NCJ Number
210184
Journal
Campus Law Enforcement Journal Volume: 35 Issue: 2 Dated: March/April 2005 Pages: 29-32
Date Published
March 2005
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This article identifies issues that must be addressed when a campus law enforcement agency is considering whether or not to purchase electro-muscular disruption devices (EMDs) as a "less-than-lethal" weapon, and a case study is provided on the equipping of campus officers with EMDs.
Abstract
An EMD injects an electrical charge into a person's body to override the central nervous system, temporarily causing incapacitating muscle contractions. The most commonly used EMD currently on the market is the Taser. The decision about using EMDs in law enforcement has been complicated by adverse publicity that has attributed deaths to EMDs, although there is little, if any evidence, that an EMD has directly caused a death. In June 2003, the University of Central Florida Police Department (UCFPD) decided to purchase 40 M-26 Tasers for its officers in order to fill a gap in their use-of-force matrix beyond that provided by pepper spray and the expandable baton. To inform the university community and off-campus citizens about the rationale for this purchase, an article was released in the student newspaper, and interviews were granted with the UCFPD public information officer. Incident reports for June 2003 through December 2003 indicate that an EMD was discharged by campus officers six times, and each use was in accordance with departmental policy. There were 12 cases in which the EMD was unholstered but not activated due to suspect compliance, indicating the deterrent value of EMDs. Although potential liabilities are involved with any use-of-force device, this can be minimized by clear and strict policies for EMD use, proper training, an informed public, consequences for EMD misuse, and feedback from the community. Data should be kept on reduced injuries to officers and suspects when EMDs are carried by officers. 8 references