STANDARDS FOR STUN GUNS
A Call for Uniform
Regulations for
Tasers in Michigan
STANDARDS FOR STUN GUNS
A Call for Uniform Regulations for Tasers in Michigan
1. Summary and Recommendations for Law Enforcement
2
2. The Court’s Taser Guidelines
4
3. Inconsistent Departmental Standards for Taser Use
7
4. Non-compliance with Departmental Standards
10
5. Non-compliance with Industry Standards
11
6. Risks of Perceived Racially Disparate Use of Tasers
13
7. Moving Away From Taser Use
15
8. Conclusion and Endnotes
16
Principal Author: Mark P. Fancher, ACLU of Michigan Racial Justice Project Staff Attorney
Copyright 2013 - American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is the nation’s premier guardian of liberty,
working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the
individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the
United States.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN
2966 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI, 48201
313.578.6800
www.aclumich.org
1
STANDARDS FOR STUN GUNS:
Summary and Recommendations
When a taser is used on an intoxicated, handcuffed individual unwilling to place his body fully within a
police car; or when tasers are used to break up fights between teenaged girls, many civilians might
wonder why in such instances police use stun guns instead of their training, muscle and sweat to bring
uncooperative individuals under control. This report is an invitation to law enforcement agencies to
both adjust their taser policies and practices and to also address the public’s questions and concerns
about these controversial devices.
“Tasers”i are hand-held devices that shoot darts into clothing and flesh. An electric charge flows from
the taser into the darts (or “probes”) through connecting wires, and then into the body. Alternatively, a
law enforcement officer can remove the dart cartridge and apply the taser directly to the body to
administer what is called a “drive stun.” Whether delivered by drive stun or by probes, the electric
current affects the central nervous system and causes immediate, but temporary immobilization.
The law says that under certain circumstances, police cannot use tasers on individuals who are in
handcuffs, or who have been otherwise subdued. Yet, an extensive ACLU of Michigan review of police
reports from across the state turned up records of incidents where police used tasers to force subdued
but insubordinate individuals in custody to comply with police orders.
Recommendations to Law Enforcement Agency Administrators
The ACLU of Michigan has made additional observations as well that have led to the following
recommendations to law enforcement agency administrators:
1. Ensure that all law enforcement personnel authorized to use taser devices are well-versed in the
law’s guidelines and limits. Additionally, there should be routine monitoring of taser use to ensure
compliance with legal requirements.
2. All Michigan law enforcement agencies that are unwilling to forego or abandon the use of tasers
should limit the use of these devices to occasions when officers encounter “active aggression.” Law
enforcement agencies should also have a shared definition of the term “active aggression.”
3. Law enforcement agencies should routinely monitor the use of tasers and undertake measures to
ensure that officers who use these devices have a thorough understanding of the agencies’ policies
and that they fully comply with the policies’ requirements.
4. Law enforcement agencies should establish policies that prohibit the use of taser devices on higher
risk populations such as pregnant women, the infirm, the elderly, small children, and persons with
low body mass index (‘BMI’).
5. Law enforcement agencies should routinely monitor the racial identities of those who are subjects
of taser incidents, and they should identify trends and patterns that either reflects discriminatory
practices, or that might lead members of the community to perceive that there has been
discrimination. Further, law enforcement agencies should take immediate steps to correct practices
2
that are discriminatory, or to provide to the public information that explains the unavoidable
circumstances that have created taser use patterns that imply discrimination.
6. Law enforcement agencies should establish as an objective the elimination of tasers from their
arsenals and the adoption of alternative methods of addressing those circumstances that currently
prompt the use of taser devices. Law enforcement agencies that have not used tasers should not
acquire these devices for use by their officers.
How This Report Was Compiled
For more than two years, the ACLU of Michigan has used the Freedom of Information Act to request
taser-related documents from more than forty Michigan law enforcement agencies. The documents
that were produced for review disclose departmental policies and guidelines on taser use as well as
narrative accounts of actual use of the devices in the field. Extended passages from police reports have
been quoted in this document, and every effort has been made to avoid quoting narrative accounts out
of context.
Although only a few of the departments that were investigated are highlighted, the ACLU of Michigan
has not made a judgment that these departments as a whole are qualitatively distinct from others. It is
simply that officers employed by these departments have been involved in incidents that illustrate the
ACLU of Michigan’s concerns about how and under what circumstances tasers have been or should be
used.
Departments may not have been named or discussed in this report for any of several reasons. Some
departments responded to our requests for information by explaining that tasers are not part of their
department’s arsenal. Other departments owned tasers but their officers had not had occasion to make
significant use of the devices. Still other departments provided no records that indicated that officers
had engaged in conduct that concerns the ACLU of Michigan.
Finally, this report should not be regarded as a scientifically-designed, representative snapshot of taser
use by law enforcement agencies throughout the state. This document has instead spotted several “red
flag” incidents that may or may not be isolated, and that law enforcement leadership is urged to review
and consider.
3
THE COURT’S TASER GUIDELINES
The courts have placed limits on when police can use tasers. In the case of Austin v. Redford Township
Police Department,ii a man was arrested, handcuffed and told to sit in the backseat of a police car. He
sat on the backseat, but when he refused to put his legs in the car, he was repeatedly threatened with a
taser.iii An officer then administered a drive stun to the man’s chest twice.
In deciding whether the officer could be granted qualified immunityiv for using the taser while the
subject was handcuffed and seated in the back of the police car, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted
that:
“Defendants do not challenge the district court’s holding that the law is clear in this Circuit
that the use of force, including a Taser, on a suspect who has been subdued is unreasonable
and a violation of a clearly established right.”v
However, in addition to challenging the factual account given by the arrestee, the defendants raised:
“…a further, purely legal argument that this Circuit’s precedent on the use of excessive force
on subdued and unresisting subjects is irrelevant to situations involving non-compliance with
police orders. Instead, they argue that [the officer’s] two discharges of his Taser in order to
gain compliance with his order for Austin to put his legs in the police car did not violate any
clearly established constitutional right.” vi
In response to the defendants’ argument, the Sixth Circuit concluded:
“There is no evidence or allegation that Austin was belligerent, threatening or assaulting
officers, or attempting to escape. …[It] is well established in this Circuit that the use of nonlethal, temporarily incapacitating force on a handcuffed suspect who no longer poses a safety
threat, flight risk, and/or is not resisting arrest constitutes excessive force. [citation omitted]
‘Even without precise knowledge that the use of the [T]aser would be a violation of a
constitutional right,’ on these facts, [the officer] ‘should have known based on analogous
cases that [his] actions were unreasonable. [citation omitted] Defendants’ legal argument
that this Circuit’s precedent on the use of excessive force on subdued and unresisting subjects
is irrelevant to situations involving noncompliance with police orders fails.” vii
The following incidents as described in reports on file with referenced Michigan law enforcement
agencies also involve the coercive use of tasers on civilians under circumstances that are arguably
similar to those present in the Austin case. While the actions of these officers may or may not have
violated governing law, the significance of these incidents is that they suggest the possibility that there
are officers who either disregarded the legal limitations on taser use, or were not fully aware of them.
These officers apparently were not reluctant to engage in actions that, if not illegal, were comparable to
the actions of the officers in the Austin case.
1. “Ofc. [name withheld] and I did get [suspect] sat down in the back of the patrol vehicle,
however his feet were outside of the patrol vehicle. Ofc. [name withheld] and I both gave
verbal direction to get into the patrol vehicle or he would be tased. [Suspect] continued to
kick and keep his feet out of the patrol vehicle. Ofc. [name withheld] again warned [suspect]
4
if he would not get into the patrol vehicle he would tase him. [Suspect] continued to not
comply with our orders at which point Ofc. [name withheld] did drive stun [suspect] in the
leg.”
-
taken from an East Lansing Police Department incident report dated 2/13/11
2. “…At that time [suspect] once again tried to turn around and face Ofc. [name withheld] and I
at which point we did take [suspect] to the ground then secured the handcuffs. At that point
we did pick [suspect] up and carried him backwards to our patrol vehicle. Ofc. [name
withheld] and I told [suspect] to get into the back of the patrol vehicle, however he refused to
get in. Ofc. [name withheld] told [suspect] once again to get into the back of the patrol
vehicle, however [suspect’s] body became very rigid and he refused to get into the vehicle.
Ofc. [name withheld] delivered three knee strikes to [suspect’s] L leg’s common peronial.
[Suspect] still refused to get into the vehicle at which point Ofc. [name withheld] displayed his
taser and did drive stun [suspect] one time in the L thigh. At that point we were able to get
[suspect] into the back of the patrol vehicle to transport back to the jail.”
-
taken from an East Lansing Police Department incident report dated 3/13/11
3. “…Ofc. [name withheld] and I then got suspect out of my patrol vehicle, took a handcuff off
his R wrist, put his arms behind his back and again handcuffed him, checked the cuffs for
tightness and double locked them, then I went to place suspect back in the rear of my patrol
vehicle, he would not get into the rear of my patrol vehicle. I first tried two distractionary
knee strikes to his common peronial on his R leg. The suspect still would not get in the rear of
my patrol vehicle at that time. I did take my taser out. I took the cartridge off the taser and
used the taser in the drive-stun mode. I did drive-stun suspect in his L thigh for approx. one to
two seconds. Suspect then did sit down on the rear of my patrol vehicle and I did shut the
door.”
-
taken from an East Lansing Police Department incident report dated 10/9/11
4. “Prior to entering the Kalamazoo County Jail, I was attempting to obtain information from
the suspect for the booking sheet. During that time the suspect continually used his phone
which he had taken from his pocket and was attempting to call people using the speaker
phone. The suspect was lying in the back seat and he would bring his hands to the side of his
body to where he could dial and/or talk. I told the suspect that he needed to stop using the
phone so that I could get the information however he refused to do so. I gave him several
warnings to stop using the phone and to listen to me so that we could get through the
booking process however he continued to use the phone. I told him on two separate
occasions that if he didn’t hang up the phone I was going to come back and retrieve the
phone from him. At that point he stated, “So what,” that he was going to jail anyway and
there was nothing more we could do to him. I attempted to continue asking the booking
questions however the suspect again used the phone and got a hold of somebody and started
to talk rather than answer my questions. I then got out of the vehicle, opened the back door,
and attempted to take the phone from the suspect’s hands. The suspect held onto the phone
very tightly and would not release the grip on the phone. I told him to release the phone and
he refused. At that point I pulled my taser out and released the cartridge and again told the
suspect to release the phone. The suspect again refused to do so. I gave him one more
5
opportunity and after refusing to release the phone I then gave him a short burst of the taser
on his left leg.”
-
taken from a Kalamazoo Township Police incident/investigation report dated 1/5/12
5. “…I grabbed a hold of her right hand near the wrist area and brought her right hand behind
her back. She was then handcuffed. I then attempted to escort her to [a police] vehicle and
she began resisting at this time, yet again. She would move her legs out in front of her and
had to be physically carried by myself and [another officer] to his vehicle. At this point, I
activated my COBAN system, opened the back seat door of [the police] vehicle and told
[suspect] to get in the back seat and she did not do so. I provided her with multiple
instructions and warnings to get into the back seat. She did not do so. At this point, I did
remove the cartridge from my taser…and again told [suspect] to get into the vehicle. She
again did not do so, at which point I did administer a drive stun to [suspect’s] upper left arm.
She immediately fell into the vehicle…”
-
taken from a Battle Creek Police Department report dated 8/8/09
In each of these cases, it is quite possible that actions by law enforcement officers to force compliance
by subjects in custody were warranted. The issue, however, is whether the officers involved were fully
aware that the court has ruled specifically on the issue of using taser devices to force compliance.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that law enforcement administrators ensure that all law enforcement personnel
authorized to use taser devices are well-versed in the law’s guidelines and limits.
Additionally, there should be routine monitoring of taser use to ensure compliance with legal
requirements.
6
INCONSISTENT DEPARTMENTAL STANDARDS FOR TASER USE
The Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) is responsible for developing
materials used to train police officers. MCOLES publishes and distributes to Michigan’s law enforcement
agencies a document titled: “Subject Control Continuum: A Training Guide for Escalation and Deescalation of Subject Control.” It features a graphic that depicts the full range of actions that might be
taken by a civilian along with the corresponding appropriate responses by a police officer. The
document suggests that if a civilian engages in “inactive resistance,” the response should be “officer
presence/verbal direction.” If there is “passive resistance” the response should be use of “compliance
controls.” When there is “active resistance” there should be “physical controls” used in response. In
cases where there is “active aggression,” “intermediate controls” should be used. Finally, if an officer
confronts a “deadly force assault,” there should be a “deadly force response.”
The graphic includes a caveat that states:
“It is not possible for these Training Guidelines to cover all of the possible situations that occur
within the law enforcement officer’s job. Therefore, this continuum is offered as a general
training guide for using force in confrontation or arrest situations. The officer must
understand that situations occur where the escalation and/or de-escalation of resistance is
sudden, and the officer’s appropriate response may be located anywhere along the
continuum, but it must represent an objectively reasonable response to the perceived threat
posed by the subject.”
By design the continuum does not attempt to second-guess officers who find themselves in situations
that demand a response. It merely suggests that their actions be “…‘objectively reasonable’ in light of all
the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time the force is used.” Consequently, there
is no specific guidance provided about how or when tasers should be employed.
Some law enforcement agencies have not taken the flexible approach followed by MCOLES. They have
instead developed more specific policies and guidelines for taser use. For example:

The Battle Creek Police policy dated June 1, 2010 states:
“Application of the Taser is allowed to overcome resistance at the defensive resistance level on
the use of force guide. Note: Officers may deploy at a lower level based upon the totality of
the circumstances…” The department’s policy places “defensive resistance” at a level below
active aggression, and it is defined by the department’s policy as: “Physical actions which
attempt to prevent an officer’s control, such as pulling away, stiffening, or fleeing, but not
directed at harming officers.”

The taser use policy for the Ann Arbor Police Department dated January 23, 2006 provides in part:
“The Taser is an intermediate weapon system. In a situation where the subject is offering
passive resistance, it should only be used as a last resort. If used on a passively resisting
subject, officers must be able to articulate that empty hand control options, including lifting
and carrying, if appropriate; a.) Have been attempted and failed and b.) can be reasonably
expected to continue to fail and c.) any further attempts can be reasonably expected to cause
injury to the subject or officers involved.”
7

The Adrian Police Department’s taser policy provides that tasers may be used when there is “active
physical resistance.” That term is defined by the department’s policy as:
“Subject makes physical evasive movements to defeat the Officer’s attempt at control.
Physical evasive movements may be in the form of bracing or tensing, attempts to push/pull
away or not allowing the Officer to get close to him/her.” In the policy, “active physical
resistance” is a stage below “aggressive physical resistance.”

Although the East Lansing Police Department’s taser policy characterizes tasers as “intermediate
weapons” which, according to the MCOLES subject control continuum should be used in response to
“active aggression,” the policy states: “The X26 Taser has application where the subject’s actions
constitute Active Resistance or Active Aggression.” (Active resistance is a level below active
aggression and the MCOLES continuum calls for use of “physical controls” in response to it rather
than use of intermediate weapons which, as far as this department is concerned, includes tasers.)

The taser policy for the Schoolcraft County Sheriff’s Department states:
“The [taser] is listed in the force continuum at the same level as OC spray; after soft hands. As
such, [tasers] have application where the subject’s actions constitute Active Resistance or
Active Aggression, or where the officer believes lower forms of empty hand controls will be
inadequate…”
The law enforcement agencies referenced above and others have demonstrated a preference for more
specific guidelines for the use of tasers, notwithstanding the more flexible continuum published by
MCOLES. However, the inconsistency of these policies among the various police departments has the
potential to cause confusion and uncertainty both within the law enforcement community and in the
general public.
If a law enforcement agency is committed to maintaining tasers as part of its arsenal, the ACLU of
Michigan believes tasers are most appropriately used at the active aggression level (which is just short
of a “deadly force assault”) for several reasons. First, the courts (as previously noted) prohibit use of
tasers on individuals who have been restrained. This means that as a threshold matter a person
targeted by a taser must be in some way active.
As noted above, there are degrees of activity that range from passive resistance (e.g., a subject goes
limp or becomes dead weight) to active resistance (e.g., the subject pulls or pushes away) to active
aggression (e.g., the subject physically advances toward the officers and physically strikes or wrestles),
and presumably tasers might lawfully be used at any of those levels under the proper circumstances.
However, tasers have also been the focus of considerable controversy, with concern revolving primarily
around the effect of the devices on the human body.
The ACLU of Michigan has reached no conclusions one way or the other about the effect of tasers, if
any, on human health. However, there are others who still raise questions about the safety of tasers.
Even a manufacturer has issued warnings about the possible hazards of using these devices on certain
populations. All of this suggests the prudence of limiting use of tasers, at least at the time being, to
those circumstances when there are no alternatives.
8
For those police departments that use tasers, the occasion when it will be most reasonable to use the
devices is when officers are being physically attacked (i.e. in cases of active aggression) and other less
than deadly force tools and weapons will be ineffective.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, we recommend that all Michigan law enforcement agencies that are
unwilling to forego or abandon the use of tasers limit the use of these devices to occasions when
officers encounter “active aggression.”
Law enforcement agencies should also have a shared definition of the term “active aggression.”
9
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH DEPARTMENTAL STANDARDS
Even if law enforcement agencies disagree about when it is appropriate to use tasers, it might be
expected that officers will at least comply with the policies of their respective employers. Apparently,
that is not always the case. For example, the Genesee County Sheriff’s policies and procedures on taser
use state that the devices should not be used on occasions when a subject is engaged in “passive
resistance.” The policy defines passive resistance as when:
“…the subject resists control through passive, physical actions. Example: Passive Resistance is
usually in the form of a relaxed or ‘dead weight’ posture intended to make the officer lift, pull
or muscle the subject to establish control, as in a sit-down strike.”
The policy goes on to give officers permission to do otherwise after using discretion and considering
“the totality of the circumstances.” Nevertheless, the following report excerpt describes use of a taser
on a prisoner who arguably engaged in an act of passive resistance.
“…I told [inmate] to put her oranges [jail uniform] on. She refused to do so, saying ‘I’ll put
them on when I feel like it.’ I told her that getting dressed was not up for debate and she
needed to do so now. She failed to comply with my verbal commands. [A sergeant] told her to
comply or she would be tased. [The inmate] wrapped up in her blankets and hid under the
bed. [A deputy] opened the door to [the inmate’s] cell and she was told to come out from
under the bed. She refused to do so. [A sergeant] dry (sic) stunned [the inmate] and [a
lieutenant] pulled her from under the bed.”
-
taken from a Genesee County Sheriff Department report dated 1/22/09
On another occasion when a subject engaged in what was at least a subdued, non-threatening course of
conduct, the reporting officer wrote the following in his report:
“…as the vehicle went into the ditch the airbags did deploy and [a deputy] observed the driver
attempting to open the vehicle door. [The deputy] then exited his vehicle, went around the left
side of the vehicle and observed the driver was already out of the vehicle and standing there.
[The deputy] ordered the subject to the ground with loud verbal commands to get on the
ground. The subject failed to comply with the orders and stood in the ditch in the open door of
the vehicle. It was at this time that [the deputy] deployed his taser aiming center mass with
the taser. One probe struck the subject’s left chest area and one probe was in his groin area.”
-
taken from a Genesee County Sheriff Department report dated 8/30/08
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that law enforcement agencies routinely monitor the use of tasers and undertake
measures to ensure that officers who use these devices have a thorough understanding of the
agencies’ policies and that they fully comply with the policies’ requirements.
10
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS
A document published by Taser International (a manufacturer) that is labeled “Important ECD viii Product
and Safety and Health Information” states that its purpose is to “…present important safety warnings,
instructions, and information intended to reasonably minimize hazards associated with ECD
deployment, intended use, effects, side effects, and environment of use.” The document highlights a
wide variety of physical conditions that might make a person susceptible to serious injury or death if
they are targeted by a taser. One section of the document is titled: “Higher Risk Populations.” It states
the following:
“ECD use on a pregnant, infirm, elderly, small child, or low body mass index (‘BMI’) person
could increase the risk of death or serious injury. ECD use has not been scientifically tested on
these populations. The ECD should not be used on members of these populations unless the
situation justifies possible higher risk of death or serious injury.”
While there are likely various law enforcement agencies that have used tasers on higher risk
populations, the files of the Battle Creek Police Department contain several reports of incidents where
tasers were used on middle school and high school students. This prompts concerns because the growth
rates of children vary, and it is possible that some children in their teens still fit the physical profile of
what Taser International would regard as a “small child.”
Likewise, because of the special body weight circumstances of children, an officer’s visual observation is
not a method of accurately determining body mass index (BMI). “BMI must be determined and plotted
on the appropriate growth chart for the appropriate age.”ix A University of Kansas School of Medicine
study concluded: “…our data showed medical professionals and trainees were unable visually to assess
a child’s BMI for age weight status accurately. At best, classification of children by visual assessment can
be described as inconsistent.”x
It is unknown whether concerns about weight, height and body mass index were relevant or considered
by the officers in the incidents described below, but these incidents did involve juveniles (including a 14year-old), and the fact that children are sometimes targeted for taser use suggests the need for policies
that address concerns about higher risk populations. Excerpts from several incident reports follow:
1. [During a fight between students] “All three of us were giving commands for [a 15-year-old] to
stop. [Another student] yelled out ‘I surrender I am not fighting anymore’ and held up his
hands in a surrender motion. [Still another student] continued in his attempt to choke and
punch [the 15-year-old] as myself and [another officer] attempted to separate [the 15-yearold]. After repeated commands, [the 15-year-old] was given a contact shot with the Taser X26
to the right side. The first contact shot did not have any affect (sic) on [the 15-year-old] and he
continued to fight. I then gave him a second shot at which time [the 15-year-old] did cease
and surrender.”
-
taken from a Battle Creek Police Department report dated 11/7/11
11
2. “I then walked up to [the 16-year-old] after she had ranted and raved and went to arrest her
at which time she swung around and began throwing punches. I was hit twice in the face with
a closed fist at which time I then took [the 16-year-old] to the ground to place her into
handcuffs at which time she continued to kick and punch. After several attempts to get her to
turn over on her stomach and put her hands behind her back had failed, I then drew my taser
from the holster striking [the 16-year-old] in the lower body, hitting her in the right upper
thigh with the taser prongs.”
-
taken from a Battle Creek Police Department report dated 3/6/09
3. “I observed two females actively fighting each other with a large crowd gathering around. I
attempted to deploy the taser in attempts to strike both females with the prongs from the
taser. There was a second delay in deploying the taser which caused the prongs to miss their
target. I then after seeing that the prongs did not hit anyone, removed the cartridge and did a
dry (sic) stun on [the 17-year-old] in the abdomen at which time I advised her to turn over on
her stomach and place her hands behind her back after being tased, she did comply at which
time Officer [name withheld] then handcuffed her to the rear. I then moved back towards
Champion St. where my patrol car was at which time I did observe Lt. [name withheld] who
had arrived on scene attempting to handcuff another female who was actively resisting at
which time she was dry (sic) tased in the lower back. She was later identified as [a 16-yearold]. After being dry (sic) stunned, she did comply where she was then handcuffed to the rear
and placed in the rear of a patrol car. [A 14-year-old] who was also being taken into custody
by Officer [name withheld] was also resisting, trying to hand her cell phone off to subjects in
the crowd and failing to comply, put her hands behind her back, was also dry (sic) tased with
the taser in the lower back and shoulder. After being tasered twice, she did comply.”
-
taken from a Battle Creek Police Department report dated 2/9/09
It is not suggested here that the students should not have been physically restrained and subdued. The
issue is instead whether use of tasers to gain physical control must be informed, and in some cases
limited by the manufacturer’s advisory.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that law enforcement agencies establish policies that prohibit the use of taser
devices on higher risk populations such as pregnant women, the infirm, the elderly, small children,
and persons with low body mass index (‘BMI’).
12
RISKS OF PERCEIVED RACIALLY DISPARATE USE OF TASERS
Historically, communities of color have had disproportionate rates of contact with law enforcement
personnel. A report published by the National Conference of State Legislatures noted:
“African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans comprise a
combined one-third of the nation’s youth population. Yet they account for over two-thirds
of the youth in secure juvenile facilities.”xi
The report goes on to say:
“Police practices that target low-income urban neighborhoods and use group arrest
procedures also can contribute to disproportionate minority contact. [Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention] arrest rate statistics illustrate that African American youth are
arrested at much higher rates than their white peers for drug, property and violent crimes.”xii
Given the disproportionate law enforcement contact with communities of color, there is a risk of actual
or perceived racially disproportionate use of tasers. This can have significant consequences for
police/community relations. Any suspicion or resentment that might routinely flow from
disproportionate contacts might be inflamed by the fear and intimidation that tasers tend to trigger.
To move beyond speculation about these matters, the ACLU of Michigan directed Freedom of
Information Act requests to several law enforcement agencies and requested, among other things: “all
documents that indicate the race, gender and age of all persons against whom [tasers] were actually
deployed during 2011 and 2012.” The responses to this request are instructive.
Not surprisingly, in Benton Harbor, where the population is almost 93 percent black, all seven reported
taser incidents involved black subjects. Equally unsurprising was the fact that right across the river in St.
Joseph, where the population is almost 88 percent white, all four taser incidents involved white
subjects.
While the potential for controversy is greater in areas where populations are more racially mixed,
complaints about bias are less likely in a city like East Lansing where the population is 78.4 percent
white and 78 percent of those who were subjects of taser incidents were also white. Nevertheless, the
use of a taser on a black East Lansing High School student in 2010 triggered a community-wide
controversy and prompted questions and concerns about race and diversity.xiii
Likewise, there is no guarantee that there will be no controversy even in cases where there is “equal”
use of tasers. In Kalamazoo, about 50 percent of those targeted for taser use were white, and about 50
percent were black. However, the white population is about 71 percent, and blacks make up about 21
percent of the population. This means that even though there was equal use of tasers for both groups,
blacks were targeted at a rate that is disproportionate to their representation in the population. The
same is true in Auburn Hills, where four of seven taser incidents involved white subjects, and the
remaining three were black. Although the numbers are roughly equivalent, blacks make up only 13
percent of the Auburn Hills population.
13
The potential for suspicions about racial bias are even greater in a city like Battle Creek where nearly 75
percent of the population is white, but four out of five of the taser incidents involved black subjects. In
cases like this, a law enforcement agency should not limit its concern to public perception. There should
be genuine efforts to identify the circumstances that are responsible for the racial imbalance, and
unless the racial pattern was unavoidable, there should be a willingness to make necessary systemic
changes that will ensure that taser use is not discriminatory.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that law enforcement agencies routinely monitor the racial identities of those who
are subjects of taser incidents, and they should identify trends and patterns that either reflect
discriminatory practices, or that might lead members of the community to perceive that there has
been discrimination.
Further, law enforcement agencies should take immediate steps to correct practices that are
discriminatory, or to provide to the public information that explains the unavoidable circumstances
that have created taser use patterns that imply discrimination.
14
MOVING AWAY FROM TASER USE
The Warren Police Department has had the misfortune of having had its personnel involved in two
incidents where civilians have died after having been shot by tasers (it has not been established that the
tasers were the cause of death in either incident). In one incident police said a 27-year-old man died
after a taser was used during his attempt to escape from a police car. In another incident, police said a
16-year-old was chased into a vacant house and then shot with a taser when he appeared to make a
renewed effort to escape. He reportedly blacked out and was never resuscitated.
The Warren Police Department has discontinued use of tasers, but the deaths are not cited as the
reason for this change. The decision was reportedly prompted by a letter from the taser manufacturer
that warned of the expiration of the devices.
“Police Commissioner Jere Green cited multiple reasons for his decision to order all patrol
officers, shift commanders and others on the street to turn in their Tasers. Warren’s topranking police administrator emphasized he will not risk officers’ safety if there’s potential for
a delay when a Taser trigger is pulled; that use of Tasers failed to produce the desired results
nearly a quarter of the time they were deployed; and that he doesn’t have the money in his
budget to replace the aged models with the new ones.”xiv
If the deaths in Warren were not the reason for dropping tasers, they probably did not make continued
use of these devices any more attractive. In the final analysis, there are a number of taser-related issues
that should give pause to law enforcement agency administrators whose departments use tasers; or
who are considering use. A number of these concerns are outlined in this document. There are still
other issues related to the continuing evaluation of the effect of tasers on the body. In weighing the
benefits of tasers against the detriments, the ACLU of Michigan concludes that because of the high
potential for non-compliance with legal, organizational and industry standards, as well as perceived if
not actual racial discrimination, from a civil rights/civil liberties standpoint, communities are better
served by law enforcement agencies that do not use tasers.
There is no doubt that some law enforcement personnel have concluded that tasers are useful, others
as expendable. It is worth noting that in Warren the decision to drop the tasers did not trigger
resistance in the department. “Cpl. Matt Nichols of the Warren police training division said nearly all
officers eagerly turned in their Taser and only about three officers expressed concern... ‘Once we
explained it… they freely handed it over.’” xv In addition, a number of law enforcement agencies in
Michigan that have not used tasers in recent years, including police departments that serve Detroit,
Flint, Hartford, Muskegon Heights, Muskegon and Shelby.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that law enforcement agencies establish the elimination of tasers from their
arsenals and the adoption of alternative methods of addressing circumstances as an objective. Law
enforcement agencies that have not used tasers should not acquire these devices for use by their
officers.
15
CONCLUSION AND ENDNOTES
The frequency and manner of use of tasers in Michigan appears to be inconsistent and unstandardized.
The consequence has been practices that may violate governing law and that may be contrary to
guidelines and warnings issued by manufacturers.
Public perception of tasers and the officers who use them may be negatively affected by circumstances
that imply, if not demonstrate arbitrary and discriminatory use of these devices. Law enforcement
agencies are well-advised to seek compliance with all applicable laws and standards and to fully address
actual and potential public concerns.
i
The term “taser” is used as a generic term in this report to refer to all conducted energy devices regardless
of whether they were manufactured by Taser International.
ii
690 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2012)
iii
Earlier, during this same encounter, the subject had been tasered twice and attacked at least once by a
police dog.
iv
“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct
violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s
position would have known.” Austin, 690 F.3d at 496.
v
Id.
vi
Id at 497.
vii
Id at 499.
viii
“ECD” stands for Electronic Control Device, one of several generic terms used for taser devices.
ix
Using the BMI for Age Growth Charts,”
(http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/growthcharts/training/modules/module1/text/module1print.pdf
x
“Visual Recognition of Child Body Mass Index by Medical Students, Resident Physicians, and Community
Physicians,” by Ahlers-Schmidt, Kroeker, et al., Kansas Journal of Medicine (2010).
xi
“Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Disproportionate Minority Contact,” Jeff Armour and Sarah
Hammond (National Conference of State Legislatures) p. 4.
xii
Id.
xiii
“Tasing of Student Leads Parents to Speak Out at School Board Meeting,” by Amber Johnson-Weeks
(Entirely East Lansing) http://entirelyl.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/tasing-c
xiv
“Warren Police Department Drops Tasers After Shocking Letter From Manufacturer,” By: Norb Franz, The
Oakland Press (6/10/12)
xv
Id.
16