Advertisement

Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 203–207 | Cite as

Incapacitation recovery times from a conductive electrical weapon exposure

  • John C. Criscione
  • Mark W. KrollEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Law enforcement officers expect that a TASER® CEW (Conducted Electrical Weapon) broad-spread probe exposure will temporarily incapacitate a subject who will then be able to immediately (~1 s delay) recover motor control in order to comply with commands. However, this recovery time has not been previously reported.

Methods

A total of 32 police academy students were exposed to a very broad-spread 5 s CEW stimulus as part of their training and told to depress a push-button as soon as they sensed the stimulus. A subgroup also depressed the push-button after being alerted by an audio stimulus.

Results

The response time after the audio trigger was 1.05 ± 0.25 s; the median was 1.04 s (range 0.69–1.34 s). For the paired CEW triggered group the mean response time was 1.41 ± 0.61 s with a median of 1.06 s (range 0.92–2.18 s), which was not statistically different. Only 2/32 subjects were able to depress the button during the CEW exposure and with delays of 3.09 and 4.70 s from the start. Of the remaining 30 subjects the mean response time to execute the task (once the CEW exposure ended) was 1.27 ± 0.58 s with a median of 1.19 s (range 0.31–2.99 s) (NS vs. the audio trigger).

Conclusions

With a very-broad electrode spread, a CEW exposure could prevent or delay some purposeful movements. Normal reaction times appear to return immediately (~1 s) after the CEW exposure ceases.

Keywords

Force TASER Weapon CEW ECD ESW CED Law enforcement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The analysis was conducted for the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program by The Texas Engineering Extension Service and The Texas Engineering Experiment Station (Department of Biomedical Engineering), both within the Texas A&M University System.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial involvement with the Funding agency. MWK has financial involvement with the CEW manufacturer but they had no financial involvement in either the study or the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Chan T, Sloane C, Neuman T, Levine S, Castillo E, Vilke G, et al. The impact of the taser weapon on respiratory and ventilatory function in human subjects. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14:191–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dawes DM, Ho JD, Johnson MA, Lundin E, Janchar TA, Miner JR. 15-Second conducted electrical weapon exposure does not cause core temperature elevation in non-environmentally stressed resting adults. Forensic Sci Int. 2008;176(2–3):253–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dawes DM, Ho JD, Reardon RF, Miner JR. The cardiovascular, respiratory, and metabolic effects of a long duration electronic control device exposure in human volunteers. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2010;6(4):268–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ho JD, Dawes DM, Chang RJ, Nelson RS, Miner JR. Physiologic effects of a new-generation conducted electrical weapon on human volunteers. J Emerg Med. 2014;46(3):428–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ho JD, Dawes DM, Heegaard WG, Calkins HG, Moscati RM, Miner JR. Absence of electrocardiographic change after prolonged application of a conducted electrical weapon in physically exhausted adults. J Emerg Med. 2011;41(5):466–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ho JD, Dawes DM, Nelson RS, Lundin EJ, Ryan FJ, Overton KG, et al. Acidosis and catecholamine evaluation following simulated law enforcement “use of force” encounters. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(7):e60–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ho JD, Dawes DM, Reardon RF, Strote SR, Kunz SN, Nelson RS, et al. Human cardiovascular effects of a new generation conducted electrical weapon. Forensic Sci Int. 2011;204(1–3):50–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levine SD, Sloane CM, Chan TC, Dunford JV, Vilke GM. Cardiac monitoring of human subjects exposed to the TASER. J Emerg Med. 2007;33(2):113–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sloane CM, Chan TC, Levine SD, Dunford JV, Neuman T, Vilke GM. Serum troponin I measurement of subjects exposed to the Taser X-26. J Emerg Med. 2008;35(1):29–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vilke G, Chan T, Sloane C, Neuman T, Castillio E, Kolkhorst F. The effect of TASER on cardiac, respiratory and metabolic physiology in human subjects. NIJ Report. 2011. p. 1–28. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236947.pdf.
  11. 11.
    Vilke GM, Sloane C, Levine S, Neuman T, Castillo E, Chan TC. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram monitoring of subjects before and after voluntary exposure to the Taser X26. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(1):1–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vilke GM, Sloane CM, Bouton KD, Kolkhorst FW, Levine SD, Neuman TS, et al. Physiological effects of a conducted electrical weapon on human subjects. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50(5):569–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    MacDonald JM, Kaminski RJ, Smith MR. The effect of less-lethal weapons on injuries in police use-of-force events. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2268–74.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor B, Woods D, Kubu B, Koper C, Tegeler B, Cheney J, et al. Comparing safety outcomes in police use-of-force cases for law enforcement agencies that have deployed conducted energy devices and a matched comparison group that have not: a quasi-experimental evaluation. Police Executive Research Forum. 2009. http://www.policeforum.org/library/use-of-force/CED%20outcomes.pdf.
  15. 15.
    Reilly J, Diamant A, Comeaux J. Dosimetry considerations for electrical stun devices. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:1319–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    White M, Ready J. The TASER as a less lethal force alternative. Findings on use and effectiveness in a large metropolitan police agency. Police Q. 2007;10(2):170–91.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brewer J, Kroll M. Field statistics overview. In: Kroll M, Ho J, editors. TASER conducted electrical weapons: physiology, pathology, and law. New York City: Springer-Kluwer; 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mesloh C, Henych M, Wolf R. Less lethal weapon effectiveness, use of force, and suspect & officer injuries: a five-year analysis. Report to the National Institute of Justice. 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dawes DM, Ho JD, Vincent AS, Nystrom PC, Moore JC, Steinberg LW, et al. The neurocognitive effects of simulated use-of-force scenarios. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2014;10(1):9–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McQueen v. Johnson, 506 Fed. Appx. 909, 913 (C.A.11 (Fla.) 5 Feb 2013.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    State of Louisiana vs. Scott. A. Nugent. Eighth Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana, Parish of Winn. Oct 30, 2010.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ho J, Dawes D, Miner J, Kunz S, Nelson R, Sweeney J. Conducted electrical weapon incapacitation during a goal-directed task as a function of probe spread. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2012;8(4):358–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical EngineeringCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA

Personalised recommendations