The newspaper headlines say it all: Man Dies in Custody After Taser Shooting; Police Projectile Kills Student; State Investigates Death of Man Zapped with Stun-Gun.

Less-than-lethal weapons are becoming more commonly used in law enforcement and corrections, but what is also increasingly apparent is that the standards for using these technologies are still being developed.

"There aren't a whole lot of those [less lethal] tools and [officers] are really looking for things to use without having to shoot somebody. It isn't intended to kill the person it is used on, but you have to know what it can do and the limitations and the side effects - the good and bad and it's not supposed to be used to get a woman to get her out of the car," said Al Arena, Project Manager for the International Association of Chiefs of Police and author of a study by IACP called Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology: A Nine-Step Strategy For Effective Deployment.

The IACP report is intended to give criminal justice agencies some guidelines and recommendations to consider when using these types of technologies either on the street or in custody. It also outlines some of the potential risk factors inherent in using this technology, even though it is designed to be a less lethal option.

"We tried to address the issues as best we could. We didn't want to go out and set policy. We do have a model policy and concept paper, but even that is not a definitive work in and of itself. Every [department] is different and who is going to use it is different. Are you going to deploy it to every officer or to some special ops units, which is, in most cases, where you'll find them," said Arena.

What many of the recent reports have focused on are recommendations that law enforcement, and corrections agencies, should consider when using these devices and the medical risks that exist for certain individuals when a stun gun, Taser or other less lethal device is deployed.

Studies Reveal Risks, But Support Less-Lethal Options

The IACP's report, which was funded in part by the National Institute of Justice, states that no research to date indicates that electro-muscular disruption technology poses an unacceptable risk when appropriately used on healthy persons. In addition, the report states, independent data does not yet exist concerning in-custody deaths and the safety of EMDT when applied to drug or alcohol compromised individuals.

However, a recent report from British Columbia compiled by request from the Victoria Police Department does address some of the medical conditions that law enforcement and corrections agencies should be aware of.

That report suggests that the normal heart would not be affected by a Taser shock. However, it also notes that many of the deaths that have occurred after such a shock have taken place on a subject who has been using cocaine - which can cause fatal heart arrhythmias.

"The public is likely to be unaware of a dilemma; notably that in the state of excited delirium itself, not infrequently there are fatal consequences," wrote John Burt, MD, a member of the medical panel that was asked to review reports on the use of Tasers for the Victoria Police Department. "Both excited delirium and sudden death are features of cocaine toxicity notwithstanding the use of the Taser or other less than lethal methods of apprehension."

The report also discusses certain medical "contra-indicators" such as respiratory impairment, pregnancy and body weight and size to the use of less lethal weapons.

According to the report, prolonged exposure from a Taser (three minutes of five-second on and five-second off cycling) did have significant impacts in blood levels of carbon dioxide, lactate, pH and other markers with respect the issue of ventricular fibrillation. With respiratory impairment, this becomes "particularly crucial" when the weapon is used or restraint is applied "during or at the end of a prolonged physical struggle." As a result the report recommends "training protocols should reflect that multiple applications, particularly continuous cycling of the Taser for periods exceeding 15-20 seconds, may increase the risk to the subject and should be avoided where practical."

It goes on to suggest that if multiple applications have not succeeded in gaining control, then the officer should reassess and consider another force option or disengagement.

And, since a prolonged struggle represents a risk to both the officer and the subject, an officer may consider using a Taser as soon as it becomes evident that physical control will be necessary and negotiation unsuccessful.

With pregnancy issues, the report stated that there is no peer-reviewed research on the effects of a Taser's current to a pregnant woman and the fetus. IN addition, the manufacturer of the weapon suggests that the womb and amniotic fluid present a shield effect.

However, there have been several out-of-court settlements regarding this issue. And, the report suggests that pregnancy should be viewed as a situational risk factor that needs to be evaluated in the entire context of a use-of-force event.

Body weight and size also have some bearing in the use of Tasers. Recent research shows that children in particular have lowered margins of safety when exposed to an electrical current.

With these medical factors in mind, the report recommends the following guidelines:
*Subject to situational factors, Tasers and other similar weapons should not be used against subjects who are demonstrating only passive resistance.
*For subjects who are displaying active resistance, those who are resisting an officer's efforts to take them into custody without attacking the officer, where an officer believes the use of a Taser or similar weapon is appropriate, it should be used in the push-stun mode only.
*In situations where officers are confronted by active resistance, assaultive resistance or the threat of grievous bodily harm or death, where an officer believes that the use of a less lethal device is appropriate, it should be used in either the push stun or probe deployment mode.

The IACP in its report also focused on recommendations to reduce possible deaths in using these technologies. These recommendations include suggestions for preparing to use the device, reviewing a department's use of force continuum and specific guidelines for when these devices are appropriate.

"You aren't supposed to use this thing until someone is so limp that you don't know if they are dead or alive. It is for compliance," Arena said.

The IACP's report outlined nine steps that criminal justice agencies may want to consider.

1. Build a leadership team to determine whether electro-muscular disruption technology is appropriate for your agency.
2. Place EMDT on the use-of-force continuum. The leadership team should make a preliminary determination about the general circumstances in which these devices should be used. Considered should be the safety and effectiveness of EMDT in relation to other use-of-force options.
3. Assess the cost and benefits of using EMDT such as direct financial costs, how deployment may enhance or adversely affect other department functions, and indirect financial costs, such as civil rights claims.
4. Identify roles or responsibilities for EMDT deployment. This should occur in the development and implementation of policy decisions and should occur prior to deployment. This will also allow the department to promote consistency in approach and reinforce policy decisions about how EMDT is used.
5. Engage in community outreach. EMDT deployment can cause substantial community and media concern, which warrants that deployment plans be carefully developed with full recognition that community acceptance is essential to their success.
6. Develop polices and procedures. Decisions about use, training, reporting, requirements, medical evaluations, legal constraints, and other operational considerations must be written into departmental policies and procedures before deployment. Included in this are possible uses of EMDT and limitations such as should it be used on a fleeing subject? Other suggestions for inclusion in policies are a medical protocol in which a department determines whether there should be provisions for medical attention and or evaluation following an incident with EMDT and reporting use of EMDT.
7. Create a comprehensive training program. The program should reinforce the polcies and procedures and technical proficiency should be linked to a thorough understanding of departmental policy and procedure. Many departments require that officers who carry and EMDT weapon be shocked themselves to experience the weapon's capabilities first-hand.
8. Use a phased deployment approach. Many departments start by issuing these technologies to special operations teams first.
9. Assess EMDT use and determine next steps. Department should conduct follow-up assessments of EMDT use. This could include whether the technology is performing as expected, whether officers are complying with policy and allow departments to take action to improve use-of-force outcomes.

Arena said these guidelines can help criminal justice agencies avoid problems with the technologies they may encounter is they do not take a systematic approach.

"We don't really talk about it but it goes beyond policy and training. It goes to the hiring of people. Every incident that has gone bad I've seen it's because they didn't follow that guidelines," he said.

Creating New Guidelines for Less Lethals

If any agency could tell you about the importance of standards and training, it is the City of Boston. Officials there recently settled a million-dollar lawsuit with a local family whose daughter was killed by kinetic energy munitions that were accidentally deployed at her face.

Although the police department has claimed that the deployment of the less than lethal weapon, which took place following the Red Sox' division championship win, was accidental, ultimately there are no national standards for how they should be used.

The research of Dr. Cythia Bir, Associate Professor in the College of Engineering at Wayne State University, may change all that.

Through funding from the National Institute of Justice, Bir has been studying and evaluating the potential risks associated with kinetic energy munitions, which are commonly used by law enforcement and corrections and include such products as beanbag rounds, rubber ball rounds and rubber balls with OC spray inside.

"Our main goal at Wayne State is to determine the health effects or potential injury from the use of these devices and try to determine methodologies that can be used prior to their deployment," said Bir.

She said her research has focused specifically on blunt trauma to the thorax and facial fractures resulting from the deployment of these technologies.

From the research, Bir has identified three main factors that need to be evaluated when using these types of rounds: accuracy of the weapon, blunt trauma injury and risk of penetration.

"There have been several efforts to look at accuracy [by] firing it at different distances and determining how close you can get to a given target," she said.  She has tested several different types of rounds from 12-gauge to sponge grenades to determine the distances from which they can be deployed and remain accurate.

With blunt trauma, Bir looked at the injuries that might happen as a result of a kinetic energy munitions deployment - from breaking a rib to deeper injuries such as lung contusions or cardiac trauma.

Finally, Bir has investigated and tested the methodologies and conditions around when the rounds could penetrate the skin - which is how most of the serious injuries occur.

"We primarily are focused on center mass impacts [and] head impacts are an issue, too. Officers are not trained to fire at the head, however if a round is innacurate, an impact to the head may occur," said Bir.

Bir, who has recently received funding from NIJ to work on standards for the deployment of these weapons, said she expects these factors will eventually become a part of the standards.

"I think it's going to be at least a year. We're just starting the effort. The plan would be to have them developed, then disseminated and input would be gathered," she said.

In the interim, Bir suggest that law enforcement and corrections agencies consult with each other.

"If a law enforcement agency is considering [using these weapons] the one thing is effectiveness. I think it's important they consider calling other agencies to see how they have been and how they have worked out," she said.

Some corrections agencies, however, have determined that certain less than lethals are rarely needed in a jails environment.

Orange County Resists Deploying Less Lethal Weapons

Chalk it up to the focus on interpersonal relationships or something else, but corrections emergency response teams have not had to deploy a less than lethal weapon in more than 20 years in Orange County, Florida.

But if they ever have the need, they are more than well prepared.

According to Scott Bradstreet, Deputy Chief of Operations for Orange County Corrections, staff are capable of protecting themselves and inmates, but don't think of using less lethal weapons as a first or even second option.

"I can tell you that our agency's philosophy places great emphasis on the education of the use of force and to limit it to the effect that we can reduce injury to staff and inmates. Our battery on staff statistics have gone down continuously [from] taking alternative means [to control inmates]," he said.

This doesn't mean staff aren't well prepared.

The department's emergency response team has less than lethal munitions, such as rubber bullets and beanbag rounds, and the officer staff in the facility has OC foam at their disposal and they are well trained in their use.

"Any planned use of force or incident where someone would believe that a possible use of force is necessary, the officers will wait until there is a show of force [behind them]. We are trying to eliminate the possibilities where we would need a great use of force. [At the same time] we also are very confident in our SRT team in the event we do have a situation," said Bradstreet.

Bradstreet said officers follow a six-step use of force matrix and will try to communicate with offenders or use defensive tactics before opting for OC foam or calling in the SRT team.

"Our goal is to reduce use of force as much as possible. If there is no use of force, then the likelihood of staff-to-inmate injury is very small," Bradstreet said.

But, if an individual was heavily armed and refused to turn over the weapon, then corrections staff would consider using less than lethal option.

"We have 12 gauge and 40 mm less than lethal weapons and also an expanded baton and foam. The first indication is if multiple inmates with make-shift weapons or individual with a legitimate weapon that could cause great bodily harm," he said. "One of the primary factors is can the situation be contained and can we get the team together to make sure we have the proper equipment."

Thankfully for staff in Orange County, this situation has not occurred and administrators are pleased about that.

"Time is on our side and [in a situation] we make sure we have the proper staff and equipment. Our statistical information has demonstrated that this philosophy [here] works and has borne out our statistics," Bradstreet said.

While Orange County opts for infrequent use of less than lethal weapons, for those who do use them regularly, understanding the guidelines for their use and the potential risks are all a part of the deployment.

Resources:

IACP - http://www.iacp.org/research/

Victoria Police Report on Tasers - http://www.opcc.bc.ca/Reports/2005%20reports%20expense%20claims/TASER%20Final%20Report%20June%2014th%20%202005.pdf

Cindy Bir , email: bir@eng.wayne.edu