Although many police departments throughout the nation have been quick to incorporate the use of conducted energy devices (CEDs) within their use-of-force policies, the use of these devices on college campuses has been relatively unexamined in the literature. This article addresses campus police agency decisions regarding CEDs as a less-than-lethal force alternative. This study utilized a stratified random sample of public 4-year universities and colleges throughout the United States. Respondents answered questions pertaining to multiple variables, such as political pressure, public opinion, officer safety, liability, and funding, as factors considered when deciding whether to acquire CEDs. The results suggest that a majority of the public institutions surveyed have not acquired CEDs due to public opinion. Furthermore, the results reveal that for institutions that have issued CEDs their acquisition can be attributed to the campus law enforcement agency's concern for officer safety. Suggestions for future research are discussed.
Amnesty International (2004a). Excessive use of tasers in USA. The Wire. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://web.amnesty.org/wire/November2004/Tasers
2.
Amnesty International. (2004b). USA: Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International's concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use of force. New York : Author.
3.
Behr, K. (2007). Taser use popular despite risk. The Minnesota Daily. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/01/25/70463
4.
Bromley, M.L. (2000). A content review of campus police vehicle pursuit policies at large institutions of higher education. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23, 492-505.
5.
Bromley, M.L. (2003). Comparing campus and municipal police community policing practices. Journal of Security Administration, 26(2), 37-50, 75.
6.
Bromley, M., & Reaves, B. (1998a). Comparing campus and municipal police: The human resource dimension. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 21, 534-546.
7.
Bromley, M., & Reaves, B. (1998b). Comparing the practices and policies of sworn and non-sworn campus police departments within the context of the campus security act of 1990. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 9, 261-278.
Cronin, J.M., & Ederheimer, J.A. (2006). Conducted energy devices: Development of standards for consistency and guidance. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and Police Executive Research Forum.
10.
Dixon v. Alabama Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961).
11.
Downs, R.L. (2007). Less lethal weapons: A technologist's perspective . Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 358-384.
12.
Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 127 (11th Cir. 2004).
13.
Friedman, G. (2007). Reaching a tough audience-Getting the personal safety message to college students. Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 37(4), 36-37.
14.
Haley, P.E. (Moderator). (2005). TASER International/Amnesty International debate. Transcript. Retrieved July 15, 2005 , from www.taser.com/documents/TASER_AIUSA_debate.pdf
15.
Hickman, M.J., & Reaves, B.A. (2006). Local police departments, 2003 (NCJ 210118). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
16.
Johnson, K. (2005, March 18). Federal bureaus reject stun guns. USA Today, 3A.
17.
Lanier, M.M. (1995). Community policing on university campuses: Tradition, practice, and outlook. In B. Fisher & J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
18.
Nislow, J. (2005). The whole shocking story. Law Enforcement News, 31(629), 1.
19.
Paoline, E., & Sloan, J. (2003). Variability in the organizational structure of contemporary campus law enforcement agencies: A national-level analysis. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26, 612-639.
20.
Reaves, B., & Goldberg, A. (1996). Campus law enforcement agencies, 1995 (Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-161137). Washington DC: United States Department of Justice .
21.
Smith, M.R., Petrocelli, M., & Scheer, C. (2007). Excessive force, civil liability, and the Taser in the nation's courts implications for law enforcement policy and practice . Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 398-422.
22.
Taser International Inc. (2004a). Facts about Taser. Retrieved June 8, 2005, from www.taser.com/facts
23.
Taser International, Inc. (2004b). TASER technology is safe and effective based on law enforcement and medical science experts. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129937&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=648262&highlight
24.
Taylor, S. (2006). Community responds to Taser use in Powell. Daily Bruin. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://dailybruin.com/news/2006/nov/16/community-responds-to-taser-us/
25.
United States Department of Defense. (1998 ). Joint concept for non-lethal weapons: Commandment of the Marine Corps. Retrieved August 9, 2005, from www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/non-lethal.htm
26.
Wolf, R. (1998). Campus safety directors: A leadership frame analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando.
27.
Wolf, R. (2001). Nationwide survey of the use of leadership frames . Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 31(2), 17-20, 36.
28.
Wolf, R., Mesloh, C., Henych, M., & Thompson, F. (2007). Police use of force and the cumulative force factor: A five year analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
