Proposal for Purchase of Taser Safety Devices

Most people are familiar with a police officer’s authority to use deadly force against another person.  Generally speaking, that authorization extends to situations in which the officer’s life or that of another person is threatened.  When required, the use of deadly force is most often carried out with a firearm.  Fortunately, the use of deadly force is rarely necessary.

With greater frequency, however, Amherst Police Officers are confronted with situations requiring the use of non-deadly force to affect an arrest or ensure public safety. Extensive officer training and department policy provide strict guidance on the degree of force permissible, based upon what is reasonable and necessary under any given set of circumstances.  Although the Amherst Police Department has a history of using minimal force against persons, the actual application of force during an arrest is not infrequent.  Below are some recent examples which occurred in Amherst.

• A resident who was intoxicated on controlled drugs and involved in a domestic assault the night before his wedding, and who had cut his hand when punching out windows in a fit of rage, had to be forcibly arrested and removed from his house. (1/06)

• A resident that was intoxicated and making a disturbance in his own neighborhood last Halloween refused to submit to his arrest for disorderly conduct.  As a result, he was wrestled to the ground by two police officers and handcuffed despite his strong physical resistance otherwise. (10/06)

• A resident, exhibiting signs of delusional and paranoid behavior, called the police department to make a report, which he could not articulate.  Officers responding to the scene found the irrational resident armed with a loaded shotgun, defending himself from an apparent imagined threat.  Although he was talked down and taken into custody with only minimal force, the volatility of the situation was obvious. (1/06)

• A motorist was stopped for erratic driving and determined to be intoxicated.  As the officer attempted to arrest the driver, the driver physically resisted the arrest, punching the officer in the head.  He continued to resist and was able to overcome the officer, get into his vehicle and drive away, despite having been sprayed with pepper spray.  He was later apprehended by several officers in an adjoining town after attempting to stab one of them. (5/07)

• An intoxicated patron of a local restaurant walked away from the restaurant and was later approached on the side of the highway.  When an officer attempted to arrest the person, he physically resisted and fought with the officer; ultimately being apprehended. (11/06)

• A motorist was stopped by an officer for his erratic driving.  The motorist, who was obviously agitated for reasons other than the stop, refused to cooperate and sped away from the car stop.  The officer gave chase and again stopped the vehicle, whereupon the driver lunged from the car at the officer in an obvious intent to attack the officer.  After multiple warnings to stop went unheeded, the officer sprayed the driver with O.C. spray.  After spraying him twice, the officer was able to chase down the person, who was now running away, and physically overcome the motorist and arrest him.  (9/06)

These examples represent a small number of the contacts the Amherst police officers have which carry an inherent potential for violence.   In 2006, Amherst police officers arrested 723 persons for various offenses.  Of those arrests, 158 of them were for alcohol and/or drug related offenses.  Additionally, during the same time frame, officers responded to 60 calls of domestic violence and 40 other calls of various assaults.

Clearly, the use and potential for use of non-deadly force is not something which occurs infrequently in Amherst or any other community. 

Non-deadly force can take many different forms, covering a spectrum from the officer’s mere presence, to verbal commands, to strong-hand techniques, to the use of weapons.  The weapons at an Amherst police officer’s disposal have changed many times over the years. Many years ago a straight baton was the only choice. It was later replaced with a tactical PR-24 baton, and eventually that was replaced with a straight, expandable baton, which is currently carried.  Additionally, several years ago oleoresin capsicum (O.C.) spray was added to the arsenal in an attempt to provide another means of defense.  The O.C. spray has been a valuable addition principally because it provides an alternative to hands-on application of force which is inherently more dangerous.

O.C. spray does have limitations, however.  Those limitations include its effectiveness and dependability as well as the maximum useful distance between the perpetrator and the police officer.   Because the O.C. spray relies upon the active ingredients in the spray in causing discomfort to the offender and causing him to surrender, it is not effective with all people.   In fact, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has questioned the effectiveness and consistency of pepper spray to de-escalate a potentially violent encounter and has even indicated the possibility of increased risk if the spray does not work in a given situation.

In recent years another non-lethal weapon has become popular in the law enforcement field and is now considered by many law enforcement professionals and researchers in the field to be a very effective alternative to other weaponry.  This category of weapons is known as Electromuscular Incapacitation devices, or EMI devices.  One company, Taser International, currently markets these devices under the Taser name.

Because of the limitations the O.C. spray presents, I am proposing to add a Taser device to our arsenal of non-deadly weapons.  A Taser device is based upon a theory of interrupting the body’s electromuscular system, temporarily incapacitating the person.  In other words, where the O.C. spray can be limited by an individual’s tolerance to the pain and discomfort, the Taser has a debilitating effect upon anyone which it is used.   In addition, the effectiveness of the O.C. spray can be affected by environmental factors such as wind, precipitation and temperature, all of which do not affect the Taser. 

Moreover, the use of the Taser device will not result in some of the unintended effects which the O.C. can cause.  Such side effects of the O.C. spray can include officer and bystander exposure to the chemical, as well as the need for a decontamination phase which lasts until the chemical residue of the spray has diminished.

In 2005, The Air Force Research Laboratory, in partnership with the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate conducted research on the effectiveness and risk of the Taser devices.  They reported that overall, the use of the Tasers as intended are generally effective and do not present a significant risk of unintended severe effects.  Further, they reported the Tasers may likely decrease the overall injury rate of both police officers and suspects in conflict situations when compared to alternatives in the use of force continuum. 

I propose the purchase of six Taser devices.  The Tasers and associated holsters, cartridges and training materials will cost $7,244.  If approved, the police department will thoroughly train officers in the proper use of the weapons and create a comprehensive policy regulating the use of the weapons.