![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In 2016, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Armstrong V. Village of Pinehurst that the use of conducted energy devices (CEDs) on resisting but non-violent and stationary defendants was unconstitutional. Because most empirical studies show that the adoption of CEDs led to reductions in suspect and officer injuries, there are concerns that placing greater restrictions on CED use may increase the risk of injuries. Officers may resort to alternative methods of force to gain citizen compliance, including hands-on tactics, batons, and firearms. Findings from an interrupted time-series analysis show significant reductions in CED uses and threats and increases in firearm threats. Interestingly, significant reductions in suspect injuries were also found. Other findings from a survey of large law enforcement agencies that fall within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction to assess the impact of the Court’s decision on policy are presented. Policy implications and future research are discussed.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Other uses of force, such as firearm discharges, pepper spray, and batons, occurred too infrequently for analysis.
2. Although no agencies from West Virginia responded.
3. Reminder cards were mailed to non-respondent’s two weeks after the initial surveys were mailed. Two weeks after the reminder cards we mailed, a second survey was sent to non-respondents. An online survey was also available, whereby consistent email reminders were sent to non-respondents.
4. The Court’s ruling was made on 11 January 2016 and we considered using January as the month. However, we decided to choose February to allow time for law enforcement agencies to consider the impact of the Court’s decision and to make changes in policy and training regarding the use of Tasers.
5. As reviewed by Cameron and Trivedi (2010: 268), several analyses of count time series data found little evidence of serial correlation in residuals. Nevertheless, we reestimated our models using additional lags, but conclusions remained the same. We note also that given the short series there is a point of diminishing return in that for each additional lag included we lose an observation.
6. ‘Other’ could be a state agency or highway patrol.
7. Some force incidents involved both the pointing of one or more Tasers (Taser threat) as well as one or more Taser discharges. These cases were coded as a discharge if at least one officer fired a Taser. If no Taser was discharged, the incident was coded as a Taser threat only. Note that the data did not allow us to distinguish between the use of Tasers in touch-stun vs. dart mode.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Hunter M. Boehme
Hunter M. Boehme is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at North Carolina Central University. He earned his Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal Justice from the University of South Carolina. His interests include police use of force, police-community relations, geospatial crime analysis, and extremism.
Allison Martin
Allison Martin is a Faculty Lecturer in the Department of Justice Studies, San Jose State University. She earned her PhD from The University of South Carolina. Her research examines neighborhood-level effects of policing and has appeared in Police Practice and Research and the Journal of Criminal Justice.
Robert J. Kaminski
Robert J. Kaminski is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina. He earned his PhD from The University at Albany, State University of New York. His research has appeared in a variety of scholarly journals, including American Journal of Public Health, Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and Justice Quarterly.