San Jose Police Should Develop Stricter Stun-Gun Guidelines

August 21, 2005 by Sanjeev Bery, San Jose Director for the ACLU of Northern California, The San Jose Mercury News

Since their debut in 2000, Taser stun guns have been billed as the weapon of choice for police. They've been touted as an easy way to subdue an uncooperative suspect without firing lethal bullets. But the fact is, dozens of people have died in incidents involving Tasers, including a San Jose man who was pepper-sprayed, beaten and jolted this month during a struggle with police.

San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis says stun-gun use in his department has decreased as officers have learned the limitations of the weapon. That's good news.

What's worrying is the department's lax stun-gun policy sets few if any limits on how Tasers can be used. Stun guns could potentially be fired at demonstrators at a political rally, motorists arguing about traffic tickets, homeless people who happen to be in the way, or rowdy teenagers.

Indeed, the department has actually deleted restrictions that once prohibited using stun guns against "restrained, unconscious, non-combative, or otherwise incapacitated persons."

That's scary, because there have been more than 140 post-stun-gun deaths nationwide. Of course, we don't know if Tasers were the cause of death in every incident, but the statistics strongly indicate that, under certain circumstances, these stun guns are simply not the safe, non-lethal weapon that their manufacturer once claimed.

That's why the San Jose Police Department should only use stun guns as an alternative to deadly force. At a minimum, the department should clearly state when stun guns can and can't be used.

The old policy is a good start. Until those guidelines were dropped in June 2004, San Jose police officers could use stun guns only to "incapacitate assaultive or physically resisting persons," as a "defensive weapon," or to prevent someone from being "seriously injured."

San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis says these rules were eliminated because new department policies rely on the individual officer to decide what level of force is appropriate for a situation.

However, the department restricts the use of other law enforcement tools and weapons in its policies. One example is the "WRAP restraint device," whose straps are designed to immobilize a suspect's legs. The department's policy states that the "Use of a WRAP restraint is prohibited on subjects who are not physically violent or physically resisting," which raises the question, if a device made of nylon, Velcro, and steel is considered dangerous enough to be regulated, why not the stun gun?

Here's how the San Jose Police Department could take some reassuring steps to reform its lax Stun-gun policy:

• Someone who is already unconscious or handcuffed should not be shocked with a Taser. This is a no-brainer.
• Any policy must address the danger of repeated stun-gun shocks. Right now, there are no guidelines limiting the number of times a police officer can shock someone with a Taser weapon. Taser International itself states that "repeated, prolonged and/or continuous exposures to the Taser may cause strong muscle contractions that may impair breathing and respiration..." A man died in Vallejo, for example, after being shocked 17 times by police stun guns.
• Unless the situation is life-threatening, children and minors, the elderly and pregnant women should not be shocked with a stun gun. The health hazards are too great.
• Political protesters sometimes engage in passive civil disobedience such as sit-ins. Passive resisters should not be subject to stun-gun shocks.

To his credit, Chief Davis had agreed to collect more information on how his officers are using Tasers. However, expanded data collection is no substitute for sound safeguards. Unless clearer restrictions are put in place, it may be only a matter of time before another sad stun-gun headline hits the papers.