This document discusses research on conducted energy devices (CEDs, commonly known as Tasers) and their impact on police officer injuries. It summarizes two studies that found low rates of officer injury associated with CED use. A study of the Lincoln, Nebraska police department found officers were injured in 4 out of 26 incidents involving CEDs. A study of the Seattle Police Department found officers sustained injuries in only 5% of incidents where a CED was deployed. The document concludes that with their low injury rates for officers, CEDs have become a preferred less-lethal option for gaining control of suspects.

1. 1
Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) and Police Officer Injuries
By: Michael Prokop
CJS 287 Independent Study
Dr. Ingram
Fall 2014

2. 2
Police Discretion in Situations with Use of Force
Police face the issue of use of force every day when they put on their uniform. Different
situations may arise where officers need to gain compliance from unwilling subjects. When this
happens, the police may need to resort to force to take control of the situation. The officers may
use physical force or weapons based tactics. The tool an officer uses depends on the kind of
situation they are facing. If the situation is extremely dangerous and deadly force must be used,
police officers use their firearm. In non-deadly situations, police officers can use their baton,
pepper spray or the tool that is the main focus of this paper, a conducted energy device (CED) or
more commonly known as the Taser. CED’s have become very popular among police
departments, but how effective are they? This paper will examine two main issues involving
Tasers. The first issue is related officer injury to use of a CED. This is basically examining the
likelihood of an officer injury as the result of using a CED. This can either be from the device
itself, the device failing to work or the device being ineffective on the suspect or criminal. The
second issue will address the effectiveness of CED’s when being used on criminals or suspects.
Before looking into these two issues, it is important to understand the background on CEDs and
how they function.
Background

3. 3
Conductive energy devices (CEDs) , commonly referred to as a Taser, are being used by
law enforcement agencies throughout the USA as a less lethal use-of-force method of gaining
control of suspects, especially those possessing a weapon, displaying physical aggression,
showing non-compliance and verbal resistance, or being disorderly while under the influence of
illicit drugs (Annest, Haileyesus & Mercy, 2011). Approximately thirty five years ago, NASA
scientist Jack Cover developed the TASER, an acronym for a device used by the hero in the 1911
fictional adventure story, “Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle.” Its technology was basically
unnoticed for the first decade. Most likely, the public would have been unaware of these devices
prior to 2000 had it not been for the infamous Rodney King incident which brought widespread
media attention to the Los Angeles Police Department’s use of a conducted energy device
(Frasier, 2005).
There are competitors to TASER, including Stinger Systems and and Law Enforcement
Associates, but TASER dominates the market, with approximately ninety-five percent of stun
device sales in the United States (Ready & White, 2007). More than 11,000 US law enforcement
agencies (mainly police departments but also prison and jail agencies) are reported to use Tasers
or similar devices (Amnesty, 2007).
The use of CED’s and Tasers has been on the rise in the past decade. Tasers have been in
use for over twenty years by law enforcement agencies. However, earlier versions of the device
were widely seen as unreliable and not very accurate. In addition, the optimal distance for use
was short, about six feet. The M26 Taser is intended to provide officers with a force option to
help in overcoming a subject’s combative intent, physical resistance, and/or assaultive behavior;

4. 4
in disabling or subduing persons bent on harming themselves or others; or in providing self-
defense (SPD 2002).
When an officer decides the use of a Taser is necessary in that particular situation, the
officer will go to their duty belt and take out the Taser. Now the officer has to decide how they
are going to use the Taser because it has two functions. CEDs can be used in ‘drive stun’ mode
(i.e., directly pressing against the subject) or ‘projectile/probe mode (i.e., two barbed probes are
projected into the subject and energy is transferred). When the CED is activated, the police
version delivers a five second, pulsed discharge with up to fifty-thousand volts which indices
involuntary muscle contractions that temporarily incapacitate a suspect (Annest, Haileyesus &
Mercy, 2011). The Taser is laser-sited and uses cartridges attached to the end of the barrel. The
cartridges project a pair of prongs or darts on copper wires over distances from roughly six to
twenty-one feet. Without these cartridges, the Taser can function as contact stun device (SPD
2002). What makes Tasers unique is that the effects disappear after the five second charge.
While Tasers are not risk-free, they pose fewer risks than the application of physical force or
chemical spray because Tasers may be used up to twenty-one feet away and cause few side
effects when used (Schatmeier, 2012). However, there are some instances in which Tasers have
been associated with death for some unfortunate suspects. From June 2001 to 30 September
2007, Amnesty International has recorded more than 290 deaths of individuals in the USA and
Canada struck by police Tasers (Amnesty, 2007).
If a police officer wants to carry a CED on their duty belt while in service, they must first
have the weapon be used on them. They must go through extensive training with the Taser and
they have to experience the effects the Taser has on the human body so they do not overdue the
force to the victim. This hopefully reduces the number of death used by Tasers. On the other

5. 5
hand Taser International, the main manufacturer of CEDs, claims that police departments have
seen a decrease in officer and suspect injury rates after the introduction of the Taser. Research on
CEDs has been mostly descriptive and few studies have examined the relationship between
CEDs and injuries (Taylor & Woods, 2010). The main purpose of this paper is to look at the
injury rates and effectiveness of the Taser. There has been research that presents information on
officer and suspect rate of injury and how it has decreased once the Taser was introduced.
However, this article’s main focus is to dig deeper and examine the injury rate and effectiveness
with the use of a Taser or when a Taser was used in a citizen encounter. Tasers are still relatively
new and there could still be improvement to them in the future. Now that there is a basic
understanding of Tasers and how they function, we will now examine officer injury rates and the
overall success rate when a Taser is used in police-citizen encounters.
Use of CED and Officer Related Injuries
Police officers have one of the most dangerous jobs and maintaining their safety is a key
goal of this profession. Police officers are also one of the only professions where they are legally
allowed to use physical force when dealing with citizen encounters. When officers are faced with
a situation where regular physical force is not enough to detain a suspect, they can use tools on
their duty belt such as a baton or knight stick, pepper spray, a firearm or the focus of this study, a
CED or Taser. CEDs have been at the center of public controversy, driven largely by concerns
over citizen safety. On the other hand, police agencies generally perceive CEDs as a safe
alternative to other means of control in terms of reducing police injuries, as officers can use them

6. 6
at greater distances other than hands-on tactics, prevent longer physical struggles, and do not
have to worry about potential contamination to themselves (Ingram, Paoline, Terrill, 2012).
However, the question remains of how often are officers injured in situations where a CED was
used. Good officer training on how to use a CED can prevent injuries, along with strong safety
training.
In a study conducted with the Lincoln Nebraska Police Department, there were twenty
six different instances where a Taser was used on a citizen. Out of those twenty six encounters,
the officer was injured only four times. Along with those four instances of the officer being
injured, there were three times where another officer was injured during an encounter with a
CED (DeLone & Thompson, 2009). However, it is hard to draw conclusions from this data. They
are only measuring a few instances; twenty six times cannot be enough to make a generalized
statement about if CEDs are dangerous. The information is also not known on what exactly
happened during the encounter. There is data that describes whether the citizen was violent,
intoxicated, didn’t listen to commands, etc. but it does not indicate which times the officer was
injured. The authors of this study state that police use of force was not a problem with this
department and one could partially agree with that statement. Four officers were injured out of
twenty six instances. Twenty six cases is a good starting point to investigate this topic, but it is
not enough.
A similar study was conducted at the Seattle Police Department. The Mayor wanted to
implement the use of less lethal force within the department, and the Taser was then introduced.
This study lasted a year and the results are from the first year that is less lethal force initiative
was introduced. One hundred and thirty six M-26 Tasers were deployed among the Patrol
officers of the Seattle Police Department. In eighty-seven percent of the instances, there was no

7. 7
officer injury. In thirteen percent of the incidents, officers sustained injuries prior to the Taser
being applied. In only five percent of the incidents were there officer injuries after Taser
deployment or directly related to its use. In all cases, the injuries to officers were minor (SPD,
2002). The lessons learned from this study are that the Taser has a very low injury rate, which
makes it much appreciated among officers. These statistics are why there has been a rise in the
use of Tasers over the past twenty years. With this low rate of injuries, the police and the public
have both been in favor for the use of CEDs.
The Cincinnati Police Department also did research similar to the Seattle Police
Department’s study. Once the Cincinnati Police Department fully implemented its use of Tasers,
the department lowered officer injuries by fifty six percent and suspect injuries by thirty five
percent. Along with decreased suspect and officer injuries, citizen satisfaction also improved
with the department. Citizen complaints spiked seven hundred and eighty two and slowly
dropped over four years to only sixty-four after the Taser program was implemented (Schatmeier
2012).
Relating to this study, another study was conducted that showed statistics before and after
Taser use was implemented. A quasi-experimental evaluation in Police Quarterly compared
officer injury and officers seeking medical attention with use of force before CED
implementation and after CED implementation. In the pre-CED implementation, there was no
real difference between officers injured in force cases. However, sites where a CED was used
showed a reduction in officer injuries, which was 8.3 percent while non-CED sites showed an
increase in officer injuries to 20.3 percent. The statistics are also very similar for officer medical
attention. CED sites dropped from 13.2 percent to 7.5 percent, while medical attention rose from
3.5 percent to 15.9 percent after CED use was no longer a part of the department (Taylor,

8. 8
Woods, 2010). The statistics with this study were a bit confusing at first, but after understanding
the research it shows that when a department implemented CED use, there was a significant drop
in officer injury. When the department did not implement CED use, their injury rates rose. It
appears that these studies are showing that officer injuries are relatively low and CEDs used
during use of force encounters with citizens lessen the chance of officer injuries, but there is a
study that states otherwise.
There was a study conducted that examined two police departments, the Richland County
Sheriff’s Department and the Miami-Dade Police Department, and compared their data. The
Miami-Dade Police Department found that the use of CEDs was associated with reductions in
injury to both officers and suspects. This department’s use of CEDs was also linked with
reductions to both minor and major injuries. The Richland County Sheriff’s Department had
different findings. The research showed that that CED use was not associated with a significant
reduction in injuries. (Alpert, Kaminski, Mathis, Smith & Rojek, 2007). The one variable that
stood out from this was the Richland County Sheriff’s Department had access to OC spray while
the Miami-Dade Police Department did not. The Richland County Sheriff’s Department had a
long use of OC spray as a type of use of force. OC Spray is another topic that has been widely
discussed with officer and suspect injury, but the main focus of this research study is on CEDs. If
the Richland County Sheriff’s Department did not have the option of OC spray, their statistics
with officer and suspect injury with CED used may have lowered, but one cannot draw
conclusions like that.
Most of these studies above only focus on one or two police departments. Along with
only focusing on a small number, some of the studies were conducted during the first few years
of CED use. This last article out of Police Quarterly examines use of force incidents across six

9. 9
different law enforcement agencies. This study looks at over 12,000 use of force incidents. For
the purpose of this article, CED will be the main focus. What also makes this study unique is it
not only looks at officer injury after CED use, but it also examines officer injury after CED use
with other force after. This study resulted in four clear findings which match the studies above.
First, officers experienced a significantly lower probability of injury when using a CED only
compared to instances when no CED was used. On the other hand, if officers ended up using a
CED with another form of force, the risk of injury was greatly enhanced as much as four to five
times more likely. Second, when CED-only cases were compared directly to cases involving
hands-on tactics, we again found a reduced likelihood of officer injury. Third, the probability of
officer injury was similar when comparing cases where a CED was used alone to those cases
where another weapon was used alone (Paoline, Terrill & Ingram, 2012). The main argument the
experiment showed was that an officer has an increased probability of being injured when going
hands on with a subject. Using a CED reduces their chance of injury but if they add more force
to that, their probability of being injured then increases.
Most of the studies above share similar findings and will be discussed in the conclusion.
The second portion of this article is now going to focus on the effectiveness of CEDs. An officer
can use a CED to prevent himself from risking an injury, but how effective are CEDs when used
by officers? This next section will explain this question.
CED Effectiveness

10. 10
A common question that is asked is when is it appropriate to use a CED or Taser?
According to White and Ready, there is no consensus that exists among police agencies
regarding where the Taser should be placed on the force continuum” (p.75, 2010). Another
controversial issue is who should the Taser be used on/who it shouldn’t be used on? Is it right to
use a Taser on a pregnant woman or a child? These are the types of questions that officers have
to deal with on a daily basis. However, the most important question is if the Taser is successful
in effectively controlling the suspect or not. For example, White and Ready mention a case in
their 2010 article in Crime and Delinquency where in December 2005, Nashville, Tennessee,
police officers used the Taser 19 times on a combative suspect before they were able to take him
into custody (p.71). The CED was eventually successful in controlling the suspect, but it took
nineteen attempts to do so. White and Ready in this same article did a study with the New York
Police Department. They examined all Taser incidents involving police officers from the New
York Police Department from January 2002 through December 2005. In 19.3% of the cases, the
Taser was deployed more than once. However, reasons for more than one deployment are
unknown. This could range from either the Taser did not work or the officer missed hitting the
subject with the darts or prongs. In 319 cases, the suspect was incapacitated 277 times while
there were 42 cases where the subject was not. In 319 cases, the suspected continued to resist in
116 of those cases while there were 235 cases where the subject did not continue to resist.
Finally out of 347 cases, the officer reported to be satisfied with the Taser in 273 of those cases
(White & Ready, 2010). There are numerous factors that can be attributed to why the Taser did
work on a subject or did not work. Their body weight, drug and alcohol use, violent behavior,
and the distance between the responding officer and the suspect could all have an effect on the

11. 11
Taser’s effectiveness. However, the Taser did prove to work in 86% of the cases which is pretty
high. That is the reason why the Taser has been adopted among numerous agencies over the past
half-century. This was only one department, so this data can’t be generalized for all departments
and their Taser effectiveness.
An article from Police Quarterly 2010 measured three levels of effectiveness. The article
measures the effectiveness to incapacitate a potentially violent individual, the reduction in police
officer injuries, and the effectiveness of CEDs in reducing instances of lethal force. All three of
these are strong examples of Taser effectiveness. The data was extracted from the Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Report from the northeast, midwest,
south and west regions of the United States. Only municipal police departments with more than
100 sworn officers were included. The departments were given a survey where they had to fill
out numerous questions regarding CEDs and use of force. “56% of responding departments
reported that the use of lethal force was subjectively assessed as being less frequent after the
adoption of CEDs in their agency” (p.302). “The majority of departments adopted CEDs
principally to reduce injuries to officers (95%) and actively resisting subjects (94%)” (p.306).
The findings from this study also indicated that CED training was linked to reductions in lethal
force. (Collins, Lovrich & Thomas, 2010). Although this article does not present any empirical
evidence about the effectiveness of Tasers, it gives us a good understanding on the opinions of
the officers that use them. The officers surveyed found them to be effective in reducing one of
the most controversial issues in modern policing today, use of lethal force. The main reason the
Tasers were adopted was to reduce officer injuries and that data was discussed earlier in this
paper. This article should have included some statistics from cases where a Taser was used in
these departments. This could link the opinions to statistics and make this article more useful for

12. 12
future research. I included this article because I found it interesting to see opinions form an
officer’s view.
There have been numerous studies measuring officer injury related to CED use. Mainly
because departments want to know if using this is practical and will help their officers on the
streets stay safe. What most of these articles didn’t include is how effective were the Tasers
when an officer usesd them. White and Ready discuss true stories about the effectiveness of
Tasers in their article in Police Quarterly in 2007. They reference the Rodney King case, which
was mentioned earlier in this article, and how officers struck him more than fifty times with their
batons after using a Taser. In San Jose in 2004, a police officer was forced to shoot and kill a
combative subject after the officer had already “tased” the suspect twice. Although these cases
suggest that Tasers are not always effective, there is currently little empirical evidence
concerning the effectiveness of the Taser. This study yielded some interesting results. The
overall “effectiveness” can be measured in different ways. This study found that 85% of subjects
were subdued by the Taser and taken into custody. In one third of those cases, the suspect
continued resistance against the officer after being struck by the Taser. That can be measured in
two ways: the suspect was not incapacitated by the weapon, which happened in 33 of the 39
cases, and the subject was initially incapacitated by the Taser but then continued to resist while
the officer was on the ground trying to gain control of them, which happened 39 out of the 72
times. 80% of officers were satisfied with their Tasers’ performance, while 20% stated the Taser
performed poorly. Overall, the study found that the Taser had a 86% success rate (White &
Ready,2007).
The study above mentioned some ways effectiveness could be measured, but a study
conducted by Telemasp Bulletin focused on another type. The study above measure the CED’s

13. 13
effectiveness after it had been used while this study examines the CED’s deployment
effectiveness. According to the Telemasp Bulletin, rarely does a malfunction occur when a Taser
is deployed. Forty-seven percent of the agencies reported no malfunctions, and 39% reported a
malfunction in 5% or less of the deployments. The remaining 14% of the agencies reported a
malfunction 10% of the time. The failure of the failure of the Taser’s probes or darts to be
effective in making sufficient contact with the subject occurs more often than a malfunction.
Thirty-four percent of the agencies reported a failure in 1 to 5% of the deployments, 38%
reported a failure in 6 to 10% of the deployments, and 7% reported a failure in 11-15% of the
deployments. There was also one agency that reported a failure rate of 20% while another agency
reported a failure rate of 25% (Frasier, 2005). When a Taser does not deploy correctly, this
forces the officer to use another type of force which could increase their likelihood of suffering
an injury. An officer has to rely on his tools working effectively, but as this study has shown, an
officer should always be ready for anything because clearly they do not work 100% of the time.
Effectiveness could also be measured in another way; this being death. There is no
research clearly stating that a person died as a direct result of the Taser, but there have been
instances where a person died after a Taser was used on them. As referenced earlier in this paper,
Amnesty International reported that from June 2011 to September 30th
2007, there were 290
deaths of individuals in the United States and Canada that were struck by a Taser. Amnesty
International did a thorough investigation about these subjects that died after being tased. Most
of the individuals that died were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs or had an underlying
health problem such as heart disease. Amnesty International has found that in 20 cases, a Taser
served as or was a contributory factor in the cause of death. Amnesty International has
recognized that Tasers are a less lethal use of force, but one of their main concerns is that it is

14. 14
still a powerful weapon and could be used with the simple touch of a button. Amnesty also found
that in most of the cases where an individual died, they were tased more than one time. The
Taser was successful in controlling the subject and no subject died immediately after the Taser
was used. Most of the subjects experienced cardiac arrest or respiratory arrest at the scene, even
if death was pronounced later at the hospital.
Relating to this study above, The Journal of Forensic Sciences published an article in
November 2012 about the effects of the Taser after it was effective in controlling the subject.
This article studied four main concepts: the effect a Taser has on the cardiovascular system, the
muscular system, the neuroendocrine system and mechanical injuries the Taser may cause. In
regards to the cardio vascular system, research has shown that the CED creates relevant minor
current and essentially longer impulse duration, which does not have a direct influence on the
heart rhythm. There have been various research results that claim a CED exhibits a reasonable
degree of cardiac safety with no potential of inducing ventricular fibrillation. When examining
the muscular system, “it can be said that electronic control device exposure can lead to modest
increase in creatine kinase without a risk of developing rhabdomyolysis” (p. 1592). This is
basically stating that there have been few cases where a CED causes a potential muscle injury,
however there is an increased chance of it happening and it rarely happens. The relation of the
CED with the neuroendocrine system is similar to the other two above. “But compared to the
commonly employed uses of force, the examined literature asserts that an application of CEWs
can function as a stressor and therefor influence the human stress response, but only to a degree
where no important changes in vital signs are to be expected (p.1593). A CEW is this case stands
for “conduced energy weapon.” This is saying that the CEW will cause stress levels to rise, but
not to a dangerous level. The last subject examined was mechanical injuries as a result from the

15. 15
Taser. When a CED is used, it fires two darts or prongs into the skin. The other way it can be
used is in drive stun mode where the device makes contact with the body and implements an
electrical charge. When these prongs or darts make contact with the skin, they leave a puncture
wound on the skin and may cause some minor burns. CED darts or prongs should only be
removed by medical staff to make sure there are no further injuries. If a dart or prong makes
contact with the suspect’s genetalia or eye, they may need to be removed at a hospital. When a
prong or dart makes contact with the suspect and it works effectively, the suspect usually falls
uncontrollably to the ground. This can result in internal bleeding or bone fractures (Fiesler,
Graw, Kunz, Peschel, & Zinka, 2012). Out of the four areas examined in this article, this is the
one that needs more research conducted. In these cases, the Taser was effective in controlling
the suspect, but it is the after effects that are examined. The Taser was effective in gaining
control, but sometimes it is ineffective in not injuring the subject. This is one flaw with the Taser
and more research is needed in this area.
Conclusion
When studying use of CEDs and officer injury versus CED effectiveness, there was much
more research involving CEDs and officer injury. An obvious reason for this is to make sure that
the Tasers are safe to use for the officer and the subjects they are using them on. As much of the
data in this article has shown, Tasers are a more effective, less lethal use of force option. When
compared to other devices such as OC spray or batons, the Taser had the lowest risk for injury.
Many studies conducted were involving Taser data with the first year it was implemented. As

16. 16
stated above, the Taser has gained popularity among almost all police departments. Many
questions surrounded whether it was safe to use and if it was safe to use on subjects.
There were some limitations on the data with CED and officer injury. For instance, many
studies did not specify what kind of injury the officer succumbed from the Taser. It doesn’t also
specify what the Taser did that caused an injury to the officer. There were also many studies that
only measured a small amount of Taser cases. If a study measured only a few cases with a Taser,
generalization for Taser safety can’t be used. Studies also only measured the first few years when
a Taser was implemented. Almost all of the studies showed that officer injury decreased after the
implementation of Tasers in the department. More research could be conducted involving
statistics of officer injuries in the following years after the CED was implemented.
Finding data on Taser effectiveness was very challenging. There was not a lot of research
conducted about this topic and coming up with a definition of what “effectiveness” means was
different in all the studies. Effectiveness ranged from if the Taser functioned correctly, if the
Taser was effective after it struck the subject, etc. When I first started this independent study, I
thought it was going to be easy to find information on Taser effectiveness and I was wrong.
There is a need for more research surrounding this topic. Along with more research, there needs
to be a clear definition of what exactly is “effectiveness” when it relates to Tasers.
Overall, I am pretty convinced that Tasers are a great tool for law enforcements and other
related agencies. There have been statistics that have shown that they lower injury rates are a less
lethal tool. Their favorability and approval have gone up and are being used in almost every
agency today. Nothing in this world is perfect, so Tasers and not going to work 100% of the
time. However, the negative data on Taser usage is relatively low. There still needs to be more
research on the effectiveness aspect of Tasers, along with more data relating to officer injuries.

17. 17
If I were to suggest a topic for future research, I would suggest they researchers examine
a few things. They should look at numerous cases from different agencies over the world that
uses a Taser or CED. They would first examine cases where a Taser was used on a subject. The
data would show if the Taser was effective in controlling the suspect or not. At the same time,
whether the officer was injured while using the CED should be examined. If the suspect was not
affected by the CED, the next area examined should be if the officer was then injured after the
initial CED shock was delivered. This could be from either the Taser malfunctioning or physical
injury from the suspect. The characteristics of the subject should also be measured. Some
examples are of the subject is mentally ill, if they are intoxicated or on any drugs, their body type
and weight, gender, etc. Most studies I examined did take this into consideration, but the area I
think researchers should focus on next is if the CED was effective or not, and did this then lead
to injuries to the officer. Injuries to the officer before the use of CED should also be recorded so
injuries pre and post Taser implementation do not get mixed up.
I found this independent study to be fun and challenging at the same time. I was excited
when I first chose this topic but I didn’t realize how difficult it would be to find information on
Taser effectiveness. I thought it was going to be a lot easier to find effectiveness data than officer
injury data, but I was wrong and that was switched. I am hopeful that there will be more research
one day that combines both of the topics I chose to talk about. I believe that it is an important
issue and should not be ignored by criminal justice and law enforcement personnel.

18. 18
Work Cited
(2002). The M26 Taser Year One Implementation. SPD Special Report, 1-18.

19. 19
(2007). Amnesty International’s concerns about Taser®1 use: Statement to the U.S. Justice
Department inquiry into deaths in custody. Amnesty International, 1-7.
Alpert, G. P., Kaminski, R. J., Mathis, J., Rojek, J., Smith, M. R. (2007). The impact of
conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect
injuries. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30 (3),
423-446. DOI 10.1108/13639510710778822
Annest, J. L., Haileyesus, T., Mercy, J. A. (2011). Non-fatal conductive energy device-related
injuries treated in US emergency departments, 2005-2008. Injury Prevention, 17, 127-
130. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.028704
Collins, P. A., Lovrich, N. P., Thomas, K. J. (2010). Conducted Energy Device Use in Municipal
Policing: Results of a National Survey on Policy and Effectiveness Assesments. Police
Quartely, 13(3), 290-315. DOI: 10.1177/1098611110373995
DeLone, G. J., Thompson, L. M. (2009). The application and use of TASERs by a Midwestern
police agency. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 11(4), 414-428.
DOI: 10.1350

20. 20
Frasier, M. L. (2005). The Use of Conducted Energy Devices (Tasers). Telemasp Bulletin, 12(6),
1-10.
Graw, M., Fieseler, S., Kunz, S. N., Peschel, O., Zinka, B. (2012). Functioning and Effectiveness
of Electronic Control Devices Such as the Taser M- and X-Series: A Review of the
Current Literature. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57(6), 1591-1594. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-
4029.2012.02167.x
Ingram, J. R., Paoline, E. A., Terrill, W. (2012). Police Use of Force and Officer Injuries:
Comparing Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) to Hands-and Weapon-Based Tactics.
Police Quarterly, 15(2), 115-136. DOI: 10.1177/1098611112442807
Schatmeier, E, H. (2013). Reforming Police Use-of-Force Practices: A Case Study of the
Cincinnati Police Department. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 46, 539-
587.
Ready, J., White, M. D. (2007). The TASER as a Less Lethal Force Alternative: Findings on Use
and Effectiveness in a Large Metropolitan Police Agency. Police Quarterly, 10(2), 170-
191. DOI: 10.1177/1098611106288915

21. 21
Ready, J., White, M. D. (2010). The Impact of the Taser on Suspect Resistance: Identifying
Predictors of Effectiveness. Crime and Delinquency, 56(1), 70-102.
DOI:10.1177/0011128707308099
Taylor, B., Woods, D. J. (2010). Injuries to Officers and Suspects in Police Use of-Force Cases:
A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation. Police Quarterly, 13(3), 260-289. DOI:
10.1177/1098611110373994