Volume 35, No. 2 - March/April 2005 Campus Law ... - IACLEA

The Use of Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices (EMDs) in Higher Education Law Enforcement
Continued from page 30
resists arrest and attempts to injure law
enforcement officers. How appropriate
are the following responses on the part
of the police?” Each student was then
given a 9 point Likert-type scale to reply
for each listed officer response, with 1
being “very appropriate,” and 9 being
“very inappropriate.” The use of a Taser
was rated as 3.66, while use of baton,
beanbag, chokehold, and strike with the
hand all rated higher. The only response
by the officer that students rated as more
appropriate than the Taser was the use of
“mace” or “pepper spray” (see Figure 1).
On the other hand, UCFPD administrators
knew that the campus community
was not acting in a vacuum. Local sheriff’s
departments and police departments
were also adopting the use of EMDs by
patrol officers. Local newspapers were
quick to report on use of EMD incidents,
and the Orange County Sheriff’s office
experienced several in-custody deaths
after the use of an EMD. None of these
deaths, however, were determined by
medical examiners to be shock-induced.
This alone, however, led to an increase
in concern by the community regarding
the use of these weapons.
Communities may also be interested
in additional information available on
EMDs. Police departments have reported
a significant fall in police shootings following
the introduction of EMDs to officers’
less-than-lethal alternatives. According
to Amnesty International (2004), the
Phoenix (Arizona) Police Department “announced
that officer-involved shootings
had fallen by 54% from 28 in 2002 to 13
in 2003, with fatal shootings down from
13 to 9 during the same period, the lowest
number since 1990.” Amnesty International
is quick to point out, however,
that they feel that police in the United
States overuse and abuse EMDs.
Agencies should also consider several policy
issues when deciding whether or not to
implement use of EMDs on their campus.
Justifications for Use
Documented UCFPD use of force reports
indicate that the Taser (June 2003-December
2003) had been discharged by
the police department six times, and each
was found to be in accordance with policy.
In addition, there were (June 2003-December
2003) twelve “non-activated deployments”
(where the Taser was removed
from the holster, laser activated,
and pointed at a suspect but not discharged).
In the entire 2004 calendar year
(January-December), there were three
discharges and five non-activated deployments.
So far for 2005 (January data only),
one discharge has taken place.
In examination of UCFPD use of force
reports, from implementation in 2003 to
January 2005, officers were justified to
use deadly force in several situations (for
example when officers confront suspects
armed with knives and crowbars). The
use of force reports also indicated that
these suspects tended to be intoxicated
by alcohol and/or drugs, and several had
mental illness related problems. The officers
involved in these scenarios opted
to use the EMD in these circumstances,
possibly sparing a life they otherwise may
have legally taken.
The trend delineated in the UCFPD
reports, regarding EMDs, has been the
combination of strong verbal commands
accompanied with a warning of deployment,
and laser contact (amber laser connection
from EMD to the suspect). This
resulted in suspect compliance nearly
50% of the time, and the EMD not having
to be discharged. The value of the
EMD as a deterrent weapon has become
vastly recognized in the UCF community,
due to both UCFPD and local agency use.
Policy Implications and Conclusion
When discussing policy issues, it is imperative
to note that the UCFPD initially
placed EMDs at level 3 (active physical
resistance) on the use of force continuum;
repeatedly stressing to officers that presence
and strong verbal commands are still
the best practice for compliance. Examination
of the UCFPD records indicate that
the 2003 implementation of EMDs into
the less-than-lethal force alternatives for
police officers saw a reduction in the use
of OC spray and near zero use of the
expandable baton.
In late 2004, Orlando area law enforcement
agencies made a consolidated stand
to place EMDs at level 4 (active physical
resistance). This change was a result of
numerous negative media and public concerns
regarding EMD use and in-custody
deaths following discharge. Though these
incidents were not related to UCF, area
complaints were waged by citizens against
EMD use in situations involving very
young and very old suspects. Understanding
that negative media events may affect
community relations is imperative
when considering EMD use on a college
campus, even when a deployment decision
may have been rationally sound.
In UCFPD’s incorporation of Tasers
into their use of force policy, local Emergency
Medical Technicians (EMT) units
were consulted for recommendations
regarding the removal of “barbs” from
Tased suspects. It was determined that
the removal of Taser barbs from a suspect
can be conducted by the officer by
spreading the skin with the thumb and
index finger and pulling out the barb. EMTs
should be summoned to the scene for barb
removal only if the barbs strike critical areas
(any location in the head or groin).
The UCFPD policy also requires that
daily inspections (at shift briefings) are
conducted on each issued Taser to ensure
that the recommended battery charge
is maintained. This act is now an inspection
routine. Additionally, the department
felt that it did not make sense to issue
Tasers only to supervisors (who were the
least likely to need an immediate less-thanlethal
force alternative), so Tasers were issued
to all sworn officers. In addition,
UCFPD has not issued Tasers to non-sworn
Community Service Officers (CSOs).
If the EMD is utilized in the field, in a
use of force situation, university police
department policy requires that the Taser
be immediately given to the Training
Sergeant. A written computer download
record must also accompany each use of
force report completed by the officer
who discharged the device. This procedure
may assist in liability reduction and
acts as a record to assure officers compliance
and citizen safety from claims of
brutality. Officers’ must then submit the
spent cartridge to procurement in order
to receive a replacement.
Continued on page 32
MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 31