









Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
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
1 / 16
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!










Criminal Justice Review Volimic 34 Number I March (^2009) 29- © 2009 Georgia State University Research (^) Foundation, Inc.
htpll(p/c.1r.sa,gepub).com
University of Central (^) Florida, Orlando
University (^) of Florida, Gainesville
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
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).
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
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).
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).
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
(1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly (^) disagree), five factors set forth (^) by the authors as reasons
36 Criminal Justice Review
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.
Results
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.
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
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).
Wolf et al. / Campus (^) Law Enforcement 39
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.
group that did not issue Tasers (M = 11,748, SD = 10,459), (^) t(30) = -2.061, p = .048.
Discussion
Wolf et al. / Campus Law Enforcement (^41)
Appendix Conducted Energy (^) Devices Questionnaire
Questions of safety (^1 2 3 4) 5
Political (^1 2 3 4 ) Public opinion (^1 2 3 4 )
(Once you complete (^) this question, please skip to Question (^) 7)
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:
(continued)
42 Criminal Justice Review
Appendix (continued)
Note
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.