jackson
19

Miami-Dade Police Agency Report #558638-C
Id.
21
Id.
22
Under s. 394.463, F.S., a person may be taken into
custody by a law enforcement officer and transported to
the nearest “receiving facility,” if the person appears to
20

Use of Stun Guns

Memorial Hospital Crisis Unit. The child’s
grandmother was notified of the situation by Officer
Rivera.
There is civil litigation pending in this matter,
consequently staff encountered reluctance on the part
of the witnesses and participants in the incident to
comment beyond the facts as set forth in the law
enforcement reports.
High School Student Stun Gun Case Dismissed
In July 2006, the federal trial court for the Middle
District of Florida found in favor of the defendants (the
deputy who deployed his stun gun and the Sheriff) in a
civil case brought by two young ladies – high school
students – who were “tased” on campus. The testimony
showed that the two students, along with two other
students, were involved in a fight at the time the deputy
used his stun gun to stop the fight and restore order to
the campus.
Among other specific rulings, the court dismissed the
plaintiff’s argument that the Sheriff’s policy on the use
of stun guns by his department sanctioned the use of
force because the policy “lacks direction because it
does not mention taking the age of a suspect into
consideration before using the taser.” The court noted
that, contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, the Use of
Force Policy “provides that size, age, and weight of the
subject are factors that a deputy should consider when
making a use of force decision.” 23
Scientific/Medical Studies
Scientific and medical studies or reports on the topic of
the effects of stun gun use on children were not located
or identified as part of this study. This is
understandable, given that the overwhelming majority
of people who have been “tased” are actually the law
enforcement officers who are being trained to carry and
use the device or adult citizens involved in police
encounters which escalate to the point where a stun gun
is deployed. The use of stun guns on children is
extremely rare, and their use on elementary school-age
children, even more rare.
meet the criteria for an involuntary examination. One of
the criteria is that there is reason to believe that the person
has a mental illness, and because of that the person is
unable to decide for himself whether an examination to
determine if there is a mental illness is necessary, and
there is a substantial likelihood that without care or
treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to
himself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent
behavior.
23
Maiorano v. Santiago, 2006 WL 2024951 (M.D.Fla.).

Page 7

Because of the apparent lack of scientific or medical
information regarding stun guns and children, staff
contacted the Senior Program Manager in Less-Lethal
Technologies at the National Institute of Justice. The
NIJ funds studies related to stun guns, and has
commissioned several studies that are on-going or just
completed. The NIJ staff is not aware of any pending
or completed studies involving the effects of stun guns
on children, either NIJ-funded or otherwise, in the
medical or scientific community.
There was a study reported in the Pacing and Clinical
Electrophysiology Journal in January 2005 that
simulated the application of the electrical energy
discharge of the TASER Model X26 (using a custom
device built for the experiments) in an effort to
determine the threshold at which ventricular fibrillation
occurs in pigs. The smallest pig weighed 66 pounds.
The study found that “the minimum discharge that
would cause fibrillation was approximately 15 times
the charge of the standard pulse when used on the
smallest pig.”24 It should be noted that some of the
authors of the article reporting the findings were
representatives of TASER International.
The National Institute of Justice has funded a study that
was scheduled to end in July 2006, in which
researchers would attempt to determine safety margins
related to cardiac fibrillation and stun gun use. The
report of the study had not been published as of this
writing. Presumably the study will be conducted in
such a way that may validate the PACE study.
General Considerations
The Florida PTA issued a Position Statement in 2005
with regard to stun guns. The Statement advocated that
the Florida Legislature:
• authorize an independent study on the effects of
stun guns on the human body, especially children,
persons with disabilities and other vulnerabilities;
• provide a mechanism for training of law
enforcement officers based on research; and
• set clearly defined guidelines on the use of Taser
guns/stun devices as means of necessary force and
that the use of Taser guns/stun devices be
permissible only in instances where lethal force
would otherwise be necessary.
The newly-created s. 943.1717, F.S., addressed all but
the independent study on the effects of stun guns. It is
24

Cardiac Safety of Neuromuscular Incapacitating
Defensive Devices, PACE, Vol. 28, January 2005,
Supplement 1; McDaniel, et al.

Page 8

at least arguable that the Legislature’s authorization
and funding of such a study could be said to be no less
“independent” than studies authorized by other
agencies, businesses, or institutions. As of this writing,
the NIJ alone has funded and authorized at least 10
studies or reports that are currently underway. This is
just one agency among many entities that are
examining the use of stun guns.
The Advocacy Institute for Children has raised an issue
about the effects of stun guns on children with
“hidden” health conditions. There can be no doubt that
unforeseeable risks – beyond the reasonably observable
age, size, weight, and health conditions – exist in both
the child and adult populations. For example, seizure
disorders, pulmonary conditions, and heart anomalies
are not likely known to a law enforcement officer who
is involved in an encounter with a citizen which could
lead to the use of his or her stun gun. Any risk of injury
or death to a particular citizen – including children –
falls squarely within the “totality of the circumstances”
considered by law enforcement officers and the courts
as part of the “reasonableness standard” applied in use
of force situations. The expectation that a law
enforcement officer somehow be aware of risks that are
neither observable nor foreseen is likely not
“reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment analysis.
Legislative Policy in New Law Should Protect
Children
As previously noted, law enforcement officers are now
governed by s. 943.1717, F.S., in their deployment of
stun guns. The statute requires that the subject offer
“active physical resistance.” According to the Response
to Resistance Matrix officer training, this means that a
subject makes physically evasive movements to prevent
the officer from taking control. He or she may brace or
tense themselves, try to push or pull away, take a
fighting stance, not allow the officer to approach, or
run away. At this level of resistance, the officer is
generally justified in using a baton, stun gun, or
chemical agent to gain control. In addition, however,
the statute requires that the subject has the apparent
physical ability to threaten the officer or others or is
preparing or attempting to flee or escape.

Use of Stun Guns

The statute spells out the parameters under which a law
enforcement officer is justified in using his or her stun
gun. The statutory parameters are tied to responses to
resistance that are second-nature to law enforcement
officers because of the training they receive as recruits.
It incorporates additional training requirements that
familiarize officers with the potential effects of the
devices upon subjects who are “tased.” Although age,
weight, and other specific characteristics are not
articulated within the statute itself, those factors are
taken into account in the “apparent physical ability”
language of the statute, as well as the “totality of the
circumstances” analysis required of officers by the
Fourth Amendment.
It is certainly arguable that the six year old child who
was “tased” in Miami-Dade county two years ago,
might be “tased” today. This is the reality of law
enforcement officer-citizen encounters. However, the
Legislature needs to decide to what extent should the
state scrutinize the judgment calls of law enforcement
when those rare instances of tasings occur.

RECOMMENDATIONS
It is certainly within the Legislature’s prerogative to
further define and restrict the parameters under which a
law enforcement officer may deploy his or her stun
gun. However, it is suggested that the limitations set
forth in training, legal precedent, and the newly-created
s. 943.1717, F.S., as well as public scrutiny, constitute
sufficient restraints and reminders that officers should
exercise the best of judgment before deploying a stun
gun on a child. Therefore, no additional statutory
changes are recommended.
It is also suggested that the occurrence of children in
elementary schools being “tased” is so rare that
requiring the local school districts to report the
incidents to a designated agency would neither be a
cumbersome task nor have a fiscal impact. However,
neither would the report(s) result in any statistically
significant data, given the recent history of a single
incident within the last three school-years. Therefore,
staff recommends against requiring school districts to
report incidents of tasing to a designated agency.