In the six years since a Maui woman was zapped by a stun gun, prompting a lawsuit that stopped just short of the U.S. Supreme Court, incidents and guidelines involving the weapon’s use have proliferated. Clarity from the high court on appropriate stun-gun use would have been welcome, but it recently declined to hear the case. Still, rulings in that suit and a similar one from Seattle clearly send the message that police departments here and nationwide can be sued for misuse of this potentially deadly weapon, so they had better adopt and apply clear and strict guidelines for its use.
Stun guns "should be used only against subjects who are exhibiting active aggression" or resisting in a way that could cause injuries, the U.S. Department of Justice said in guidelines last year. When used on a fleeing subject, "the severity of the offense, (and) threat level to others" should be considered, the guidelines say.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police, in April 2005, urged law enforcement to apply caution in developing policies for use of stun guns. The controversial Maui incident occurred the following year. A 43-year-old woman was stunned at her home by Maui police after she bumped into an officer as she tried to prevent the arrest of her husband following a domestic incident.
A 10-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in November 2011 that the woman’s constitutional rights may have been violated. However, the panel ruled that the Maui police were immune from her excessive-use claims in federal court because the law on the use of stun guns — produced by Taser International Inc. — was unclear at the time.
In the other case, in 2004, a Seattle woman who told police she was seven months pregnant refused to get out of her car and a police officer applied the Taser three times within a minute before pulling her out of the car and arresting her. The woman endured small scars and her child was born healthy, but she may sue the officers in state court. As in the Maui case, the Circuit Court panel determined that the officers had immunity in federal court.
Even as the use of stun guns has gained popularity among law enforcement, it has been controversial in some regions. The New York Civil Liberties Union reports that about a dozen people have died in that state after being shocked with stun guns.
A recent study concluded that police use of Tasers, which produce an electrical charge of up to 50,000 volts, increases the risk of injuries for those stung by them. While increasing risk to citizens, they provide safety to police when used as the only method of restraint.
Daniel Gluck, a senior staff attorney of the American Civil Rights Union of Hawaii, interprets the high court’s decision to decline the Maui case as affirmation "that clear guidelines exist to prevent law enforcement from using a Taser — a potentially deadly weapon — unless someone is in danger."
Upon buying Tasers seven years ago, the Hono-lulu Police Department prudently approved guidelines allowing their use on people who are "potentially violent or engaged in active resistance," meaning the person "physically counteracts" and risks injury to the officer.
Indeed, in the midst of a volatile situation, police must rely on their best judgment, sometimes in a split-second.
All the more reason for tight guidelines and policies to be drilled and reinforced in officers so that weapons like the Taser are not misused and police departments don’t become the targets of lawsuits.
