Security Journal

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 726–748 | Cite as

Smart use of smart weapons: jail officer liability for the inappropriate use of tasers and stun guns on pretrial detainees

  • Vidisha Barua WorleyEmail author
Original Article


The US Supreme Court in Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015) ruled that the use of a taser on a pretrial detainee for not following verbal commands, when the subject was not posing a threat to the security and order of the jail, was objectively unreasonable, unrelated to legitimate penological needs, and that the subjective intent of the officer was not to be taken into consideration. This is a major development in prison law as the US Supreme Court specifically addresses the issue of excessive use of force on pretrial detainees, who are distinct from prison inmates. Here, the objective reasonableness standard used in Graham v. Connor (1989) for excessive use of force by the police was applied to pretrial detainees instead of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause, thus clearly distinguishing pretrial detainees from those already convicted of crimes. Besides this decision, this paper looks at 10 Federal Circuit Court and US District Court cases involving the use of tasers and stun guns by jail officials on pretrial detainees and concludes that more emphasis on the use-of-force continuum or model, during jail officer training would go a long way in guiding in the appropriate use of tasers and stun guns, an intermediate and not an insignificant level of force, in keeping with the US Supreme Court ruling in Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015).


Taser Use-of-force Pretrial detainees Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015) 


  1. Alpert, G. P., M.R. Smith, R.J. Kaminski, L.A. Fridell, J. MacDonald, and B. Kubu. 2011. Police use of force, tasers and other less-lethal weapons. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice. Accessed 26 January 2017.
  2. Barua, V., and R.M. Worley. 2009. Jailhouse shock: An examination of legal issues involving the use of tasers and stun guns on pretrial detainees. Corrections Compendium 34 (2): 9–15.Google Scholar
  3. Bell v. Wolfish. 1979. 441 U.S. 520.Google Scholar
  4. Brown v. Cwynar. 2012. 484 Fed. Appx. 676 (3d Cir.).Google Scholar
  5. Bryan v. McPherson. 2010. 630 F. 3d 805 (9th Cir.).Google Scholar
  6. Cabral v. County of Glenn. 2009. 624 F.Supp.2d 1184 (E.D. California).Google Scholar
  7. Casey v. City of Federal Heights. 2007. 509 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir.).Google Scholar
  8. City of Canton v. Harris. 1989. 489 U.S. 378.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, T.H. 2013. Pretrial detention and misconduct in federal district courts, 1995–2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  10. County of Sacramento v. Lewis. 1998. 523 U.S. 833.Google Scholar
  11. Crowell v. Kirkpatrick. 2010. 400 Fed. Appx. 592 (2nd Cir.).Google Scholar
  12. del Carmen, R.V. 1991. Civil liabilities in American policing: A text for law enforcement personnel. Englewood Cliffs: Brady.Google Scholar
  13. Estate of Booker v. Gomez. 2014. 745 F.3d 405 (10th Cir.).Google Scholar
  14. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington. 2012. 132 S.Ct. 1510.Google Scholar
  15. Forrest v. Prine. 2010. 620 F.3d 739, (7th Cir.).Google Scholar
  16. Frasier, M.L. 2005. The use of conducted energy devices (TASERs). Telemasp Bulletin 12 (6): 1–9.Google Scholar
  17. General Accountability Office Report. 2005. GAO-05-464 Taser weapons: Use of tasers by selected law enforcement agencies, 1–25. Washington, D.C.: GAO.Google Scholar
  18. Gerber, M., G. Walsh, and M. Hopmeier. 2014. Sensitivity of TATP to a Taser electrical output. Journal of Forensic Science 59 (6): 1638–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham v. Connor. 1989. 490 U.S. 386.Google Scholar
  20. Hause v. Vaught. 1993. 993 F.2d 1079.Google Scholar
  21. Hickey v. Reeder. 1993. 12 F.3d 754 (8th Cir.).Google Scholar
  22. Hollingsworth v. City of St. Ann. 2015. 800 F.3d 985 (8th Cir.).Google Scholar
  23. Hudson v. McMillan. 1992. 503 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
  24. Ingraham v. Wright. 1977. 430 U.S. 651.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson v. Glick.1973. 481 F.2d 1028 (2nd Cir.).Google Scholar
  26. Kaady v. City of Sandy. 2008. 2008 WL 5111101 (D. Oregon).Google Scholar
  27. Kappeler, V.E. 2001. Critical issues in police civil liability. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kingsley v. Hendrickson. 2015. 135 S.Ct. 2466.Google Scholar
  29. Kingsley v. Hendrickson. 2015. 801 F.3d 828.Google Scholar
  30. Kornblum, R.N., and S.K. Reddy. 1991. Effects of the TASER in fatalities involving police confrontation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 36 (2): 434–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis v. Downey. 2009. 581 F.3d 467.Google Scholar
  32. Mattos v. Agarano and Brooks v. City of Seattle. 2011. 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir.).Google Scholar
  33. M.H. v. County of Alemeda. 2014. 62 F.Supp.3d 1049 (N.D. California).Google Scholar
  34. Monell v. Department of Social Services, City of New York. 1978. 436 U.S. 658.Google Scholar
  35. Nykiel v. Borough of Sharpsburg. 2011. 778 F.Supp.2d 573 (W.D. Pennsylvania).Google Scholar
  36. Orem v. Rephann. 2008. 523 F. 3d 442 (4th Cir.).Google Scholar
  37. Porro v. Barnes. 2010. 624 F.3d 1322.Google Scholar
  38. Preston, M. (2012), Taser! Taser! Taser!,, 5 March 2012. Accessed 29 July 2016.
  39. Robertson, J.E. 2007. Recent legal developments: Correctional case law 2006. Criminal Justice Review 32: 184–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosen, C.J. 1990. Jail law. The Prison Journal 70: 24–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roska v. Peterson. 2003. 328 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir.).Google Scholar
  42. Shreve v. Franklin County, Ohio. 2014. 743 F.3d 126 (6th Cir.).Google Scholar
  43. Smith v. Conway County, Arkansas. 2014. 759 F.3d 853.Google Scholar
  44. Stephens v. City of Butler, Alabama. 2007. 509 F.Supp.2d 1098 (S.D. Alabama).Google Scholar
  45. Taser International Inc. 2011. Accessed May 26 2011.
  46. Taser International Inc. 2014.
  47. Taser International Inc. 2017.
  48. Thomas v. Plummer. 2012. 489 Fed. Appx. 116 (6th Cir.).Google Scholar
  49. Turner v. Safley. 1987. 482 U.S. 78.Google Scholar
  50. Valentine v. Richardson. 2008. WL 80129 (D. South Carolina).Google Scholar
  51. White, M.D., and J. Ready. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. White, M.D., J.T. Ready, R.J. Kane, and L.M. Dario. 2014. Examining the effects of the TASER on cognitive functioning: Findings from a pilot study with police recruits. Journal of Experimental Criminology 10: 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams, H.E. 2008. TASER electronic control devices and sudden in-custody death: Separating evidence from conjecture. Springfield: Thomas.Google Scholar
  54. Worley, V.B. 2010. “Don’t tase me, bro”: Civil Liabilities for Use of ECDs by Jail and Prison Officers. Criminal Law Bulletin 46 (3): 638–663.Google Scholar
  55. Worley, V.B., and R.M. Worley. 2011a. Shocking policy: Municipal liability for the use of tasers and stun guns by the police. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations 11 (1): 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Worley, V.B., and R. M. Worley. 2011b. Failure to train ‘stuns’ police departments in the United States of America. The Voice, 29–34 (Yearly Magazine of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association).Google Scholar
  57. Worley, V.B., and R.M. Worley. 2014. Shocking decisions: Tasers, stun guns, use-of-force continuum, and legal liability of police and correctional officers. Criminal Law Bulletin 50 (6): 1360–1387.Google Scholar
  58. Worley, V.B., and R.M. Worley. 2017. Smart weapons need smart policies: Municipal liability for inappropriate use of tasers and stun guns by police officers. Criminal Law Bulletin 53 (1): 34–60.Google Scholar
  59. Worley, V.B., M.S. Vaughn, and R.M. Worley. 2012. ‘Shocking’ consequences: Police officer liability for the use of tasers and stun guns. Criminal Law Bulletin 48 (4): 625–654.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminal JusticeLamar UniversityBeaumontUSA

Personalised recommendations