Taser Ga Assoc of Police Electronic Control Weapons Report 2005

Taser Ga Assoc of Police Electronic Control Weapons Report 2005

• Topics: Excessive Force, Stun Guns/Tasers

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

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

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia:
Review and Recommendations

Submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee
on Electronic Control Weapons

Adopted by the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police
Executive Board
June 20, 2005

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
Lane Ashworth
Stanley Goodroe
Steve Townsend
Homer Fuller
Keith Whitworth

TELEPHONE
(706) 278-9085
FAX
(706) 272-7905

HOME PAGE
http://www.citydalton.net
E-MAIL
policechief@citydalton.net

DALTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
301 Jones Street, Dalton,Georgia 30720

JAMES D. CHADWICK, CHIEF OF POLICE

June 6, 2005

Chief Lou Dekmar, President
Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police
3500 Duluth Park Lane, Suite 700
Duluth GA 30096
Dear President Dekmar:

In November of 2004 you appointed an Ad-Hoc Committee "to facilitate consistent uniform
guidelines for Georgia's law enforcement agencies and to provide limited legal guidelines"
concerning the use of electronic control weapons. The charge of the committee was to: "develop a
model policy for the use of electronic weapons (tasers); determine where the use of electronic
weapons falls on the use of force continuum; and complete a 'white paper' on the research
concerning the known medical and physical effects of electronic weapons."
On behalf of the committee, as chairman, I am pleased to present to you the attached ''white paper"
and several appendices. This work product represents many hours of effort by committee members.
I believe that a careful reyiew of these materials fulfills your charge to the committee.
However, please bear in mind the committee's work represents a snapshot in time concerning the
issues and is based on current available research. While we have examined many news articles and
research articles, as well as policies by departments throughout the world, it should not be perceived
that additional research should not be done. To the contrary, we believe that additional research
should and must be continued.
Electronic control weapons represent only a small portion ofthe overall issues surrounding the use of
force. Law enforcement executives should bear this in mind as they formulate policy for their
individual agencies. On the other hand, the committee believes this attached information provides
them with a strong basis to make an infonned decision whether to deploy electronic control weapons.
Additionally, chiefs may want to obtain a copy of Police Executive Research Forum's most recent
publication ChiefConcerns: Exploring the Challenges ofPolice Use ofForce available at
www.policeforum.org.
The committee also asks you and the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police to consider the
following recommendations that extend beyond the scope ofthis committee's purpose. Many of
these recommendations will require changes in Georgia law, additional funding to the different

agencies, and a considerable commitment by GACP. However, the committee feels these
recommendations are critical to the future of Georgia's law enforcement officers.
1.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation continue its analysis of in-custody deaths
involving police contact and provide infonnation to Georgia's law enforcement
community, on an annual basis, to be used to identify additional training needs/trends.

The Georgia Peace Officers Standards and Training Council (POST) should be
appropriated the necessary funding to establish a certification requirement for all
peace officers in the state that elect to carry and use an electronic control weapon of
any type. The non-complying officers and agency heads should receive sanction,
should they be found to use the electronic control weapon without certification..

The Georgia Public Safety Training Center continue the development ofa
standardized lesson plan approved by POST, which would meet the requirement of
POST certification with an electronic control weapon. The Georgia General
Assembly should appropriate the necessary funding to make this training available
statewide for all officers to receive initial and recertification training. (Most of the
work on the lesson plan has already been completed.)

Use of force reporting should be collected in a centralized database similar to the
Unifprm Crime Reporting System. This would require a standardized fonnat ofuse of
force reporting.

The Georgia legislators should enact laws that regulate the sale of electronic control
weapons to non-law enforcement officers/agencies.

In conclusion, due to the fact that some suspects do not acquiesce during their arrest and police are
forced to subdue recalcitrant individuals, the use of force is a necessary element ofpolice work. The
focus of any use of force should not be on the tools used, but upon the officer's reasonableness and
justification of the force.
It is the committee's conclusion that based on current known research, the benefits of electronic
control weapons outweigh the risks.

Sincerely,

fp
cc:

GACP Executive Board
Frank Rotondo, GACP Executive Dir.
Ad-Hoc Taser Committee Members

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

Ad Hoc Committee on Electronic Control Weapons
Ad Hoc Committee Chairman
Chief James Chadwick, Dalton Police Department

Ad Hoc Committee Members
Butch Beach, Georgia Public Safety Training Center
Corporal Damon Cavender, Gwinnett County Police Department
Neal Childers, Esq., Attorney, Georgia Department of Community Health
Greg Conner, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Brunswick
Richard Darby, State Certification Director, Retired
Dawn Diedrich, Esq., Attorney, Georgia Bureau of Investigation
Chief Dan Flynn, Savannah-Chatham Metro Police Department
Dr. Robbie Freidmann, Georgia State University
Sheriff Ira Edwards, Clarke County
Director Vernon Keenan, Georgia Bureau of Investigation
Director Dale Mann, Georgia Public Safety Training Center
Tony M. McClung, Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police
Chief Steve Parks, Chattanooga Police Department, Tennessee
Chief Richard Pennington, Atlanta Police Department
Executive Director Frank V. Rotondo, Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police
Dr. Kris Sperry, Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Georgia,
Georgia Bureau of Investigation

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

Introduction: Formation and Purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee

In November 2004, the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police President Louis M.
Dekmar formed an Ad Hoc Committee (“Committee”) to evaluate the use of the
electronic control weapons1 by law enforcement in Georgia. The formation of this
committee was in response to the continuing dialogue between the public and law
enforcement, as reported by the media, regarding the use of electronic control weapons
by police to gain control over individuals who are either resisting police custody or
refusing to comply with orders by detention facility personnel. The Committee is
comprised of law enforcement professionals, academic advisers, attorneys, and
physicians.
The purpose of this paper is to review the information regarding electronic control
weapons from a legal, medical and law enforcement perspective and make
recommendations for their use. This review will focus specifically on law enforcement’s
use of electronic control weapons in Georgia; deaths occurring after use of electronic
control weapons in Georgia; and legal and policy considerations regarding the use of
electronic control weapons.2 At the conclusion of the paper, the Committee will make
recommendations to the Georgia law enforcement community for the use of electronic
control weapons based upon this review.
II.

Use by Law Enforcement in Georgia

Electronic control weapons in their current form have been available since 1999.3 The
most commonly used electronic control weapons are manufactured by Taser
International. 4 The Taser M26,5 a model distributed by Taser International, is a
“Conducted Energy Weapon that uses propelled wire to conduct energy to a remote
target, thereby controlling and overriding the body’s central nervous system.”6 Usually
the electronic control weapon is a 50,000-volt, 26-watt system that uses nitrogen
1

Electronic control weapons are known by many names including electronic control devices, electromuscular disruption technology, and Tasers. The term Taser is a brand name for the electronic control
weapon manufactured by Taser International, which is the most commonly used electronic control weapon.
The Committee is choosing to use the term “electronic control weapon” because it is used by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police in their Concept Paper and Model Policy.
2
While not addressed specifically in this paper, the Committee found nothing in the national literature that
contradicts the information gleaned from the Committee’s examination of Georgia cases and data.
3
Electronic control weapons have been available since 1974. The original versions were “50,000-volt,
seven-watt stun systems that were classified as a firearm due to the fact that it used gunpowder to fire
probes.” IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, Electro-Muscular Control Weapons: Concepts
and Issues Paper (hereinafter “IACP Concept Paper” -- there are three versions of the IACP Concept
Paper, accordingly citations will identify which version is being cited) Rev. Jan. 2005 at 2. The current
electronic control weapons use nitrogen cartridges to fire the probes rather than gunpowder.
4
IACP Concept Paper, Rev. May 2004 at 2.
5
There are other devices currently on the market and this paper is in no way an endorsement of any
particular electronic control weapon.
6
Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004).

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

cartridges to fire probes into the targeted subject.7 The electronic control weapon’s
effects on an individual are as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

Falling immediately to the ground;
Freezing in place (involuntary muscle contractions) during the discharge
of current;
Yelling, screaming, or being silent;
Feeling dazed for several seconds or minutes;
Temporary tingling sensation;
Lack of any memory or sensation of pain;
Slight signature marks that resemble surface burns on the skin that may
appear red or blister;
Eye injury from probe contact; [and]
Secondary injuries caused by falling.8

The electronic control weapon is a nondeadly weapon9 that permits officers to gain
control over suspects or detainees with less risk of injury to the suspects, detainees or
officers. The other nondeadly weapons available to law enforcement include oleoresin
capsicum (OC) or pepper spray and the baton. There are other more specialized
nondeadly weapons including (1) specialty impact munitions such as rubber bullets and
bean bag rounds; (2) chemical munitions such as tear gas; and (3) distraction devices.
These weapons, however, are usually only available to specialized units such as SWAT
teams and not to the street officer.
Many in law enforcement favor the use of the electronic control weapon because it allows
the officer to gain control over suspects without having to use hand-to-hand restraint
techniques, OC spray or the baton. In an interview with the media, LaGrange Police
Department Chief Lou Dekmar explained that: “The reason we use the Tasers is it
prevents us from having to rely on physical contact when we have to take someone into
custody.”10 Chief Sue Rahr of the King County Sheriff’s Department in Washington
stated that, “The tools are safe and give officers better options than wrestling or fighting
someone with a baton or a nightstick.”11
7

IACP Concept Paper, Rev. May 2004 at 2.
IACP Concept Paper, Rev. May 2004 at 2.
9
The Committee is deliberately describing the electronic control weapon as a nondeadly weapon and not as
a “less-lethal” weapon. The electronic control weapon properly deployed is nondeadly force because it is
“extremely unlikely to cause death or serious injury.” The term “less-lethal” implies that the weapon is
“lethal, just less so.” Randy Means, Electronic Control Weapons: Liability Issues, THE POLICE CHIEF,
Feb. 2005 at 10, 11. For these reasons, it will be referred to throughout this paper as a nondeadly weapon.
10
Weitzner, Katie, Georgia Medical Examiner’s Office Rules Gray’s Cause of Death NOT Taser, WRBLTV CBS Ch 3 (Nov. 11, 2004), as reprinted at www.police1.com/plice-products/less-lethal/articles. Chief
Dekmar was interviewed about the use of a Taser by a LaGrange Police Department officer, which is
discussed in detail in Section IV of this paper.
11
Cat Le, Phuong and Hector Castro, Is ‘non-lethal’ Taser deadly? SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
REPORTERS, Dec. 1 2004.
8

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

Stories like this one reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding the use of an
electronic control weapon most likely correlate with the increasing use of the electronic
control weapons by law enforcement agencies.
The maximum-security inmate fought through six shots of pepper spray
and sprinted toward Gwinnett sheriff's Capt. Carl Sims. Sims pulled his
weapon, an electroshock gun called a Taser.
One shot, and the prisoner fell, immobilized.
"I thought that he had me, but the Taser dropped him instantly," Sims said.
"We have never had a problem with that inmate again."12
Not all media coverage about the use of electronic control weapons is positive. In late
2004, Amnesty International issued a report entitled “Excessive and lethal force?
Amnesty International report on Taser abuse.” It recommended the suspension of the
“use of Tasers and other electro-shock weapons pending a rigorous, independent and
impartial inquiry into their use and effects.”13 Since the release of this report, the Arizona
Republic has also done a story on the Taser, which is basically a list of deaths that have
occurred after the use of an electronic control weapon.14 There have been numerous
stories in the media both for and against the use of electronic control weapons.
There have been six deaths in Georgia that occurred after the use of an electronic control
weapon. As a result, there was a bill proposed by a legislator calling for a moratorium on
electronic control weapon use in Georgia. The bill did not make it out of committee.
The House of Representatives Committee has favorably reported on a resolution
sponsored by Representatives Brooks of the 63rd and Day of the 163rd Districts on March
2, 2005. House Resolution 341 states:
This body encourages, the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police to
continue utilizing the services of its Electronic Control Device (ECD) ad
hoc committee, which consists of law enforcement professionals,
academic advisers, attorneys, and physicians, so as to objectively evaluate
the safety of this type of device and to provide a sample “model law
enforcement policy” pertaining to when electronic control devices may be
appropriately used.

Mungin, Lateef and Rosalind Bentley, Deaths Spur Taser debate, ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION,
June 29, 2004 at 1B.
13
Amnesty International, Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International report on Taser abuse,
(2005).
14
Robert Anglen, 84 Cases of Death Following Stun-Gun Use, ARIZONA REPUBLIC, December 24, 2005.

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Georgia Association of Chiefs of
Police ad hoc committee is encouraged to continue with its commitment to
prepare a “white paper” explaining its position on this issue and the
reasons for its position and that such white paper then be disseminated to
members of the General Assembly, as needed.15
Per House Resolution 341, this paper will be provided to the members of the General
Assembly.
III.

In-Custody Deaths in Georgia

In Georgia, there have been six cases of in-custody deaths where an electronic control
weapon was utilized to obtain control over the individual prior to the death. Most
significantly, the medical examiners did not conclude that the electronic control weapon
caused the death in any of these cases. See Appendix A for a chart listing the six cases,
the manner and cause of death in those cases. In two cases, the autopsy report identifies
the use of the electronic control weapon as a factor or contributory event in the cause of
death.16 According to Dr. Kris Sperry, the Chief Medical Examiner of the State of
Georgia, the use of the electronic control weapon is one of many factors that resulted in
these two deaths. For example in DOFS Case No. 2004-1028709, the medical examiner
determined that the decedent, Mr. Greshmond Gray, had underlying heart disease as
evidenced by “microscopic evidence of heart enlargement and fibrosis (scarring)” which
increased “the risk of sudden fatal cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), particularly
during times of physiologic stress” coupled with a “history of cocaine use” which may
have caused or partially caused the heart disease.17 The medical examiner determined
that the cause of death was “combined effects of the physiological stress of a physical
altercation (including having been shot by a Taser) and enlargement and fibrosis of the
heart.”18 As evidenced by the stated cause of death, the electronic control weapon
(Taser) was mentioned as a factor in the death, but was not the cause of the death.
Looking nationwide, there are only a very few death cases involving electronic control
weapons where the death has been linked to the use of electronic control weapons. In an
article in THE POLICE CHIEF magazine, Randy Means reviewed the nationwide data
regarding electronic control weapons and death. After considering the available data, he
concluded that there are 11 cases in the United States where the electronic control
weapon was “purportedly linked to a death or not ruled out as a contributing factor.”19
According to Means, analyzing the number of applications (62,000 field uses and
100,000 training and volunteer applications) with the 11 cases results in a .000067
15

Georgia General Assembly, House Resolution 341, Favorably Reported by Committee on March 2, 2005.
See Appendix A -- Case # 04-0974 Daryl Smith and Case # 2004-1028709 Greshmond Gray. The
circumstances surrounding use of the electronic control weapon in the Greshmond Gray case are discussed
more fully in Section IV of this paper.
17
GBI Division of Forensic Sciences Official Autopsy Report No. 2004-1028709.
18
GBI Division of Forensic Sciences Official Autopsy Report No. 2004-1028709.
19
Means at 11.
16

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

percent death rate – a rate far less than less than 1%.20 Significantly, there has been no
analysis of other restraint-related deaths to compare with this death rate.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has also identified and reviewed in-custody/lawenforcement-involved death cases (“in-custody death cases”), from January 1, 1995 to
December 31, 2004, handled by the Chief Medical Examiner and his staff.21 This review
has identified in-custody deaths that occurred when police used restraints or struggled
with individuals but did not use an electronic control weapon. See Appendix B for a
chart listing these cases. In such cases, the restraint is a factor or contributory event in
the cause of death. As with the six electronic control weapon cases, however, the
restraint did not cause the death.22
Law enforcement must make every effort through training and appropriate medical care
to avoid these in-custody deaths. This data demonstrates, however, that there is a risk of
death any time any form of restraint is used by law enforcement. There does not appear
to be any way to eliminate this risk completely.
Additionally, the use of an electronic control weapon may reduce the incidence of deaths
that occur when an officer engages in a struggle and ultimately has to fire his weapon,
killing the subject. In DOFS Case # 2003-1029286, the decedent died of a “gunshot
wound of the neck with penetration into the chest.” He was struggling with law
enforcement officers, grabbed one officer’s gun, and fired it. The other officers fired and
killed him. As this case demonstrates, there is always a risk when an officer engages in a
hand-to-hand struggle with a suspect that the suspect will attempt to seize the officer’s
weapon. The use of an electronic control weapon usually allows the officer to avoid that
hand-to-hand struggle.
The nature of law enforcement work entails dealing with a population of individuals who
do not comply with lawful commands and often engage in extreme physical exertion in
an effort to avoid complying. Couple this with preexisting medical conditions and highrisk behaviors such as illegal drug use and the result may be deaths. As the review of the
in-custody deaths indicates, however, these deaths are associated with any type of force
application -- whether it is the electronic control weapon, handcuffs or simply hand-to20

Means at 11.
These cases do not include the following counties: Cobb, Gwinnett, DeKalb, Rockdale, and Fulton.
Autopsies are sometimes performed for Hall and Henry County; so the data includes some cases from these
counties. Additionally, the only cases reviewed were those that could be identified as in-custody/law
enforcement-involved death cases based upon the information in the files. If law enforcement involvement
was not reported to the Chief Medical Examiner, then the case was not included in the review.
22
For example DOFS Case # 2003-5004063 involved a prisoner who died while strapped in a restraint
chair at the jail due to his violent outburst. His cause of death was “delayed effects of stress-induced
cardiorespiratory arrest while strapped in a ‘restraint chair.’” DOFS Case # 2003-1029965 involved a 23year-old male in police custody who had “cardiorespiratory arrest in the course of being restrained during
an apparently severe psychotic episode.”
21

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

hand fighting. As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated, “Almost every use of
force, however minute, poses some risk of death.”23
IV.

Legal Cases in Georgia

The courts have considered two cases involving the use of an electronic control weapon
in Georgia. The first case, Alford v. Osei-Kwasi,24 was decided by the Georgia Court of
Appeals in 1992 and involved the use of a Taser by a deputy in the DeKalb County jail.
Jail personnel called Lt. Osei-Kwasi to Ms. Alford’s cell because she was creating a
disturbance. He told her to stop creating a disturbance and she refused to stop. Lt. OseiKwasi went back into her cell to attempt to move her to another location; however, she
resisted. Lt. Osei-Kwasi knew that she was pregnant. He decided to use the Taser
“because it would not cause permanent injury and would avoid a physical altercation with
her which might result in injuries to Alford, her unborn child, and jail personnel.”25
Before he fired the Taser, Ms. Alford was “extremely abusive, defiant and belligerent and
moved toward him in an aggressive manner.”26 After using the Taser, Ms. Alford was
briefly incapacitated and taken to the jail clinic and found without injury except where
the Taser dart struck.
Alford filed suit alleging that her constitutional rights were violated because the shooting
of the Taser constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.27 The Georgia Court of Appeals did not agree. The Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution provides that: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.28
The court explained that, “prison administrators are given ‘wide-ranging deference in the
adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to
preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.’” In
evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim the court must determine “whether force was
applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and
sadistically to cause harm.”29 The factors considered by the court included (1) the need
for application of force; (2) the relationship between that need and the amount of force
used; (3) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials; (4) the efforts made

378 F.2d at 1280 n.12.
203 Ga. App. 716 (1992).
25
203 Ga. App. at 716-717.
26
203 Ga. App. at 717.
27
203 Ga. App. at 717. For convicted prisoners, the Eighth Amendment governs their treatment in a
correctional facility. For pretrial detainees, the Fourteenth Amendment governs their treatment; however
the cases hold that the standard is the same whether the analysis is under the Eighth or the Fourteenth
Amendment.
28
U.S. Const. Amend. VIII.
29
203 Ga. App. at (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)).
24

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

to temper the severity of a forceful response; and (5) the extent of the injury suffered by
the inmate.30
The court concluded that there was no constitutional violation. It stated:
Although we also are concerned about using a device like a Taser, we
cannot agree that its use is inherently wanton, malicious, or sadistic. If
used properly, it avoids the physical injuries associated with other means
of force. Further, although incapacitated by the Taser, Alford produced no
credible evidence that the Taser caused her or Sterling Alford any serious
injury or that it routinely caused serious injuries in others. Moreover,
Tasers are used in other state penal systems and have been used for years
in the DeKalb County Jail without report of serious injury. Further, even
Alford’s expert did not condemn their use generally. Therefore, we do no
find that using the Taser, per se, constituted a violation of the Eighth
Amendment.”31
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals32 also considered a case involving the use of an
electronic control weapon by a Georgia law enforcement officer. In Draper v.
Reynolds,33 Clinton D. Reynolds, a Coweta County Sheriff’s deputy, had stopped a
tractor-trailer for a burned-out tag light. The deputy approached the truck on the right
side and shined his flashlight inside the vehicle. According to the driver Stacy Allen
Draper, he was blinded by the flashlight and asked the deputy to stop shining it at him.
The deputy asked the driver to exit the vehicle and stand at the rear of the truck in full
view of the patrol car camera. The parties disputed the language used by each during the
exchange at the truck – both alleged that the other used profanity.
Once the driver exited the vehicle, however, the remainder of the encounter was
videotaped and tape recorded, which allowed the court to see and hear the encounter.
The deputy asked the driver for his license and bill of lading. “During the encounter, [the
driver] was belligerent, gestured animatedly, continuously paced, appeared very excited,
and spoke loudly.”34 On five occasions, the deputy instructed the driver to retrieve
documents and the driver did not comply. At one point, the driver yelled, “how ‘bout
you just go ahead and take me to fucking jail, then man, you know, because I’m not
going to kiss your damn ass because you’re a police officer.”35 After the fifth request, the
deputy discharged his Taser gun at the driver’s chest. The driver fell to the ground and
the deputy directed his back-up, who had just arrived, to handcuff the driver. The driver

203 Ga. App. at 719-20.
203 Ga. App. at 720 (emphasis added).
32
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Georgia, Florida and Alabama.
33
369 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2004).
34
369 F. 3d at 1273.
35
369 F.3d at 1273.
31

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

was not injured. He was charged with an improperly illuminated taillight and obstruction
of an officer.
He filed a lawsuit alleging that the deputy used excessive force in violation of the Fourth
Amendment by using the Taser.36 The district court granted the deputy’s motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the case. The driver appealed and the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
The court considered the totality of the circumstances to determine if the force used was
reasonable. Specifically, it considered the following factors: (1) the need for the
application of force; (2) the relationship between the need and amount of force used; and
(3) the extent of the injury inflicted.37 Additionally, the court explained that:
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.38
The videotape was very useful for the court in making the determination that the use of
the Taser was reasonable. The court could see that the driver was “standing up,
handcuffed and coherent shortly after the Taser gun stunned and calmed him.”39
“Although being struck by a Taser gun is an unpleasant experience, the amount of force
Reynolds used – a single use of the Taser gun causing a one-time shocking – was
reasonably proportionate to the need for force and did not inflict any serious injury.”
Finally, the court recognized that the use of the Taser “may well have prevented a
physical struggle and serious harm to either Draper or Reynolds.”40 The court concluded
that the use of force was not excessive and that Draper’s constitutional rights were not
violated during the arrest.41
These two cases are significant because they demonstrate that the Georgia courts
recognize the utility of an electronic control weapon. Both courts stated in their opinions
that using an electronic control weapon may have prevented the injuries associated with
the use of other nondeadly weapons. Consequently in Georgia, the use of an electronic
control weapon to control a resistant individual who is either not cooperating with lawful
requests of detention facility personnel or refusing to obey lawful requests of an officer is
not excessive force.

369 F. 3d at 1274. The complaint also alleged that the deputy improperly stopped him and falsely
arrested him. These claims were also dismissed.
37
369 F.3d at 1277-78.
38
369 F.3d at 1278 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 409 U.S. 386 (1989).
39
369 F.3d at 1278.
40
369 F.3d at 1278.
41
369 F.3d at 1278.

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

There has been no reported decision in a civil case involving a death after use of an
electronic control weapon in Georgia. There is, however, a review by a district attorney
of a case involving a death after the use of electronic control weapon by a LaGrange
Police Department officer. The officer responded to an unwanted person call at an
apartment complex.42 Once there, he attempted to persuade the male subject, Greshmond
Gray, to leave the premises, but Mr. Gray refused to leave. Another officer arrived. The
male subject, who was drinking beer and appeared intoxicated, used profanity with the
officers and threatened to “slap [the girlfriend] silly.” The officers told Gray that he
would be arrested for criminal trespass if he did not leave. He said, “Fine then, I’ll go to
jail” and turned his back to the officers, placing his hands behind his back. As the officer
approached to handcuff him, Gray turned around and backed up toward the grill where he
had been grilling meat. The officers gave more verbal commands to put his hands behind
his back. Gray picked up the grill containing burning embers. At that point, one officer
used his Taser because he “thought that Gray was going to toss the grill and its hot
embers at him.” After the first Taser cycle, Gray was still able to move away from the
officer. The officer deployed the Taser again and Gray fell to the ground but still ignored
commands to put his hands behind his back and the officer deployed the Taser once more
before the other officer was able to handcuff the subject. Gray became unresponsive and
ultimately died. This incident was investigated by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation
(GBI). At the conclusion of the GBI investigation, Coweta Judicial Circuit District
Attorney Peter J. Skandalakis reviewed the file and made the following determination:
I am of the opinion that neither Officer Daniel nor Officer Robinson
committed any crimes which directly or indirectly caused Mr. Gray’s
death.
My opinion is based upon the following facts from the investigation:
Upon responding to the scene, Officers Daniel and Robinson exhibited
patience and restraint in dealing with Mr. Gray who was intoxicated and
verbally abusive. For some extended period of time, the officers
attempted to get Mr. Gray to voluntarily leave the complex where he was
not a resident. Witnesses interviewed within hours of Gray’s death
corroborated various portions of the above-stated events.
After speaking with Gray for some time, it became apparent to the officers
that Gray would not leave the complex without being arrested. Gray
turned his back to the officers giving them the impression that he would
comply with their orders and be arrested peacefully. When Gray made a
sudden turn towards the officers, only then did Officer Daniel unholster
his [Taser device]. Gray continuously refused to obey both officers’
42

This information is taken from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Case File No. 02-0085-01-05 and
specifically from the investigative summaries of the interviews with Officers Chad Daniel and Antwane
Robinson.

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

verbal commands and both officers perceived that Gray was about to make
an aggressive move in order to avoid arrest.
Finally, Officer Daniel used the Taser device only after Gray refused
commands to put down a small grill with coals in it and only after the
officer reasonably believed that Gray was about to throw hot coals at the
officers. Such a reasonable belief by Officers Daniel and Robinson
cloaked each of them with legal justification to repel an attack.
Officer Daniel, subsequent to the first use of the Taser, used it
intermittently to prevent Gray from fleeing and afterwards because Daniel
believed Gray was not obeying his commands to place his hands where the
officers could see them. Such use of the Taser is in compliance with the
officers’ training and was perceived necessary to effect an arrest of Gray.
Shortly thereafter, the officers discovered that Gray was unresponsive and
in poor condition. The officers then immediately called for medical
assistance.
Therefore, given the totality of the circumstances surrounding the events,
the officers acted in a reasonable manner to protect themselves, protect
others in the community and effect an arrest. They did not act with
criminal intent nor did they violate any criminal statutes. The law in fact
permits law enforcement officer[s], just like citizens, to act in self-defense
as did these officers.
The death of Mr. Gray is unfortunate and was not foreseeable by the
officers given their training involving the Taser device.43
As mentioned, the review by the district attorney in the Gray case to determine if the
officers committed any crimes and was not a determination of any civil liability.
While there is no civil case in Georgia involving a death after the use of an electronic
control weapon, there is a civil case in Georgia involving the death of a suspect who was
handcuffed and fettered after a police chase and struggle with police. This case provides
guidance on how the courts will consider civil cases brought when a suspect dies after
use of an electronic control weapon. In Garrett v. Athens-Clarke County, Georgia,44 a
police officer attempted to stop Eric William Irby for suspected driving under the
influence. He did not stop and led police on a high-speed chase over 30 miles and with
speeds as great as 75 miles per hour throughout Franklin, Madison and Athens-Clarke
counties. Eventually Irby ran off the road into a ditch; however he continued to elude
43

February 4, 2005 Letter from District Attorney Peter J. Skandalakis to Special Agent Sam Baity located
in GBI Case File No. 02-0085-01-05.
44
378 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2004).

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

police and even rammed a patrol car with his vehicle. This, however, resulted in Irby’s
car going into the ditch and ending the chase. Irby refused to exit the car or show his
hands after being told to do so. The officer pulled Irby out of the car, Irby began
screaming, grabbed the officer’s pistol and pushed the officer down into the ditch. The
officer was able to get his pistol away from Irby and hit Irby on the head with the butt of
his gun. Then Irby ran away. The officer holstered his gun, pulled out his baton and
chased Irby. The officer hit Irby three times on the back of the thighs and Irby finally fell
to the ground. The officer dove on top of Irby to keep him from getting up and another
officer arrived who assisted in handcuffing Irby.
Despite being handcuffed, Irby continued to kick, swing, yell and fight as the officers
tried to walk him to the road. At this point three officers were trying to control Irby who
was handcuffed. Despite the fact that there were three officers, Irby managed to kick one
officer in the chest and knock him to the ground. Four more officers arrived and one had
a “hobble cord.” The hobble cord is “a nylon strap with a metal snap at one end that can
connect to a pair of handcuffs and a permanent loop on the other end, that can secure
ankles, knees, or elbows.”45 The officer attempted to apply the restraint, but Irby kept
kicking and bruised the officer in the process.
Another officer told Irby to stop kicking or he would be sprayed with pepper spray. Irby
did not stop and was sprayed. At that point, Irby became compliant. The officers then
fettered Irby by tying his ankles together, cuffing his hands behind his back, and
strapping his hands and feet together so that the distance between Irby’s wrists and ankles
was less than 12 inches. Irby was carried to a place near the rear of an officer’s car. The
car was running and Irby was placed on his chest near the exhaust pipe.
The ambulance was called and arrived a few minutes later. The ambulance personnel
found no pulse and he was declared dead at the hospital. The GBI medical examiner
stated that the cause of death was “positional asphyxia.” The autopsy report also
indicated that there was methamphetamine and amphetamine in Irby’s system and listed
these as contributing factors of death; however, the pepper spray and the exposure to
carbon monoxide were not listed as contributing factors.
Irby’s family sued alleging that the force used, specifically the fettering, was excessive
force. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree and concluded that Irby’s
Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.
The family argued that the “fettering posed a high potential of death.”46 The court stated
that there was “no competent evidence in this case support[ing] the view that death or
serious injury is a likely consequence of fettering a person as Irby was fettered.”47
Plaintiff’s expert had testified that fettering posed “some risk of death.” This however is
45

378 F.3d at 1278 n. 5.
378 F.3d at 1279.
47
378 F.2d at 1280.
46

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

not enough. The court explained that: “Almost every use of force, however minute,
poses some risk of death.”48
Next the family argued that the fettering was not necessary after Irby was sprayed with
pepper spray and became compliant. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the
court found that the fettering was objectively reasonable. It explained that:
Irby repeatedly placed officers’ lives and innocents’ lives in danger by
engaging the police in a multi-county vehicle chase that did not end until
Irby had crashed twice. Once Irby’s truck was finally stopped, the officers
tried to restrain him in a less restrictive manner (simple handcuffing), but
Irby ran and fought with the police and kept on violently kicking and
resisting. The uncontroverted evidence in the record shows that legs can
still be used to kick, even when the ankles are bound together. Therefore,
it can be necessary to restrain further or secure the legs to avoid a power
kick from the ground.
Irby kicked violently until sprayed with the OC spray. As soon as he was
sprayed and became compliant, the officers immediately fettered him.
They took advantage of a window of opportunity – of unknown duration –
to restrain Irby in such a way that he could not harm another officer or
himself should he decide to stop being compliant, a realistic possibility
given his recent words and deeds.49
For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court ruling, which meant that
the family’s claim would be dismissed.
In sum, the courts having jurisdiction in Georgia recognize the following about the use of
an electronic control weapon.
(1) Any restraint device, whether it is an electronic control weapons,
pepper spray, or even handcuffs, carries with it the possibility of
death.50
(2) The use of an electronic control weapon may avoid injury to the
suspect or prisoner.51
48

378 F.2d at 1280 n.12.
378 F.2d at 1280-81.
50
See Garrett v. Athens-Clarke County, 378 F.3d at 1280 n.12 (“Almost every use of force, however
minute, poses some risk of death.”).
51
See Alford v. Osei-Kwasi, 203 Ga. App. at 720 (“If used properly, it avoids the physical injuries
associated with other means of force.”); Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d at 1278 (recognizing that use of
electronic control weapon “may well have prevented a physical struggle and serious harm to either Draper
or Reynolds”).
49

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

(3) The use of an electronic control weapon may avoid injury to the
officers.52
(4) The risk of death must be a likely consequence of the use of the
restraint device for the device to be considered deadly force.53
The courts will evaluate each case by considering the totality of the circumstances that
the officer was facing when making the decision to utilize an electronic control weapon.
In the jail or correctional facility setting, if an officer utilizes the electronic control
weapon maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm, then that use will
violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. If an
officer utilizes the electronic control weapon in an objectively unreasonable manner to
punish a suspect or cause pain, that use will violate the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
V.

Policy Considerations

The Committee recommends that every agency have a policy regarding the use of
electronic control weapons. As sample policies for agency heads to consider, the
Committee attaches the Dalton Police Police Department’s policies regarding Use of
Force and Non-Deadly Weapons (copies attached at Appendixes C and D). The
Committee also recommends that agency heads review the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) Model Policies on Use of Force and Electronic Control Weapons
(available at http://iacp.org/ or 1-800-THE IACP). While the use of force and electronic
control weapons are addressed in two policies by the Dalton Police Department and the
IACP, the Committee recommends combining the two policies and including in the
overall use of force policy specific guidance regarding any other nondeadly weapons
issued by the agency such as OC spray. It is also recommended that agency heads
address the following issues in their electronic control weapons policy:
(1) The placement of the electronic control weapon on the use of force
continuum;54
(2) Provide for reporting by law enforcement officers when electronic control
weapons are used and the circumstances leading up to their use, as well as a
supervisory and agency review of the use;
(3) The use of the electronic control weapon in the “drive-stun” mode;
52

See the cases cited in footnote 51 supra.
See Garrett v. Athens-Clarke County, 378 F.3d at 1280 (“No competent evidence in this case supports the
view that death or serious injury is a likely consequence of fettering a person as Irby was fettered.”).
54
The Committee highly recommends that agency heads review the IACP Executive Brief entitled ElectroMuscular Disruption Technology ‘A Nine-Step Strategy for Effective Deployment’ (hereinafter “Nine-Step
Strategy”) available at http://www.iacp.org/research/rcdcuttingedgetech.htm. The second step in the NineStep Strategy is to place the weapon “within the local use-of-force continuum based on an assessment of
the technology” prior to deployment (Nine-Step Strategy at p.2).
53

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

(4) Provide guidelines for the removal of the probes and when medical attention
is necessary; and
(5) The use of electronic control weapons on susceptible populations such as
children, elderly persons and pregnant women.
In preparing the policy, the agency head should decide when using electronic control
weapons is appropriate. Most use of force training utilizes the concept of a use of force
continuum. In Georgia, prospective law enforcement officers are trained using the I.F.M.
– Integrated Force Management Use of Force Model (hereinafter “I.F.M. Model” (a copy
of the I.F.M. Model is attached as Appendix E). Using the I.F.M. Model as a guide, the
most likely placement would be Level 3 or active resistance. Examples of subject actions
that demonstrate active resistance are verbal threats to fight or resist arrest, and resisting
restraint/arrest by pulling away or refusing to submit to the officer’s control amounting to
enhanced physical or mechanical defiance. The I.F.M. Model categorizes the threat
perception at the active resistance level as “volatile” requiring an active degree of
alertness and caution on the part of the officer.
The IACP Concept Paper also addresses when to use the electronic control weapon:
The model policy prohibits [electronic control weapon’s] use against
anyone unless the person demonstrates an overt intention to use violence
or force against the officer or others or resists detentions and arrest and
other alternatives for controlling them are not reasonable or available
under the circumstances. Normally violence, force and resistance are
demonstrated by actions, deeds, and/or words that signify the intent and
ability to take such actions. With these cautions in mind, [electronic
control weapons] may generally be deployed consistent with a
professionally recognized philosophy of use of force, that is: use only that
level of force that reasonably appears necessary to control or subdue a
violent or potentially violent person. It should also be used early enough
in a confrontation or situation to prevent the incident from escalating to a
point where a greater level of force might be necessary.55
According to the IACP, most agencies put the electronic control weapon at the same level
as pepper spray on the use of force continuum.56 Similarly the I.F.M. model provides
that chemical irritants, electronic restraint devices, contact controls including takedown
techniques, and batons may be used when the subject is actively resisting.
In addition to placing the electronic control weapon on the use of force continuum,
agency heads should provide for reporting when the electronic control weapon is used.57
55

IACP Concept Paper, Rev. Jan. 2005 at 3.
IACP Concept Paper, Rev. Jan. 2005 at 3.
57
Agency heads should also consider requiring reporting when the officer unholsters and points the
electronic control weapon, but does not need to deploy it because the suspect complies. This will enable
56

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

The report should describe in detail the totality of circumstances and all factors
contributing to the use of the electronic control weapon. The report should include, if
possible, exact quotes from the subject or prisoner and exact quotes used by the officers
in attempting to control the situation. In addition to the report by the officer, the
supervisor should complete a report as well. If possible, the supervisor should go to the
scene and do an initial inquiry regarding the circumstances surrounding the use. Finally,
the agency head should review the reports periodically to ensure that there is no misuse
or abuse and identify additional training needs. (A copy of the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation Use of Force Report and Supervisory Taser Use Report and the Dalton
Police Department Use of Force Report Form are attached hereto as Appendixes F and
G.)
Some electronic control weapons may be used in what is referred to as the “drive-stun”
mode. Instead of firing the cartridge containing the probes, the cartridge is removed and
the end of the weapon is touched to the subject’s body. Using the electronic control
weapon in this manner will not result in immobilization; instead the subject will most
likely jerk to get away from the weapon.58 Hence using the weapon in this manner on
someone handcuffed or otherwise restrained will likely result in the appearance of
continued resistance by the subject.59 It is important that policy address when such use is
appropriate.
The policy should also address the removal of probes and when medical attention should
be sought. If the subject is hit in a non-sensitive area, usually the law enforcement officer
will be able to remove the probes in the manner recommended by the manufacturer.60
The IACP recommends transportation to a medical facility for the following subjects:
(1) Subjects who are hit in a sensitive area (face, head, female breasts, genitals);
(2) Subjects from whom officers have difficulty removing the probes (i.e.
probe/barb separation);
(3) Subjects who do not appear to be fully recovered within 10 minutes after
being hit;
(4) Subjects who are in a potential susceptible populations [such as women who
are pregnant, persons with pacemakers, those suffering debilitating illnesses,

agencies to track the deterrent effect of the electronic control weapons. The Cincinnati Police Department
tracks the number of times its officer have had to use their Tasers and has noticed a decline in the use of the
Tasers as well as a reduction in the number of injuries to suspects and officers. Kevin Osborne, Cincinnati
Cops Using Stun Guns Less, THE CINCINNATI POST, May 24, 2005.
58
Mungin, Lateef, “Cops’ reactions to Taser mirror those of inmate,” ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION,
May 12, 2005 at 1C.
59
A deputy who was shocked in the drive-stun mode described it as follows, “The pain was so intense that
I would have done anything to get away from it.” He also pulled his body away from it and it caused him to
scream involuntarily. Mungin, “Cops’ reactions to Taser mirror those of inmate,” at 1C.
60
IACP Concept Paper, Rev. Jan. 2005 at 4.

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

persons who are very old or very young, and as noted, persons of very small
stature irrespective of age]; 61 and
(5) Any subject who requests medical attention.62
Additionally, it is recommended that officers ask the subjects whether they need medical
attention after electronic weapon use.63
Finally, agency heads should consider whether to permit or under what circumstances
should electronic control weapons be used on known susceptible populations. Obviously
law enforcement officers may not know that a person has a pacemaker or that a woman is
in the early stages of pregnancy. Consequently when writing policy, it may be wise to
state “women who are obviously pregnant” or “individuals known to have pacemakers.”
The use of electronic control weapons by law enforcement on these susceptible
populations, particularly young children, results in very negative press for all law
enforcement. This is an additional reason to address this use in policy prior to an
incident. For example, an editorial in a Florida newspaper addressed the use of a Taser
on a six-year-old child.
The Taser, which uses a jolt of electricity to momentarily incapacitate a
potentially violent suspect, is a valuable tool. But it should not be used on
elementary-school children or suspects who are already in custody, locked
in handcuffs. Tightening those rules is appropriate because a recent
Sentinel article reported that police and deputies have used Tasers on at
least 24 Central Florida students during the past 18 months. In all those
cases, the Tasers were used on high-school-age students. But last year, a
police officer in Miami-Dade County Tased a 6-year-old elementaryschool student. Considering that some high-school students are the size of
professional football players, judicious use of a Taser on a combative
teenager can be justified. But there’s no excuse for using a Taser to stun
an elementary-school student. Any officer who can’t control a 6 –year-old
without resorting to a Taser needs to find another line of work.64
Miami-Dade Police Department did revise its policy after the incident involving the 6year-old boy. Now Miami-Dade officers must consider “a suspect’s age, size and
perceived fighting ability before using a Taser.” MIAMI HERALD, February 24, 2005 at
B10. It may be wiser, however, to address these issues at the outset rather than after an
incident that engenders nationwide negative publicity.

IACP Concept Paper, Rev. Jan. 2005 at 3.
IACP Concept Paper, Rev. Jan. 2005 at 4-5.
63
IACP Concept Paper, Rev. Jan. 2005 at 5.
64
ORLANDO SENTINEL, March 31, 2005 at A18.
62

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

VI.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Committee concludes that electronic control weapons when used in accordance with
the law have the potential to reduce injuries to suspects, prisoners and officers. The
Committee recognizes that electronic control weapons, as with any other weapon, may be
misused or abused. The Committee condemns the use of the electronic control weapon
by law enforcement in the field as punishment or to cause pain. The Committee also
deplores the malicious and sadistic use of electronic control weapon by law enforcement
in the correctional setting for the purpose of punishment or causing pain. Such uses
violate the United States Constitution and common standards of human decency.
In order to avoid abuse of the electronic control weapon and to ensure that if abuse occurs
it will be appropriately sanctioned, it is incumbent upon agency heads to promulgate
policy and reporting requirements to monitor the use of electronic control weapons. To
assist agency heads, the Committee makes the following recommendations with regard to
electronic control weapons:
Policy: Law enforcement agencies should promulgate a policy governing the use of
electronic control weapons. This policy should be specifically tailored to the needs of
their agencies and should provide guidance in the specific areas discussed earlier in
this paper, particularly placement of the electronic control weapon on the use of force
continuum.
Training: Agencies should provide training to their officers prior to deploying
electronic control weapons.
Reporting: Agencies should require their officer to report every time the electronic
control weapon is used and the circumstances leading to the use. Agencies should
provide for a supervisor’s report and inquiry into the circumstances. These reports
should be reviewed by agency heads because they may reveal patterns or trends that
could indicate training needs and/or policy modifications.
In conclusion, the electronic control weapon, when used properly and in accordance with
the law, is an appropriate tool for law enforcement because it prevents injuries to
suspects, prisoners and law enforcement. As the Georgia Court of Appeals explained, “If
used properly, it avoids the physical injuries associated with other means of force.”65

203 Ga. App. at 720.

Electronic Control Weapons in Georgia: Review and Recommendations
June 20, 2005

Appendixes
Appendix A

Chart Identifying In-Custody Deaths in Georgia Where
An Electronic Control Weapon Was Used

Appendix B

Chart Identifying In-custody Deaths in Georgia Where
No Electronic Control Weapon Was Used

Appendix C

Dalton Police Department Policy GO88-5.1 Use of Force
(Rev. February 24, 2004)

Appendix D

Dalton Police Department Policy GO04-5.2 Non-Deadly
Weapons (Rev. July 26, 2005)

Appendix E

I.F.M. — Integrated Force Management Use of Force
Model

Appendix F

Georgia Bureau of Investigation Use of Force Report and
Supervisory Taser Use Report

Appendix G

Dalton Police Department Use of Force Report Form

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A—In-Custody Deaths in Georgia
Where an Electronic Control Weapon Was Utilized
DATE

CASE
NUMBER

NAME

MEDICAL
EXAMINER

MANNER OF
DEATH

CAUSE OF DEATH

September 2003

03G-0705

Ray Charles Austin

Undetermined

Hypoxic encephalopathy due to
cardiopulmonary arrest due to
hyperactive or agitated delirium
with physical restraint.

December 2003

2003-4005152

Curtis Lamar
Lawson

Accident

Complications of acute cocaine
toxicity

April 2004

2004-4001604

Melvin Samuel

Accident

Positional asphyxia complicated
by obesity and sickle cell crisis

May 2004

04-0974

Daryl Smith

Steve F. Dunton,
M.D.
Gwinnett County
Medical
Examiner
Melissa Sims,
M.D.
GBI Assistant
Medical
Examiner
Melissa Sims,
M.D.
GBI Assistant
Medical
Examiner
Eric L. Kiesel,
M.D., PhD
Fulton County
Medical
Examiner

Accident

May 2004

04G-0402

Fredrick Williams

Undetermined

November 2004

2004-1028709

Greshmond Gray

Steven F.
Dunton, M.D.
Gwinnett County
Medical
Examiner
Keith Lehman,
M.D.
GBI Assistant
Medical
Examiner

Complications of use of
controlled drug and concomitant
use of restraint and taser –
Sequelae of agitated delirium
associated with acute cocaine
poisoning
Hypoxic encephalopathy due to
cardiorespiratory arrest of
uncertain etiology

Homicide

Combined effects of the
physiological stress of a physical
altercation (including having
been shot by a TASER) and
enlargement and fibrosis of the
heart.

LAW
ENFORCEMENT
INVOLVEMENT

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B—In-Custody Deaths in Georgia
Where an Electronic Control Weapon Was Utilized
DATE

CASE
NUMBER

NAME

MEDICAL
EXAMINER

MANNER
OF DEATH

CAUSE OF DEATH

LAW ENFORCEMENT
INVOLVEMENT

June 1997

97-52870

Eric Irby

Mark A. Koponen,
M.D.

Homicide

Positional Asphyxia (“Hog Tie
Restraint”)

September
1998

M98-5040

Willie Williams

Anthony J. Clark,
M.D.
GBI Assistant
Medical Examiner

Homicide

Complications of blunt-force head
trauma. Other significant condition:
Chronic ethanolism

August 2000

2000-1029286

Jeffrey J.
Roman

Mark A. Koponen,
M.D.

Homicide

Gunshot wound of the neck and
chest

August 2000

2000-1029656

James Eppinger

Geoffrey P. Smith,
M.D.
GBI Assistant
Medical Examiner

Homicide

Complications of Cerebral
Hypoxia, as a consequence of
cervical compression

Decedent did not stop;
vehicle chase; fought with
officers; sprayed with OC;
handcuffed and fettered;
placed face-down on chest;
became unresponsive
During arrest, deputy
struggled with decedent
who was pushed to the
ground; transported to
hospital, treated and sent
back to jail; observed
having tremors next day
and then died
Decedent did not stop
vehicle, police chase
ensued; once stopped,
physical altercation
between officers and
decedent; decedent grabbed
officer’s gun and fired;
officer shot decedent in
neck
Altercation between
decedent and jail personnel;
guard performed chokehold
and other three wrestled
decedent to floor; decedent
became unresponsive
shortly after neck
compression

August 2003

2003-5004063

Rufus Robert
Rhodes

Anthony J. Clark,
M.D.
GBI Assistant
Medical Examiner

Homicide

Delayed effects of stress-induced
cardiorespiratory arrest while
strapped in a “restraint chair”.
Other significant conditions:
Coronary atherosclerotic disease;
hypertension; morbid obesity;
hepatic cirrhosis.
Contact-range gunshot wound of
neck

October 2003

2003-1026850

Wayne Walker

Kris Sperry, M.D.
GBI Chief Medical
Examiner

Homicide

November
2003

2003-1029965

Joshua Cannon

Geoffrey P. Smith,
M.D.
GBI Assistant
Medical Examiner

Homicide

Acute bronchopneumonia as a
consequence of cardiorespiratory
arrest and sequelae, due to physical
restraint during acute psychotic
episode.

February 2004

2004-5000550

Herman Jackson

Anthony J. Clark,
M.D.
GBI Assistant
Medical Examiner

Homicide

Hypoxic brain injury due to
anterior neck compression.

March 2004

2004-4001462

Keith Tatmon

Melissa Sims,
M.D. GBI
Assistant Medical
Examiner

Homicide

Complications of aspiration
pneumonia due to physical restraint
during an altercation

Decedent was in restraint
chair at jail for containment
after violent outburst for
over 13 hours, then out for
two hours and then in chair
for 34 hours
Officers engaged in an
altercation with decedent
while attempting to arrest;
decedent grabbed officer’s
weapon; another officer
shot decedent in neck
Decedent was transported
to hospital for
psychological evaluation;
became combative at
hospital and had to be
restrained; after gaining
control, officers found
decedent not responsive
Decedent resisted arrest;
during fight decedent fell to
the ground; decedent was
handcuffed and placed in
backseat of patrol car;
decedent was not breathing
upon arrival at jail
Officer chased decedent on
foot; officer tackled
decedent; decedent bit
officer’s ear; officer
subdued decedent possibly
with neck hold; decedent
developed seizure activity
during struggle; transported
to hospital; put on
ventilator; developed
aspiration pneumonia and
died

APPENDIX C

DALTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
Effective Date

Number

May 1, 1998

GO88-5.1

Subject

Use of Force
Reference

Revised

February 24, 2004

Distribution

Re-evaluation Date

All Sworn Personnel
I.

February 24, 2006

No. Pages

Policy
Officers shall use only that degree of force when and to the extent that there is reasonable belief that such
force is necessary to defend the officer or a third party against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

II.

III.

IV.

Definitions
A.

Deadly force - Any degree of force, which by the manner of its application has the reasonable
potential to cause death or serious bodily harm.

Non-Deadly Force - Force, other than deadly force, that is not excessive, is reasonable and
necessary to effect an arrest and to ensure safety to the officer and others.

Forcible felony - Any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against
any person.

Reasonable belief - the facts and circumstances which would cause an ordinary and prudent
person to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances.

Serious physical injury - a bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death; causes serious
permanent disfigurement; or results in long-term loss or impairment of the functioning of any part
of the body.

Justification for Use of Force
A.

Preserve the peace

Prevent the commission or attempted commission of a crime

Prevent self-inflicted injury

Make a lawful arrest

Make a lawful search

Overcome resistance to such arrests and searches

Prevent escapes from custody

Levels of Force

RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA
The data contained in this manual is confidential for internal department use only, and will not be divulged outside the department without the
written approval of the Chief of Police.

G088-5.1
Use of Force
A.

When the use of force is necessary and appropriate, officers shall, to the extent possible, utilize an
escalating scale of options and will not employ a more forceful measure, unless it is determined
that a lower level of force would not be adequate, or such a level of force is attempted and
actually found to be inadequate. Officer will use only the level of force that is reasonable
necessary to stop the perceived threat. The officer’s general perception and corresponding force
options, in order of increasing severity, are set forth as follows:
Level 1 - The suspect is perceived by the officer to be compliant. The appropriate level of
response is cooperative controls, including officer presence, hand signals, verbal commands and
instructions, light touching or patting, etc.
Level 2 - The suspect is perceived by the officer to be passively resistant. The appropriate level of
response is contact controls, including strong or forceful soft hand, hand and arm holds,
pressured physical movement of the suspect, removal, etc.
Level 3 - The suspect is perceived by the officer to be actively resistant. The appropriate response
is compliance techniques. This is the threshold for any reasonable officer to consider this suspect
to be a potential threat to himself, the officer or other citizens. Compliance techniques may
include all reasonable means to cause the suspect to comply as soon as reasonably possible.
These techniques may include use of chemical weapons, Taser, forced movement, etc. This could
include forcing the suspect’s limbs behind his back, forcing the suspect to the ground or against a
wall, or other rough physical force, etc. in an attempt to gain control. Once suspects are
perceived as actively resistant, officers should not relax care until the subject is fully secured.
Level 4 - The suspect is perceived by the officer to be assaultive – and a threat to bodily harm.
The appropriate level of response is immediate defensive tactics. Defensive tactics may include
impact weapons, hard hands, or any other reasonable means available and at hand to stop the
aggression, defend against the attack, and bring the suspect into compliance. It is contemplated
and understood that reasonable officers, while employing defensive tactics, may cause injury,
serious injury, and in some isolated instances, death without intending such consequences.
Level 5 - The suspect is perceived by the officer to be assaultive – serious bodily harm or death.
The appropriate level of response is deadly force. Deadly force includes firearms, knives, or any
other means immediately available that a reasonable officer, in the same circumstance, would
consider as potentially causing death or serious bodily injury.
Only when there is a reasonable expectation that altered or damaged property may place others in
imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury is deadly force appropriate to protect property. For
example, stopping a suspect from setting a fire or throwing a bomb.

Parameters for Use of Deadly Force
A.

A Dalton police officer is justified in using deadly force:
1.

If the officer reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death and great
bodily injury to the officer or another person, or

To prevent the commission of a forcible felony when such felony is intended or likely to
cause death or great bodily harm.

Before using a firearm, law enforcement officers shall identify themselves and state their intent to
shoot, when feasible.

A Dalton police officer may also discharge a weapon under the following circumstances:
1.

During range practice or competitive sporting events.

G088-5.1
Use of Force
2.

VI.

VII.

To destroy an animal that represents a danger to public safety, or as a humanitarian
measure where the animal is seriously injured. Time permitting; officers should make
every attempt to locate the rightful owner and animal control authorities before using
deadly force against an animal.

Dalton police officers shall adhere to the following restrictions when their weapon is exhibited:
1.

Except for maintenance or during training, law enforcement officers shall not draw or
exhibit their firearms unless circumstances create reasonable cause to believe that it may
be necessary to use the weapon in conformance with this policy.

Warning shots are prohibited.

Dalton police officers shall not fire their weapon at or from a moving vehicle unless the
officer reasonable believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily
injury to the officer or another person.

Firearms shall not be discharged when it appears likely that an innocent person may be
injured.

Parameters for Use of Non-Deadly Force
A.

When deadly force is not authorized, officers should assess the incident in order to determine
which non-deadly technique or weapon will best de-escalate the incident and bring it under
control in a safe manner.

Officers will not intentionally use more force than is necessary and reasonable under the
circumstances.

Officers will never use force in response to mere verbal provocation or abusive language directed
at the officer.

Dalton police officers are authorized to use department-approved non-deadly force techniques as
follows:
1.

To prevent themselves or another from physical harm; or

To restrain or subdue a resistant individual; or

When necessary to preserve the peace, prevent commission of offenses, or prevent
suicide or self-inflicting injury; or

When preventing or interrupting a crime or attempted crime against property; or

When making lawful arrests and searches, overcoming resistance to such arrests and
searches, and preventing escapes from custody; or

To bring an unlawful situation safely and effectively under control.

Use of Force Reporting Requirements
A.

Injuries in Arrest Situations

G088-5.1
Use of Force

The use of any force or accidental injury to a prisoner or other person involved in an
arrest situation which results in injury requiring medical treatment by rescue or hospital
personnel shall be reported immediately to the officer’s supervisor.

The immediate supervisor shall review the circumstances and report findings to the
division commander.

The division commander shall review the findings and make recommendations to the
chief of police.

Whenever there are injuries or the possibility of injuries, photographs shall be taken of
any possible injury areas on the officer and the arrestee.

Use of Deadly force - Serious Bodily Injury or Death
1.

Officer
a.

Determine physical condition of injured and administer first aid, if appropriate.

Request Whitfield County 911 dispatch emergency medical assistance and
supervisor.

If a firearm is involved and it is safe to do so, holster the weapon without
loading or unloading it.

Detain all witnesses and secure the scene.

Unless injured, remain at the scene until the arrival of supervisory and
investigative personnel.

Do not discuss the case with anyone except supervisors and investigators, unless
authorized to do so.

Complete required reports and cooperate fully with investigation to bring it to a
speedy conclusion.

Supervisor
a.

Proceed immediately to the officer’s location.

Ensure that the officer and others, if injured, are receiving medical attention.

Assign officers to protect the crime scene and detain witnesses. Make sure that
only necessary individuals are allowed on the crime scene.

Isolate the officer for safety purposes, if needed.

Assist in the investigation as needed to bring it to a speedy conclusion.

Investigator
a.

A division commander will be responsible for coordinating the investigation of
incidents where the use of deadly force results in death or great bodily injury.

G088-5.1
Use of Force
b.

VIII.

Only the chief of police or others designated by the chief of police will make
official comments to the news media concerning the incident. Efforts will be
made to protect the identity of the officer(s) involved pending the investigation
results and notification of family members.

Administrative Leave and Post Traumatic Incident Syndrome Counseling
1.

Any officer directly involved in a deadly force incident resulting in death or great bodily
injury shall be placed on administrative leave, pending investigation.

The leave shall be without loss of pay or benefits and shall not be interpreted to imply or
indicate that the officer has acted improperly.

While on administrative leave, the officer shall remain available at all times for official
departmental interviews during the investigation and shall be subject to recall at any time

The officer shall not discuss the incident with anyone except the assigned detective(s),
the officer’s immediate family and/or attorney, the district attorney, the chief of police, or
professional counselor.

The officer(s) shall undergo an immediate evaluation by the department designated
mental health professional and obtain counseling, if deemed necessary.

“Use of Force” Report and “Supervisor’s Review of Use of Force” Report Required
1.

Any time force is used where the possibility of injury exists.

Any time force is used through the use of a lethal or non-lethal weapon or any other type
of action.

Any situation which results in the officer’s being assaulted and force is needed to resist
the assault.

Any situation which the officer feels may result in a complaint.

Any time an officer discharges a firearm other than in training or for recreational
purposes.

Distribution of Use of Force Policy
All sworn personnel shall be issued a copy of and instructed in this policy before being authorized to carry
a firearm.
This policy supersedes any previous policies issued.
BY ORDER OF

______________________________________________
CHIEF OF POLICE

G088-5.1
Use of Force

Use of Force
Reasonable
Officer's
Perception

Assaultive
Serious Bodily
Harm/Death
Assaultive
(Bodily Harm)
Resistant
(Active)

Resistant
(Passive)

Compliant

5
4
3
2
1

Reasonable
Officer's
Response

RED

Deadly Force
Defensive

Orange

Tactics
Compliance

Yellow

Techniques
Contact

Green

Controls
Cooperative
Controls

Blue

Officer Enforcement Options

APPENDIX D

DALTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
Effective Date

Number

January 27, 2004

GO04-5.2

Subject

Non-Deadly Weapons
Reference

Revised

July 26, 2005
Distribution

Re-evaluation Date

All Sworn Personnel
I.

No. Pages

July 26, 2007

Policy
It is the policy of this department to use only that level of force reasonably necessary to control or
otherwise subdue individuals.

II.

Definitions
As used in this policy, non-deadly weapons or force means the use of any weapon or instrument, or any
physical action taken by an officer which is not likely to cause death.

III.

Types of Non-Deadly weapons and their use
A.

Oleoresin capsicum (O.C. spray), with 10% pepper solution, as issued by the department, is an
appropriate non-deadly weapon which can be effectively used in situations falling between
physical strength (hands, fists, feet) and impact tool to control persons who demonstrate they
intend to do violence to an officer or third party. It is to be used to avoid physical combat and
possible injury to an officer and/or suspect by making it difficult or impossible for an otherwise
violent person to fight effectively.
1.

All persons sprayed or exposed to OC shall be provided with a list of instructions on
decontamination (see Exhibit A).

O.C. Spray is not to be used against persons who are offering passive resistance.

Reporting requirements

Complete a Use of Force Report anytime O.C. spray is used, except in training.

Document the circumstances, which led to O.C. spray's use, as well as aftercare
provided, in the Use of Force Report.

Issuance
a.

O.C. spray shall not be used until an officer has read and understands this
directive.

Training and certification are required prior to issuance.

Only water based O.C. spray will be issued.

GO04-5.2
Less-Lethal Tools

M26 and X26 Advanced TASER is a hand held battery operated unit designed to immobilize a
suspect by means of an electrical current. The TASER may be used when a subject is displaying
active, aggressive or aggravated aggressive resistance to an officer attempting to conduct legal law
enforcement activities. Deployment of the TASER will be evaluated using the criteria in this
directive and within the framework of the Dalton Police Department Use of Force matrix.
Officers must assess the effectiveness of each application and determine whether further
applications are warranted or a different tactic should be employed. The decision to use the
TASER will be dependent upon the actions of the subject, the threat facing the officer, and the
totality of circumstances surrounding the incident.
1.

An approved TASER device may only be utilized by officers that have successfully
completed the department approved training in its use taught by a certified instructor.

Uniformed officers will carry the TASER in a department issued holster. The holster will
be carried on the duty belt, on the side opposite the duty firearm, cross draw position is
optional. Non-Uniformed officers will carry the TASER in an approved holster on the
side opposite the duty firearm.

The TASER shall be carried fully armed with the safety on in preparation for immediate
use.

Officers approved to use the TASER shall be issued a minimum of one spare cartridge as
a back up in case of cartridge failure, the need for reapplication, or in case the first
cartridge’s leads break during engagement. The spare cartridges shall be stored and
carried in a manner consistent with training and the cartridges replaced consistent with
the manufacturer’s expiration requirements.

Only agency approved battery power sources shall be used in the TASER.

The TASER should be inspected and checked prior to each tour of duty.

A use of force report should be completed anytime a taser is used, except in training.
a.

The use of force report shall contain at a minimum:
1.

The officer’s approximation of the range at which the unit was
employed.

The point(s) of impact on the subject;

The number of five-second cycles used;

The type of clothing the probes encountered;

The type of cartridge used;

The type of discharge (probe, drive stun, or both);

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the device;

After-discharge actions taken by the officers;

GO04-5.2
Less-Lethal Tools
9.

Any injuries that the officer is aware suffered by the subject as a result
of the use of the device;

Unintentional discharge will be reported to a supervisor and will be treated the same as
the unintentional discharge of a firearm.

The TASER may only be used under the following circumstances:

10.

11.

12.

To overcome violent or assaultive behavior or its threat;

To control persons in order to prevent them from harming themselves or others.

Use of the TASER under the following circumstances is prohibited, unless exigent
circumstances are present:
a.

Against handcuffed subjects;

Against subjects fleeing on foot;

At or from a moving vehicle;

Against subjects known to be pregnant;

Against children under 14 years of age and/or weighing less than 90 pounds;

Against subjects who are visibly elderly or physically disabled and/or suffering
from a debilitating illness;

Against subjects with known neuromuscular disorders such as muscular
sclerosis, muscular dystrophy or epilepsy;

In a situation where deadly force is clearly justifiable unless another officer is
present and capable of providing deadly force to protect the officers and/or
civilians as necessary;

The TASER will not be used under the following circumstances:
a.

For coercion or intimidation;

To escort or prod subjects;

To awaken unconscious or intoxicated subjects;

Against subjects who are offering only passive resistance;

When the officer knows the subject has come in contact with flammable liquids
or is in a flammable atmosphere;

When the subject is in a position where a fall may cause substantial injury or
death;

In preparation of firing, when reasonable, the TASER shall be pointed in a safe direction,
taken off safe and then aimed. Center mass of the subject’s back is the primary aiming
point and center mass of the chest or legs are the secondary targets;

GO04-5.2
Less-Lethal Tools
13.

Prior to use, when practical, a warning to the subject and other officers should be given;

14.

Fixed sights should be used as the primary aiming device and the laser dot as the
secondary aiming device;

15.

Taser probes may not be intentionally fired at the face, head, neck or groin, unless the use
of deadly force would be justified.

16.

Use of the “Drive Stun” is discouraged except in situations where the “probe”
deployment is not possible. If initial application is ineffective, officer will reassess
situation and consider other available options.

17.

Jail/Detention personnel shall be notified at the time of booking that the subject has been
stunned with TASER probes or received a direct stun.

18.

The TASER shall be pointed at the ground in a safe direction with the safety on during
loading, unloading, or when handled in other than an operational deployment.

19.

Officers shall evaluate all subjects against whom the TASER has been deployed, and
shall provide emergency medical treatment if needed or requested. If the TASER probes
have penetrated the skin in a sensitive area (head, neck, groin or breast of a female),
officers have difficulty removing the probes (i.e. probe/barb separation) EMS will be
called to the scene to remove the probes or the subject will be conveyed to an emergency
room for removal. If the probes are embedded in non-sensitive areas, a trained officer
may remove them.

20.

Subjects who do not appear to be fully recovered within 10 minutes after being tased
shall be evaluated by medical personnel.

21.

After the taser is used, probes should be removed from the suspect as soon as the suspect
is handcuffed.
a.
b.

22.
23.

If there is an indication that there is serious injury or any complications EMS
should be called to the scene before the probes are removed.
Photographs of the affected area should be taken after the TASER is used with
the subjects consent.

When the TASER has been used operationally, the officer will collect the air cartridge,
wire leads, darts, and AFID Tags as evidence and process it as such.
Supervisors shall:
a.

Download the data record of the TASER prior to the end of the shift in which a
reported use of TASER incident occurs and save the data to the appropriate file.

Download the data record of each TASER under their command annually regardless
of reported use.

The downloaded data shall be tabulated and a summary prepared for inclusion in the
department annual use of force report.

GO04-5.2
Less-Lethal Tools

Officers shall carry the department issued impact tool the ASP collapsible baton. (See Exhibit B)
1.

The impact tool is generally used against an aggressive, unarmed suspect or when lesser
levels of control have failed or have been determined by the officer to be inadequate.

The impact tool, when properly used, is capable of delivering extremely powerful blows
to stun and incapacitate an aggressive opponent. It is also capable of delivering lethal or
permanently disabling blows. Blows to the head, throat, and side of the neck, armpit or
chest cavity must be avoided, whenever possible.

Officers will carry only impact tools authorized by the department or ASP. Only those
officers trained and/or certified will be authorized to use impact tools.

Reporting requirements
a.

Complete a Use of Force Report anytime the ASP is used, except in training.

Document the circumstances, which led to the ASP use, as well as aftercare
provided, in the Use of Force Report.

The 12ga non-deadly shotgun is a shoulder-mounted weapon capable of firing a projectile to
immobilize a suspect by means of pain compliance. Its use can assist an officer in the protection
of life and property and/or the restoration of order. The non-deadly shotgun shall be considered
whenever the use of non-deadly options would assist in an arrest, restoring order, and/or reducing
the risk of a more serious injury.
1.

Deployment:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

The non-deadly 12ga. Shotgun will primarily be used by supervisory personnel with
the rank of Sergeant or above.
Must be used in accordance with agency training and manufacturers’ instructions.
May be used in emergencies that require deployment of personnel in dangerous
situations, or as considered alternative to the use of more lethal force.
Normally used in planned assaults which require the temporary disabling of target
individuals, or facilitate maneuver, or capture.
Only personnel trained in the use of the non-deadly 12ga. Shotgun and under direct
supervision shall expend this device.
Officers assigned to deliver these rounds should be backed up by other officers
armed with departmental approved firearm(s).
Emergency medical (first aid) training officers or medical personnel will assist after
the deployment of the weapon to provide emergency first aid if applicable.

Reporting: After using a non-deadly 12ga. Shotgun in tactical incidents, a incident report
will be completed that includes:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

The supervisor authorizing the use of the weapon;
Identification of officers deploying the weapon;
Number of rounds expended;
Effects on targeted person(s) and injuries;
Any collateral or unintended injury or damage;
Use of Force report including any medical report.

GO04-5.2
Less-Lethal Tools

IV. Training
All officers shall receive refresher and/or in-service training at least annually concerning
all non-deadly weapons and non-deadly force.

This policy supersedes any previous policies issued.
BY ORDER OF

_________________________
CHIEF OF POLICE

________

GO04-5.2
Less-Lethal Tools

Exhibit A
OLEORESIN CAPSICUM (OC) EXPOSURE
You are receiving this document in order to answer some of your questions regarding your
exposure to an Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) aerosol spray. You were exposed to an OC aerosol
spray with a 10% concentration. This is a form of Pepper Spray. This product does not contain
CN, CS, or MACE. OC is a natural pepper derivative.
You need to know the following:
1.
2.
3.

If you experience difficulty breathing, you should seek competent medical attention immediately.
The severe symptoms of the OC exposure should dissipate within 45 minutes after exposure. If the severe
symptoms do not substantially dissipate within 45 minutes, you should seek competent medical attention
immediately.
You may experience the following for up to 36 hours:
a.
b.
c.

You should:
a.
b.
c.

5.
6.

Redness of the affected skin areas
A burning sensation to the affected skin areas. The sensation may return while shaving,
wetting the skin with warm water, etc.
Reddened, sensitive eyes

NOT TOUCH any sensitive body areas without first THOROUGHLY cleansing your hands with
soap and water. Should you unthinkingly touch your genitalia or other sensitive body part(s)
with OC contaminated hands, you will experience excruciating pain.
Remove all OC exposed clothing as soon as practical to do so. Wash the clothing as you
normally would to remove any remaining OC particles.
Thoroughly wash all OC exposed body areas as soon as practical. Before showering/bathing,
thoroughly wash any exposed hair and facial area. This is very important because if you take a
shower without first thoroughly washing your hair and facial area, the shower will cause the
OC particles to be washed from your head down your body’s natural channels to your lower
level mucous membranes and your genitalia. This will cause you EXCRUCIATING PAIN.

Do NOT rub your eyes - you may only cause any remaining OC particles to become more deeply
embedded. Rinse your eyes with sterile water or other appropriate clear, clean, fresh water.
Do NOT apply any salve, lotion, lanolin, cold cream, etc., to OC exposed body areas. The salve may result
in holding the OC particles against the skin and cause further irritation.

GO04-5.2
Less-Lethal Tools

Exhibit B
Dalton Police Department
Specifications for issued Less Lethal Weapons
Item:
Description:

ASP Baton
Expandable metal baton used as an impact weapon.
Overall length is 26 inches.

Item:
Description:

M26 and X26 Advanced Taser
A hand held battery operated unit designed to
immobilize a suspect by means of an electrical
current.

Item:
Description:

Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) aerosol spray
A natural pepper derivative with a 10% concentration
of active material. The spray, when exposed, causes
tearing and irritation of the mucus membranes and is
intended to reduce the effectiveness of the offender’s
attack.

Item:

12ga. Remington 870 Less-Lethal Pump-Action
Shotgun
A designated less-lethal shotgun capable of firing a
projectile that impacts the person causing disabling of
the individual to facilitate capture.

Description:

APPENDIX E

.F.M ,- Illn _egrated! IForce, Mania,geme,nt™
5,e

of Force

Mode~

Threat Perception
Catego,ries
Perce~vedi

Subject Actions( s}

Reasonab~e

Of
Response(s

APPENDIX F

GBI USE OF FORCE REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
This form is to be completed by the immediate supervisor of a GBI agent that:
• Discharges a firearm other than in training or for recreational purposes; or
• Is involved in a use of force/struggle which results in subject injury/death; or
• Is alleged to have caused a subject’s injury/death by a use of force; or
• Uses any of the following on a subject (regardless of injury):
Counter Moves (e.g. striking or kicking)
OC Aerosol, ASP Baton, PR 24 Baton, or other Non-deadly weapon
Deadly Force, with or without a firearm
Complete a separate form for each GBI agent using force. Copies to: Director via Chain of Command for forwarding to
OPS and GBI Training Unit.
GBI AGENT INFORMATION
Name
Work Unit
Injured: Y

Medical Treatment? Y*

SSN
Supervisor
Hospitalized? Y*

Location

* Provide Details in Narrative Section
SUBJECT INFORMATION
Sex
Race/Ethnic

1. Name
Weight
Injured? Y*

Address
N
Medical Treatment? Y*

2. Name
Weight
Injured? Y*

Address
N
Medical Treatment? Y*

Refused
Sex

DOB

Hospitalized?Y*

Race/Ethnic
Refused

Height
Phone
Location

DOB

Hospitalized?Y*

N
Height

Phone
Location

* Provide Details in Narrative Section
1. Name
Injured? Y*
2. Name
Injured? Y*
3. Name
Injured? Y*

N
N
N

OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL
Agency
Medical Treatment ? Y*
N
Hospitalized? Y*
Location
Agency
Medical Treatment ? Y*
N
Hospitalized? Y*
Location
Agency
Medical Treatment ? Y*
N
Hospitalized? Y*
Location

N
N
N

* Provide Details in Narrative Section
WITNESSES
Name
Name
Name
Name

Address
Address
Address
Address

Date/Time of Incident
Name of Supervisor Notified
Photos Taken of Subject? Y
N
Photos Taken of Injured GBI Agents(s)?

Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Location
Date/Time Supervisor Notified
By
Date/Time Taken
Y
N
By
Date/Time Taken

COMPLETE NARRATIVE ON REVERSE SIDE
Type of Enforcement Action: Arrest

Directive 10-2

INCIDENT INFORMATION
Search Warrant
Other (Specify)

Attachment A

Offense(s)
Number of Subjects Present/Involved
Subject(s) Armed? Y
N
Weapon Type
Does Subject Have a History of Violence ? Y
N
Specify
Number of Law Enforcement Personnel Present/Involved
RESISTANCE/THREAT OFFERED BY SUSPECT
Check all that are applicable:
Verbal
Passive Physical Resistance (refused to comply or respond)
Active Physical Resistance (evasive/avoidance movements, bracing/tensing, pulling away)
Aggressive Physical Resistance (hostile attacking movements threatening injury)
Aggravated Physical Resistance (threatens death or serious physical injury)
FORCE USED BY THE GBI MEMBER
Check all that were utilized:
Counter Moves
Specify
OC Aerosol
ASP Baton
Deadly Force
Firearm

Other Impact Weapon
Other Weapon/Technique

Specify
Specify

NARRATIVE
Briefly describe the incident, the force used, the resistance or threat being offered by the subject when the force
was used and any injuries and medical treatment to subjects, GBI agents or other persons:

Supervisor Completing Report
Inspector review
Deputy Director review
Director review
OPS review

Date
Date
Date
Date
Date

Supervisory Taser Use Report
1. Deploying Agent:________________________Assignment:___________________
2. Date of Deployment (mm/dd/yy)________________
3. Time of Deployment:_________(am) (pm)
4. Location of Deployment:
a. Address or specific location of deployment____________________________
b. City___________________
c. County_________________
d. Outdoor_______ Indoor_______
5. Other Agents/Officers Involved:
Agency
Name
_______________
______________________
_______________
______________________
_______________
______________________
6.

Type of Subject:

Human____

Subject Person:
A. Name:_________________________
B. Sex: Male____ Female____
C. Age or DOB:______________
D. Height:___________
E. Weight:___________
F. Race:_____________
G. Arrested: Yes_____ No_____
H. Charge(s): ______________________
______________________

Assignment
______________
______________
______________

Animal_____(name species_________________)

8. Synopsis of Incident:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Directive 10-2

Attachment B
Revised 5/27/04

Taser Model: X26_____ M26______ Serial Number:_________________________

10. Air Cartridge Type(s): 21-ft.______ 21-ft. XP_______
11. Number Cartridges Fired:__________

Number Cycles Applied:______________

12. Dart Probe Contact:_______________

Drive Stun Contact:__________________

13. If Dart Probe Contact, Approximate Target Distance (in feet) at time of
Launch:_____________
Distance (in inches) Between Probes:________________
14. Dart Probes Penetrated Skin:________ Penetrated Clothing Only:_______________
15. Probes Removed On Scene:_______ Removed By:____________________________
Probes Removed at Medical Facility:_____
Name and Location of Medical Facility:_____________________________________
Name/Title of Staff Removing Probes:_______________________________________
16. Did the Taser Operate Satisfactorily? Yes_____ No_____
(If No, Describe Problem(s):_________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
If Taser firing was unsuccessful, was drive stun follow-up used?____________________
17. Describe Subject’s Demeanor Following Taser Deployment:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Photographs Taken of Subject: Yes_____ No_____
Video Tape of Incident Recorded: Yes_____ No_____
18. Download Data from Taser:
Yes _____ No ____
If No: Explain why no download.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Attach printout of data to this form.
18. Was Subject Injured During Incident: Yes_____ No_____
Nature and Cause of Injury:________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Medical Treatment Required: Yes_____ No_____
Name/Location of Medical Facility:__________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Directive 10-2

Attachment B
Revised 5/27/04

Treating Physician:_______________________________________________
Subject Admitted to Hospital: Yes_____ No_____
Admitted to Hospital for Psychiatric Treatment: Yes_____ No_____
19. Was Any Other Agent or Other Person Injured in Incident: Yes______ No_____
If Yes, Identify Injured Party, and Describe Nature and Cause of
Injury._____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
20. Other Force Used on Subject:
a. Firearm (Deadly Force): _____
b. Chemical Munitions: _____
c. Blunt Force Munitions: _____
d. Baton:
_____
e. Physical Force:
_____
f. Other (Describe):
_____
Describe Non-Taser Force Used, the Order of Use (Including Taser), and
Results:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Provide Reason(s) for Non-Taser Force Used:______________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Other Remarks:______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Supervisor Completing Report:__________________________ Assignment:_____________
Signature of Supervisor:________________________________ Date:__________________

Directive 10-2

Attachment B
Revised 5/27/04

APPENDIX G

DALTON POLICE DEPARTMENT

USE OF FORCE REPORT
Incident Date:________________________________

Case #:__________________________________

Incident Time:________________________________

Incident Location:________________________

Day of the Week:______________________________

_________________________

Subject Involved:______________________________

Charges:________________________________

Subject Address:_______________________________

________________________________________

DOB:_____________________

Race/Sex:________

________________________________________

Height:____________________

Weight:__________

________________________________________

Home Phone:_______________

Business Phone:_________________

________________________________________

Subject Arrested: _______(Y) _______(N)
Officer(s) Involved:

Property Damage/Owner:_________________________

___________________________________________

Type of Property Damaged:_______________________

___________________________________________

Vehicle VIN:____________________________________

___________________________________________

Tag#:_________________ Make:__________________

___________________________________________

Other Property Damage:__________________________

Witnesses:
Names

Phone #s

Addresses

#1
#2
#3

FIREARM / TOOL / TECHNIQUE(S) USED
DEGREE OF INJURY

_______ Presence

(Circle Level for Each Listed)
None

_______ Verbal Persuasion
Death

_______ Physical Strength (Empty Hand Control)

Officer

0----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9----10

Suspect

0----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9----10

Pointed_________ Contact Tased_________

Other

0----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9----10

Cartridge Deployed _________ Range in feet________

_______ Taser: Serial # ____________ Cartridge #_____________

# Cycles Used_________ Point of Impact_________
Clothing Encountered: Heavy______ Light______ None______
_______ Chemical Tool

SUSPECT’S BEHAVIOR

_______ Impact Tool

_______

No resistance

_______ Firearm Pointed

_______

Cooperative

_______ Deadly Force

_______

Passive Resistance

_______

Active Resistance

_______

Combative (No Non-Personal Weapon)
Combative With Weapon(s)

_______

FORCE RECIPIENT’S STATUS
______ Free Citizen—Seized
______ Free Citizen—Not Seized

Seized Free Citizen
High
Severity

None

_______

Imminent threat to Officers / Others

0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

_______

Resisting Arrest

0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

_______

Circumstances: Tense, uncertain, rapidly evolving

0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

_______

Severity of the crime(s) at issue

0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

_______

Person attempting to evade by flight

0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

_______

Level of force Officer(s) used

0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

NARRATIVE: (Describe incident in detail)

SUPERVISORY REVIEW
Was use of force reasonable and necessary?

_______ (Yes)

_______ (No)

Comments:

Justification for more than 3 taser cycles:

Is follow-up action necessary? _______ (Yes)

Reporting Officer
UNI UFR 921120 R0502

Badge #

_______ (No)

Supervisor

Badge #

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Side