Conducted Energy Device Use in Municipal Policing: Results of a National Survey on Policy and Effectiveness Assessments

Abstract

Some concern has arisen over the overly “routine” use of conducted energy devices (CEDs) and their effectiveness in achieving important policy goals such as reducing the incidence of lethal force. These concerns directly call into question the departmental policy surrounding these devices. Using a large, national sample of chief executive officers of municipal law enforcement agencies (N = 210), the analyses reported here (a) describe the current state of CED policy, including placement on the use of force continuum; (b) assess departmental perceptions of the effectiveness of CEDs in reducing the incidence of lethal force; and (c) examine how variations in CED policy is related to a number of use of force outcomes. Findings suggest that 56% of departments surveyed reported that CEDs reduced the need to use lethal force. Moreover, regression analyses indicate that higher placement of CEDs on the use of force continuum is related to both fewer CED deployments and, although not significantly, also to reported reductions in the use of lethal force. Implications for policy and research are discussed.

An Analysis of Written Conductive Energy Device Policies

“…3 Given these findings of research into CEDs which occasion due concern, questions arise as to whether policing agencies should do more to reduce the potential negative effects associated with CED deployment. Extant research suggests that departments differ widely in their respective CED policies (GAO, 2005), a finding which at the very least may be partially causing differences in use of force outcomes across departments (Thomas et al, 2010). Such a policy provides guidelines for the pre-, peri-, and postdeployment responsibilities of officers when deploying a use of force tool.…”

“…Although researchers have moved toward using scenario-based responses when examining the permissiveness of use of force policies (Alpert & Dunham, 2010;Mesloh et al, 2008), the traditional and commonplace use-of-force continuum remains an important staple of departmental policies (Garner, Schade, Hepburn, & Buchanan, 1995;Terrill & Paoline, 2007;Thomas et al, 2010;Williams, 2002). Although researchers have moved toward using scenario-based responses when examining the permissiveness of use of force policies (Alpert & Dunham, 2010;Mesloh et al, 2008), the traditional and commonplace use-of-force continuum remains an important staple of departmental policies (Garner, Schade, Hepburn, & Buchanan, 1995;Terrill & Paoline, 2007;Thomas et al, 2010;Williams, 2002).…”

“…More important, however, the report highlighted the lack of uniformity, quality, and specificity in CED deployment policies across law enforcement departments in the United States (see also Government Accountability Office, 2005;Thomas, Collins, & Lovrich, 2010). In this report, the influential human rights organization highlighted several examples of questionable, although often legally justified, deployments of CEDs as well as noting numerous cases in which resisting suspects experienced adverse health effects post-CED application.…”

“…Second, previous research has indicated that departmental policy regarding CED use is influential in a number of use-of-force outcomes (Thomas et al, 2010; see also Downs, 1967). This void in the literature is alarming for several related reasons.…”

“…These documents were first gathered as part of a large nationwide study reviewing CED policy and agency-generated effectiveness assessments (see Thomas et al, 2010). These documents were first gathered as part of a large nationwide study reviewing CED policy and agency-generated effectiveness assessments (see Thomas et al, 2010).…”