Exploring Conducted Energy Devices in College Law Enforcement: Adoption Reasons & Concerns, Study notes of Criminal Justice

A study aimed at understanding the reasons behind the adoption of conducted energy devices (ceds) in college campus law enforcement agencies in the united states. The study also investigates the concerns surrounding their use and safety. Keywords: use of force, police, taser, conducted energy devices, university, campus.

Typology: Study notes

2010/2011

Uploaded on 08/17/2011

tac2y
tac2y 🇺🇸

5

(3)

78 documents

1 / 16

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Criminal
Justice
Review
Volimic 34
Number
I
March 2009
29-43
©
2009
Georgia
State
University
Research
Foundation,
Inc.
Cam
pus
Law
Enforcem
ent
10.117/0734016808324233
htpll(p/c.1r.sa,gepub).com
Use-of-Force
and
Conducted
hostedat
http://oniline.sagepub.com
Energy
Devices
A
National-Level
Exploratory
Study
of
Perceptions
and
Practices
Ross
Wolf
University
of
Central
Florida,
Orlando
Tina
Pressler
University
of
Florida,
Gainesville
Mark
Winton
University
of
Central
Florida,
Orlando
Although
many
police
departments
throughout
the
nation
have
been
quick
to
incorporate
the
use
of
conducted
energy devices
(CEDs) within their use-of-force policies,
the
use
of
these
devices
on
college campuses
has
been
relatively
unexamined
in
the
literature.
This
article
addresses campus
police agency
decisions regarding CEDs
as
a
less-than-lethal
force
alterna-
tive.
This
study
utilized
a
stratified random
sample
of
public
4-year
universities
and
colleges
throughout
the
United
States.
Respondents answered questions pertaining
to
multiple
vari-
ables,
such
as
political pressure,
public
opinion,
officer
safety,
liability,
and
funding,
as
factors
considered
when
deciding
whether
to
acquire
CEDs.
The
results suggest that
a
majority
of
the
public
institutions
surveyed
have
not
acquired CEDs
due
to
public
opinion.
Furthermore,
the
results
reveal
that for institutions
that
have
issued
CEDs
their
acquisition
can
be
attributed
to
the
campus
law
enforcement
agency's
concern for
officer
safety.
Suggestions for future
research
are
discussed.
Keywords:
use
of
force; police;
Taser;
conducted
energy
devices;
university;
campus
A
lthough
college
campuses
have
historically
been
thought
of
as
refuges
from
the
prob-
lems
of
larger
society,
today,
college
campuses
throughout
the
United States
are
viewed more
as
microcosms
of
the
larger
communities that surround
them (Bromley,
2003;
Bromley
&
Reaves,
1998a;
Friedman,
2007).
As
such,
college
administrations
have devel-
oped police departments
that
mirror
closely
the
responsibilities
and
authority
of
their
coun-
terparts
in
municipal
agencies,
including
the
power
to
make
arrests and
use
force
when
Authors'
Note:
A
recent
version
of
this article
was
presented
at
the
2005
Annual Meeting
of
the
Southern
Criminal
Justice Association
in
Jacksonville, Florida,
September
28-30.
A
special
note
of
thanks
to
all
of
the
police
and
public
safety
departments
across
the
United States
that
participated
in
this survey.
Additional thanks
to
Eugene
A.
Paoline
III
and
Jessica
Maykrantz for
their comments
on the
content
of
this
article.
29
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff

Partial preview of the text

Download Exploring Conducted Energy Devices in College Law Enforcement: Adoption Reasons & Concerns and more Study notes Criminal Justice in PDF only on Docsity!

Criminal Justice Review Volimic 34 Number I March (^2009) 29- © 2009 Georgia State University Research (^) Foundation, Inc.

Cam pus Law Enforcem ent 10.117/

htpll(p/c.1r.sa,gepub).com

Use-of-Force and^ Conducted^ http://oniline.sagepub.comhostedat

Energy Devices

A National-Level Exploratory Study

of Perceptions and Practices

Ross Wolf

University of Central (^) Florida, Orlando

Tina Pressler

University (^) of Florida, Gainesville

Mark Winton

University of Central (^) Florida, Orlando

Although (^) many police departments throughout (^) the nation have been quick (^) to incorporate the use of conducted energy devices (CEDs) within their use-of-force policies, the use of (^) these devices on college campuses (^) has been relatively unexamined (^) in the literature. This article addresses campus police agency (^) decisions regarding CEDs as a (^) less-than-lethal force alterna- tive. This study utilized a stratified random sample of public (^) 4-year universities and colleges throughout the United States. (^) Respondents answered questions pertaining to multiple vari- ables, (^) such as political pressure, public (^) opinion, officer safety, liability, (^) and funding, as factors considered (^) when deciding whether to acquire (^) CEDs. The results suggest that a majority of the public institutions surveyed (^) have not acquired CEDs (^) due to public opinion. Furthermore, (^) the results (^) reveal that for institutions that (^) have issued CEDs their acquisition (^) can be attributed to the campus (^) law enforcement agency's (^) concern for officer safety. (^) Suggestions for future research (^) are discussed.

Keywords: (^) use of force; police; Taser; (^) conducted energy devices; university; (^) campus

A lthough college campuses have historically been thought of as refuges from the prob-

lems of larger society, today, college campuses throughout the United States are

viewed more as microcosms of the larger communities that surround them (Bromley, 2003;

Bromley & Reaves, 1998a; Friedman, 2007). As such, college administrations have devel-

oped police departments that mirror closely the responsibilities and authority of their coun-

terparts in municipal agencies, including the power to make arrests and use force when

Authors' Note: A recent (^) version of this article was presented (^) at the 2005 Annual Meeting (^) of the Southern Criminal Justice Association (^) in Jacksonville, Florida, (^) September 28-30. A special note of (^) thanks to all of the police and public (^) safety departments across the United States that participated in this survey. (^) Additional thanks to Eugene A. Paoline III and Jessica (^) Maykrantz for their comments (^) on the content of this article.

29

30 Criminal Justice Review

necessary (Bromley, 2000, 2003; Paoline & Sloan, 2003). As police departments, these campus agencies usually authorize officers to carry firearms but have historically been reluctant to authorize the use of less-than-lethal force alternatives, such as pepper spray, batons, or other incapacitating devices (Reaves & Goldberg, 1996), including conducted energy devices (CEDs). The purpose of this study is to explore the varying perceptions of United (^) States campus police agencies that have led to the issuance of CEDs to campus police officers. CEDs have only been discussed minimally in scholastic literature and not at all in recent research on campus police departments; in fact, the most recent nationwide research on campus police (Reaves & Goldberg, 1996) certainly justifies a more current survey on the preva- lence of less-lethal weapons throughout American colleges. Therefore, it is (^) the goal of the authors to conduct a broad review of the literature in criminal justice, education, (^) and phys- iology in an effort to develop a multidimensional approach to understanding (^) CED use by campus police agencies. A stratified random sample of 143 four-year public secondary institutions throughout the United States was selected to determine the extent of CED use, use-of-force (^) policy decisions, and perceptions surrounding their adoption and deployment. The survey also asked agencies that do not approve of CED use about perceptions that led to that decision.

Literature (^) Review

There is a small but growing body of literature that describes the historical, organiza- tional, and procedural areas of campus policing. Although campus policing continues to evolve, (^) recent literature has focused on similarities of these specialized police agencies to their municipal counterparts (Bromley, 2000; Bromley & Reaves, 1998a, 1998b; Lanier, 1995; Paoline & Sloan, 2003; Wolf, 1998). Many parallels (^) have been found to exist between campus and municipal agencies; this includes but is not limited to the issuance of protective and defensive equipment, such as body armor, batons, and pepper spray. Research continues in regard to the advancement of professionalism in campus policing (Bromley, 2000).

Historical Context of Campus Police Departments

During the tumultuous 1960s, campus administrators began to realize the inadequacy of campus safety programs that were in place and were dissatisfied with reactionary local law enforcement (Paoline & Sloan, 2003; Wolf, 1998, 2001). This realization was in the con- text of the 1961 United States Supreme Court case Dixon v. Alabama Board of (^) Education (1961), which gave college students adult rights and responsibilities, replacing (^) the previ- ously accepted norm of in loco parentis. The significance of this case was that it changed the relationship between students and campus administrators; although students were pro- vided greater autonomy, administrators were tasked with the need to provide greater accountability of accepted behaviors. By the mid-1970s, many campuses had developed their own police departments with full arrest powers (^) (Bromley, 2000; Reaves & Goldberg,

32 Criminal Justice Review

Description of CEDs

A CED is a (^) device designed to deploy electricity throughout the body of the target to temporarily cause loss of muscle control. In the history of law enforcement, there have (^) been many devices that may fit this description, (^) such as cattle prods or stun guns. Devices such as these allow electricity to be deployed on contact with the skin or within close distances. However, over the past several years, the technology for these devices (^) has become more user friendly, allowing (^) the user to apply the device from greater distances, with more accu- rate application. Taser International, the company that produces the most common brand of CEDs, claims it provides an advanced nonlethal option for the use in law enforcement, private (^) security, and personal defense. The (^) product has become so well known that the name Taser© has become synonymous with CED.W Taser International uses the definition provided by the United States Department of Defense to define nonlethal weapons as "systems that (^) are explicitly designed and primarily employed so as to incapacitate personnel or material, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage (^) to prop- erty and the environment" (Taser International Inc., 2004b; United States Department of Defense, 1998). The widespread deployment of these devices as a less-lethal (^) weapon of choice suggests that police departments have "embraced the (^) Taser in a manner not seen since the widespread introduction of pepper spray in the 1990s" (^) (Smith et al., 2007, p. 399).

The TASER/Amnesty International (Al) Debate

CEDs are unquestionably (^) effective (Downs, 2007); the device can incapacitate a subject for up to 5 seconds through the use of electrical shock, generally (^) allowing the user enough time to apprehend a subject or retreat from confrontation. Police CEDs also may allow the user (^) to continue the electric shock for longer periods by holding down the trigger, whereas civilian models on the market use a 30 seconds cycle. The voltage produced by a CED over- whelms the nervous system, forcing (^) the muscles to contract, causing temporary incapaci- tation. Taser International has (^) repeatedly stated that the company is so certain their electro-muscular device offers the best less-lethal option for law enforcement that they strongly encourage independent (^) research, declaring that such research would only strengthen (^) their claims (Taser International, Inc., 2004a, 2004b). Some researchers and activists, such as those employed by Al, are skeptical and outright disagree with Taser International's reported findings. Al (^) has been one of the loudest critics of CED use by the police. On November 30, 2004, the human-rights group released a report on "deaths and ill-treatment involving police use (^) of tasers" (Amnesty International, 2004b, p. 1). The report particularly showed concern (^) for the fact that Tasers have been utilized to subdue individuals who were not apparently a threat to officers and have been linked (^) as a factor in the death of more than 70 people (Amnesty International, 2004b). Al stated that (a) they are opposed to the sale of Tasers to citizens, (b) they are opposed to police departments that place Tasers (^) on a lower level on the use-of-force con- tinuum than batons or impact weapons, and (c) as the effects of Taser use on the human body has yet to be scientifically determined, all police use of the weapon should be banned. Al revealed that 30 departments surveyed for their report stated that CED devices were

Wolf et al. / Campus Law Enforcement 33

placed at the active physical resistance level (which may or may not include aggression toward the officer, including bracing, tensing, (^) or running away) on their use-of-force (^) con- tinuum. The Al argued that the (^) "use of electro-shock weapons in such (^) circumstances appear to (^) breach international standards set out (^) under UN Code of Conduct for Law (^) Enforcement Officials and the Basic (^) Principles on the Use of Force (^) and Firearms" (Amnesty International, (^) 2004b, p. 7). Al's newsletter The Wire (^) stated that it "is concerned that (^) many US police departments now issue tasers to every (^) patrol officer, substantially increasing their potential for abuse" (Amnesty International, 2004a, p. (^) 1). The newsletter article expanded (^) on this statement by calling on all law enforcement (^) agencies in the United States (^) to suspend all use of Tasers and other CED devices (^) until there could be more scientific (^) analysis of their affect (Amnesty International, 2004a, (^) 2004b). This negative opinion has swayed at least one federal agency not to use (^) Tasers. To date, the Department (^) of Homeland Security rejects the use (^) of stun guns (^) for its agents and officers due to (^) questions about safety (Johnson, 2005). Taser International (^) argued the Al claims, stating that (^) they were disappointed by Al's lack of concern for the safety of police (^) officers by implying that unarmed (^) assailants were not a threat (^) to law enforcement officers. Taser International (^) argued that police officers (^) should not have to resort to hand-to-hand combat (^) or other possibly more dangerous (^) devices, such as batons, to successfully subdue subjects (^) who are physically resistant, (^) even if they are not aggressive. Taser also stood behind (^) its decision to sell CEDs to civilian (^) populations since the 1990s, arguing that they were (^) a safer alternative for defense than arming the public with firearms (^) (Taser International Inc., 2004a). The United States (^11) th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Taser International on the placement of the device in the (^) use-of-force continuum. In Draper (^) v. Reynolds (2004), the court found that (^) the use of a Taser in response to a suspect's (^) passive resistance in a traffic stop was (^) not excessive use of force. The court (^) said that the use of the Taser may (^) have kept a tense and difficult situation from (^) progressing into a serious physical (^) struggle. On March 9, 2005, representatives (^) from Taser International and Al met (^) at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, for a moderated debate (^) on Taser use. Rick Smith, cofounder, CEO, (^) and Director of Taser International (^) openly discussed Taser use with (^) William Schulz, executive director of (^) Amnesty International, United States. (^) Both men seemed to agree that (^) Taser research needs to be continually conducted so that the affect of Tasers (^) on human physiology can be better (^) understood. Both men also seemed (^) to agree that Tasers, (^) or other options to firearms in (^) possible deadly force situations, are (^) needed for law enforcement (^) officers. The speakers differed, (^) however, on where the line should (^) be drawn for acceptable Taser use on (^) use-of-force continuums and whether (^) Tasers should be avail- able for the general public (^) or sold to police agencies in countries with questionable human- rights histories (Haley, 2005).

Purpose of the Current Study

Although empirical research (^) on policy decisions concerning (^) CEDs throughout the nation is (^) severely lacking, there is an even greater (^) gap in the literature pertaining (^) to campus polic- ing and the use and perceptions (^) of these devices by campus (^) police chiefs or directors.

Wolf et al. / Campus Law Enforcement 35

The survey included nine initial questions, with two subquestions. Explained in detail

below, the questions focused on the less-lethal weapons, including CEDs, and weapon uti-

lization by public university campus police departments and campus safety personnel (the

survey instrument questions relating to this manuscript are found in appendix).

After 3 weeks, respondents were e-mailed a second time reminding them to respond to

the survey if their institution's results had not yet been received. The final attempt to gather

data by the researchers resulted in phone calls to the remaining institutions that had not

responded.

Measures

The research questions were operationalized by the survey the authors created (as found

in appendix). The rationale was to establish the use or nonuse of CEDs and the factors that

influenced departmental decisions for use. Expanding on the use of CEDs, information was

requested on the required level of force for deployment and the resulting effects on officer

and suspect injuries. The survey began by establishing CED use; responses were set up

nominally with yes or no as options. The primary concern of the authors was to differenti-

ate between those campuses that utilized CEDs and those that did not. This gave a founda-

tion for further assessment.

The campuses that did not issue CEDs were asked to rank, using a Likert-type scale

(1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly (^) disagree), five factors set forth (^) by the authors as reasons

for not supplying their officers with CEDs. The factors listed for decisions not to use CEDs

were drawn from the literature and were as follows: liability, questions of safety, funding

opportunity, political reasons, and public opinion. The question also allowed for reasons

not accounted for with the option of other.

The campuses that did issue CEDs were asked to rank, using a Likert-type scale, five

factors set forth by the authors as reasons for supplying their officers with CEDs. The fac-

tors listed for decisions to use CEDs were as follows: level/threat of campus crime,

level/threat of crime from off-campus environment, officer safety issues, funding availabil-

ity, and political pressure. The question also allowed for reasons not accounted for with the

option of other. Further measurement of CED use was conducted in the survey to clarify

which officers were issued devices (i.e., patrol officers and/or supervisors). The purpose of

these questions was to provide an understanding of who is eligible to carry a CED and why

the agency decided to deploy them.

Once the authors ascertained reasons for CED use, they asked respondents to specify the

lowest level of force that their agency allowed CED deployment. A mock force continuum

was created for the respondents to follow (Table 1).

The continuum was compiled from various agency policies across the country to provide

the respondents with a common defining parameter, as use-of-force continuums can be

markedly different from agency to agency and from state to state. The respondents were

instructed to mark only the lowest level of force that CED use would fall within their

agency's policy. Due to this simplification, the authors coded this dichotomously: either the

agency allowed the deployment of the CED at a certain level or they did not. The impor-

tance of this question was to enhance the research by offering an explanation of when CED

use was authorized.

36 Criminal Justice Review

Table 1

Sample Use-of-Force Continuum as Listed on Survey

Verbal resistance Subject defies an officer's (^) attempt to control a situation through verbal statements. Passive resistance (^) Subject braces or attempts to defeat an officer's attempt at control, by refusing (^) to comply with commands. Active (^) physical resistance Subject uses active (nonviolent) resistance (^) to attempt to avoid arrest (i.e., running away). Aggressive physical resistance Subject uses overt attacking movements (^) to attempt to avoid arrest (i.e., punches, (^) strikes, kicks, etc.). Aggravated physical resistance Subject (^) uses overt attacking movements to attempt to avoid arrest with or without a weapon that may (^) cause bodily injury (i.e., bat, pipe, karate strikes, etc.). This may include perceived deadly force of the subject.

An additional question was constructed regarding perceptions of the effects of CED use.

It specifically addressed whether the use of CEDs resulted in a reduction of officer and sus-

pect injuries. The respondents were asked to specify with whom they saw the reduction of

injuries (i.e., only suspect, only officer, officer and suspect, neither, or no data available).

The final measures in the survey were included to compile data regarding institution

enrollment sizes. The authors felt that population was a mitigating factor that directly

affected the decision to acquire/not acquire CEDs. To answer this, information was gath-

ered regarding the number of students enrolled at the university.

Results

Of the original 143 institutions surveyed, 87 agencies responded to this survey (60.8%

response rate). This is a reasonable response rate, and there is no reason to believe that

those that responded were different from those that did not. When asked whether CEDs

were deployed to their law enforcement officers, 73.6% (n = 64) (^) of the responding agen- cies reported that they did not deploy CEDs, compared to the 26.4% (^) (n = 23) of the respon- dents that said they did. Table 2 illustrates the distribution (^) of the responding agencies. These responses allowed a foundation for further analysis.

In an attempt to differentiate between the reasons why certain universities did and did

not acquire CEDs, they were asked to rank their agreement or disagreement (^) with particu- lar factors that were thought to affect their decision. These questions were (^) exploratory in nature and not meant to be a mutually (^) exclusive rank order of factors influencing their deci- sion to deploy CEDs to the campus (^) police agencies. The respondents had the option of ranking the factors associated with CED adoption (^) between 1, strongly agree, and 5, strongly disagree. To simplify analysis, the authors combined (^) the responses of I and 2, strongly agree and agree, (^) interpreted 3 as neutral, and combined 4 and 5, disagree and strongly disagree. (^) Table 3 shows the breakdown of the respondent's decisions. Of the respondents who answered they did not acquire CEDs, they (^) attributed their deci- sions to liability, 59% (n = 26); questions (^) of safety, 58% (n = 26); political, 57% (n = 25);

38 Criminal Justice Review

Table 4

Factors Affecting Decision to Acquire CEDs

Agree Neutral Disagree Did Not Factors Response Percentage' (^) Response Percentagea Response Percentage' Answer

Officer safety issues 15 79.0 1 5.3 3 15.8 (^4) Level/threat of off- 10 58.8 (^4) 23.5 3 17.7 6 campus crime Level/threat of (^7) 41.2 5 29.4 5 29.4 6 campus crime Funding availability 7 38.9 5 27.8 6 33.3 (^5) Political pressure 5 29.4 2 11.8 (^10) 58.9 6 Note: CED = Conducted energy devices. a. Valid percent: Does not include responses of did not answer (n listed above) or not applicable (^) (n = 64).

When asked why the agencies did employ CEDs, more than three quarters of the respon-

dents (79%, n = 15) that acquired CEDs attributed their decision to their concern for offi-

cer safety. Additional factors, as shown in Table 4, included the following: the level/threat

of off-campus crime, 59% (n = 10); level/threat of campus crime, 41% (n = 7); funding

availability, 39% (n = 7); and political pressure, 29% (n = 5). These results show that

though officer-safety issues prevailed as the main driving force behind CED acquisition, the

threat of off-campus crime was very influential in the decisions to acquire CEDs.

Understandably, knowing at what point during the officer/suspect confrontation in which

CED deployment is authorized by the department is crucial to this analysis. Of the 26.4%

of respondents that issued the CED, the largest group (39%, n = 9) of agencies allowed the

deployment of the device only when a suspect asserted aggressive physical resistance

toward a law enforcement officer, that is, when a suspect demonstrated overt attacking

movements to attempt to avoid arrest. This finding specifically addressed the third research

question: To the extent that campus agencies provide CEDs for their officers, at what level

on a use-of-force continuum are they utilized? As shown in Table 5, some university police

departments permit CED use as low as the passive resistance level (17%, n = 4). However,

69% (n = 16) of respondents who authorized CEDs allowed their use only at the highest

levels of force, when the suspect asserted aggressive physical resistance (39%, n = 9) or

when a suspect acted with active physical resistance (30%, n = 7). This is important because

this suggests that university police agencies may not place CEDs in the same categories

where other less-than-lethal alternatives (i.e., pepper spray, take-down maneuvers, or baton

strikes) are typically placed by their municipal counterparts (Wolf, Mesloh, Henych, &

Thompson, 2007) but on the conservative end of guidelines established by the Police

Executive Research Forum on the use of CEDs (Cronin & Ederheimer, 2006).

To clarify which officers were issued devices, the next question asked whether patrol

officers, supervisors, or patrol officers and supervisors were issued CEDs. Of the respon-

dents that answered the question, a majority (87%, n = 20) of the agencies issued the

devices to both patrol officers and supervisors.

Wolf et al. / Campus (^) Law Enforcement 39

Table 5

Lowest Level of Force for CED Use

Level of Force (^) Response (^) Percentage

Verbal resistance (^3 ) Passive resistance (^4 ) Active physical resistance (^7 ) Aggressive physical resistance (^9 ) Aggravated physical resistance (^0 ) Total (^23 )

Note: CED = Conducted energy devices.

One question on the survey specifically addressed visible or statistical reductions in offi-

cer and suspect injuries. A little more than half of the agencies (52%, n = 12) reported no

data available; 26% (n - 6) reported reduced suspect and officer injuries; 17% (n = 4) stated

they did not see a reduction in officer or suspect injuries, and 4% (n = 1) reported only see-

ing a reduction in officer injuries. Multiple respondents that answered this question com-

mented on the device's effectiveness. A few anecdotal comments are mentioned in the

discussion.

Of specific importance to the authors, an inquiry was made to determine the possible

effect that campus student enrollment could have on CED adoption. On average, the group

issuing Tasers reported a larger size of their university (M = 18,815, SD = 15,156) than the

group that did not issue Tasers (M = 11,748, SD = 10,459), (^) t(30) = -2.061, p = .048.

Therefore, the size of the institution has a significant effect on CED adoption; as the enroll-

ment of students increases, the more likely a university will adopt CEDs. There were no

statistically significant differences between the issuing of Tasers and the violent campus

crime rate or the property campus crime rate.

Discussion

The researchers hypothesized that the off-campus crime (i.e., the area surrounding the

university) would be the main driving force in the acquisition of CEDs. Although a large

majority of the respondents (59%) reported that this was a factor, almost two thirds (79%)

of the respondents agreed that the safety of their officers was the main reason for the adop-

tion of CEDs.

This current study was also concerned with agencies that did not adopt CEDs and why

they were not being utilized. The researchers hypothesized that public opinion would be the

most plausible limiting factor for a campus law enforcement agency to not utilize CEDs;

however, public opinion was identified by 56% of the respondents. A slightly larger num-

ber of respondents (59%) attributed the lack of acquisition to liability concerns and almost

equal concern for issues of safety and politics. As mentioned earlier, many universities that

responded to the survey added additional information to the survey stating that they were

still waiting on research, or on preliminary tests, on the use of CEDs.

Wolf et al. / Campus Law Enforcement (^41)

expects law enforcement to be accountable; consequently, law enforcement policies and

procedures have reflected this societal expectation. The researchers believe that this issue

is increasingly controversial on college campuses, more so than in noninstitutional law

enforcement agencies. However, though only 26.4% (23 of the 87) of the campus police

agencies surveyed in this study reported utilizing CEDs, this is comparable with the

reported 23% of small police departments nationally (Hickman & Reeves, 2006).

This study is one of the first to look at the use of CEDs on college campuses. Although

the use of force and nonlethal weapons on college campuses has been researched, none

have been as specific as this study in attempting to ascertain not only who has decided to

acquire devices but also why. Even though the current study was exploratory in nature, it is

nonetheless a basis for future research.

Appendix Conducted Energy (^) Devices Questionnaire

  1. Are any (^) of your campus security/police issued (^) Tasers (or any other electro-muscular (^) devices)? __ Yes or (^) No (if you answer yes to this question, (^) please skip to Question 2) (a) If Tasers are (^) not used by your institution, has the use (^) of Tasers by law enforcement officers ever been discussed? ____ Yes or No (b) If your university decided not (^) to issue Tasers, state your level of agreement (^) with each of the following as (^) to the reason why: (1) agree the most and (5) agree the (^) least

Liability 1 2 3 4

Questions of safety (^1 2 3 4) 5

Funding 1 2 3 4 5

Political (^1 2 3 4 ) Public opinion (^1 2 3 4 )

Other 1 2 3 4 5 Please state:

(Once you complete (^) this question, please skip to Question (^) 7)

  1. What is the reason (^) your agency decided to acquire Tasers? (^) State the level of agreement with each of the following as to the (^) reason why: (1) agree the most and (5) agree (^) the least Level/threat (^) of campus crime (^1 2 3 4 )

Level/threat of crime from 1 2 3 4

off-campus environment Officer (^) safety issues (^1 2 3 4) 5 Funding availability 1 (^2 3 4 ) Political pressure (^1 2 3 4) 5 Other (^1 2 3 4 5) Please state:

  1. If your (^) sworn officers are issued Tasers (or (^) any other electro-muscular devices), are (^) nonswom officers issued (^) them? Sworn only __ Nonsworn (^) only - Both

(continued)

42 Criminal Justice Review

Appendix (continued)

  1. Are your patrol officers or supervisors issued Tasers? __ (^) Patrol officers _ Supervisors Both
  2. What is the lowest level of force that your agency allows Taser deployment? (^) (choose only one). Verbal resistance: Subject defies an officer's attempt to control a situation through (^) verbal statements. Passive resistance: Subject (^) braces or attempts to defeat an officer's attempt at control, by refusing to comply with commands. ___ Active physical resistance: Subject uses active (nonviolent) resistance to attempt to avoid arrest (i.e., running (^) away). __ Aggressive (^) physical resistance: Subject uses overt attacking movements (^) to attempt to avoid arrest (i.e., punches, strikes, kicks, etc.). __ Aggravated physical resistance: Subject uses overt (^) attacking movements to attempt to avoid arrest with or without a weapon that may cause bodily injury (i.e., (^) bat, pipe, karate strikes, etc.). This may include perceived deadly force of the subject.
  3. Have you seen a reduction in officer and/or suspect injuries since you began deploying Tasers? Suspect - Officer Suspect and Officer Neither No data available (a) If you have seen a reduction, can you elaborate on your (^) data?

Note

  1. The Taser International (^) device, which fires two darts with trailing wires and discharges 50,000 volts of electricity on contact (^) with the target, is the most widely accepted conducted energy device on the market by law enforcement agencies (Taser International, 2004b).

References

Amnesty International (2004a). Excessive use of tasers in USA. The Wire. Retrieved (^) July 15, 2005, from http://web.amnesty.org/wire/November2004/Tasers Amnesty International. (2004b). (^) USA: Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International'sconcerns about deaths and ill-treatment (^) involving police use of farce. New York: Author. Behr, K. (2007). (^) Taser use popular despite risk. The Minnesota Daily. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/01/25/ Bromley, M. L. (2000). A content review (^) of campus police vehicle pursuit policies at large institutions of higher education. Policing: An InternationalJournal of Police Strategies & Management, 23, 492-505. Bromley, M. L. (2003). Comparing campus and municipal police (^) community policing practices. Journal of Security Administration, 26(2), 37-50, 75. Bromley, M., & (^) Reaves, B. (1998a). Comparing campus and municipal police: The human resource dimension. Policing: An InternationalJournalof Police Strategies & Management, 21, 534-546. Bromley, M., & Reaves, B. (1998b). Comparing the practices and policies of sworn and non-sworn (^) campus police departments within the context of the campus (^) security act of 1990. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 9, 261-278.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Campus Law Enforcement Use-of-Force and Conducted

Energy Devices: A National-Level Exploratory Study of

Perceptions and Practices

SOURCE: Crim Justice Rev 34 no1 Mr 2009

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in

violation of the copyright is prohibited.