Oleoresin Capsicum Spray and TASERs

Abstract

In the last few decades, several less lethal forms of force have been introduced, adopted, and deployed by police agencies. Oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray is now used in nearly every department across the United States; the Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle (TASER) is used in the majority of police departments. Despite their widespread use, we still know relatively little about the factors associated with the use of OC spray and TASERs and the effectiveness of these weapons in incapacitating subjects. Knowing when these weapons are used and whether they are effective would provide for a more complete understanding of their strengths and limitations and inform the debate about where less lethal weapons should be placed on use of force continua. This article contributes to the discussion by analyzing 504 use-of-force incidents where the police used OC spray or TASERs during the event. Data were obtained from a large municipal police department on incidents that occurred in 2010 and 2011. Policy considerations and directions for further research are discussed.

Keywords

police use of force oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray TASERs effectiveness less lethal weapons CEDs

A fundamental but controversial function of the police is their ability to use coercive force (Bittner, 1970; Klockars, 1985). Force is most likely to be used by the police in situations where they are confronted with non-compliant subjects (Reiss, 1971; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002). In such situations, police officers have several options. At one end of the spectrum, beyond verbal commands and threats, officers may use bodily force (e.g., decentralizations, focused strikes). Bodily force alone is the most common form of physical force used by police officers (Adams, 1999). At the other end of the spectrum, officers may use their firearms. Of course, the use of firearms is considered a last resort: They are only to be used to defend human life. In between bodily force and deadly force, there are several “less-than-lethal” or “less lethal” options.

In the last few decades, several less lethal forms of force have been introduced, adopted, and deployed by police agencies. Today, nearly all local departments authorize the use of one or more less lethal weapons (Reaves, 2010). The most common less lethal weapon is pepper spray, authorized by 97% of all local departments (Reaves, 2010). Conducted energy devices (CEDs),¹ including the Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle (TASER)² and stun guns, are authorized by 60% of all local police agencies (Reaves, 2010), although in many departments not all officers actually carry these weapons. While the number of departments authorizing pepper spray is not much higher than in the year 2000 (91%; Hickman & Reaves, 2003), the number of local police departments that authorize the use of CEDs has dramatically increased since 2000, when just 7% had authorized them (Reaves, 2010).³

In response to the greater prevalence and use of less lethal weapons, particularly oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray and TASERs, a substantial amount of research has been conducted on issues related to them. For instance, researchers have analyzed the frequency with which different types of force are used before, during, and after OC spray or TASERs are introduced in departments (e.g., Lin & Jones, 2010; Lumb & Friday, 1997). Studies have examined the factors associated with the use of OC spray (Morabito & Doerner, 1997) and TASERs (Bishopp, Klinger, & Morris, 2014; Crow & Adrion, 2011; Gau, Mosher, & Pratt, 2010) as well as the effectiveness of both types of less lethal weapons. “Effectiveness” has been defined in three primary ways (Thomas, Collins, & Lovrich, 2010): (a) the ability of OC spray and TASERs to induce subject compliance (e.g., Adang, Kaminski, Howell, & Mensink, 2006; Kaminski, Edwards, & Johnson, 1999; Morabito & Doerner, 1997; White & Ready, 2007, 2010), (b) the ability of OC spray and TASERs to reduce officer and citizen injuries associated with their use (e.g., Kaminski, Edwards, & Johnson, 1998; Kaminski, Engle, Rojek, Smith, & Alpert, 2013; Lin & Jones, 2010; MacDonald, Kaminski, & Smith, 2009; Paoline, Terrill, & Ingram, 2012; Smith, Kaminski, Rojek, Alpert, & Mathis, 2007; Taylor & Woods, 2010; Terrill & Paoline, 2012a), and (c) the reduction in cases of lethal force as a result of their use (Amnesty International, 2004; Ferdik, Kaminski, Cooney, & Sevigny, 2014; Force, 2004; Ho, Dawes, Johnson, Lundin, & Miner, 2007; Smith et al., 2009; Sousa, Ready, & Ault, 2010; Thomas et al., 2010). Finally, and most recently, researchers have examined the role that agency policy (e.g., CED placement on use of force continua) plays in determining levels of less lethal weaponry usage (e.g., Bishopp et al., 2014; Crow & Adrion, 2011; Ferdik et al., 2014; Morabito & Doerner, 1997).

There are several areas of controversy concerning the use of less lethal weaponry, including the safety and potential abuse of such weapons. One of the more pressing current controversies relates to the placement of OC spray and TASERs on use of force continua. Although many have suggested that OC spray and TASERs be used only against “active” resisters (i.e., subjects who physically resist police; Amnesty International, 2004; MacDonald et al., 2009; Police Executive Research Forum [PERF], 2005), there remain departments that authorize the use of these less lethal weapons against passive resisters (e.g., Alpert & Dunham, 2010; Thomas et al., 2010) and researchers who advocate for this placement (e.g., Ferdik et al., 2014). Research that can inform this debate is still needed; one of the objectives of this study is to provide practical knowledge that will help determine where OC spray and TASERs should be placed on use of force continua.

In particular, we still know relatively little about the factors associated with the use of OC spray and TASERs and the effectiveness of these weapons in incapacitating subjects. Although there have been studies in this area, there are no studies to date that directly compare the use and relative effectiveness (defined in terms of incapacitation effects) of OC spray and the TASER within the same jurisdiction during the same time frame.⁴ Some studies examine OC spray, whereas others examine TASERs. It is difficult, if not impossible, to draw conclusions about the use and relative effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs on the basis of studies that do not include both OC spray and TASER incidents, that use different sampling procedures and measurements schemes for critical variables, and that are conducted in different police departments with different use-of-force policies and continua, and varying levels of deployment of OC spray and TASERs.

As such, in this study we address three main questions: (a) In what circumstances are OC spray and/or TASERs used? (b) How effective are OC spray and TASERs? and (c) In what circumstances are OC spray and TASERs effective? Data were obtained from official use of force reports of a large municipal police department and consisted of 259 incidents where OC spray was used and 245 incidents were TASERs were used. In the study department, OC spray and TASERs are located at the same level on the use of force continuum, and only against active resisters. Given the nature of the data analyzed here, and as discussed in more detail below, we neither examine why OC spray and TASERs fail, nor do we examine officers’ decision making in use of force incidents. Although potentially useful, these issues are simply beyond the scope of the study. Instead, our overall goal was to produce practical information that could be used by law enforcement administrators and policymakers in making informed decisions about the utility and effectiveness of two very popular and widely used less lethal weapons.

Literature Review

Police use of force, defined as “acts that threaten or inflict physical harm on suspects” (Terrill, 2003, p. 56), has been an important and constant topic of research since the 1970s. This attention is warranted for theoretical and practical reasons. Theoretically, research on police use of force is important because it involves the defining characteristic of policing (Bittner, 1970). In large part, an understanding of the complexities and dilemmas of police work depends on an understanding of police use of force. Practically speaking, research on the control of police use of force is important in that use of force can dramatically affect citizens’ attitudes and behaviors toward the police (Friedrich, 1980) and the legitimacy of the police more generally (Ross, 1999; Tyler, 1990, 2004). Police use of force has been the impetus behind riots and protests and it is also an area of considerable liability; use-of-force incidents have cost individual police departments millions of dollars in civil judgments (Fyfe, 1988).

Due to the potentially serious consequences of police use of force, police officers are constrained in their ability to use it. Along with legal (Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 1989) and accreditation standards (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, 1999), the majority of police departments guide officer behavior with a “continuum of force” or “force continuum” (Terrill & Paoline, 2012b). These continua dictate that officers are to base force decisions on the level of suspect resistance or aggression (Garner, Schade, Hepburn, & Buchanan, 1995; Morrison & Garner, 2011; Terrill & Paoline, 2007; Williams, 2002): Force is only escalated to the next level when less forceful actions fail to induce suspect compliance. Although OC spray and TASERs are usually placed at the same level on use of force continua (Alpert & Dunham, 2010; Alpert et al., 2011; International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP], 2005), there is variability between departments as to the level at which they are placed (Adams & Jennison, 2007; Government Accountability Office, 2005). In some departments, OC spray and TASERs are placed at the lower end of the continuum, authorizing their use against passive resisters; other departments place them closer to lethal force on the continuum, authorizing their use only against assaultive suspects (Alpert & Dunham, 2010; Thomas et al., 2010). Where OC spray and TASERs are located on the continuum of force matters when understanding the circumstances in which the weapons are used (Bishopp et al., 2014; Crow & Adrion, 2011; Ferdik et al., 2014; Morabito & Doerner, 1997). In turn, the circumstances in which OC spray and TASERs are used may have implications for their effectiveness in inducing compliance among subjects.

OC Spray and TASERs

OC spray, otherwise known as pepper spray, was introduced to law enforcement in the 1980s. OC is an inflammatory agent naturally found in cayenne peppers. Ideally, when a person is sprayed with OC spray, the effects are immediate: The respiratory tract becomes inflamed, the individual experiences an intense burning sensation and swelling around the eyes, and the subject’s eyes close involuntarily (Lumb & Friday, 1997). OC spray has the potential to render a resistive suspect passive and compliant, and, as such, the officer may be able to take the suspect into custody without the need for additional force.

Once introduced, OC spray immediately demonstrated advantages over other forms of force. The effects of OC spray, although potentially immediate and dramatic, were more temporary than other forms of chemical gases used previously by police (Lumb & Friday, 1997). OC spray proved more effective on intoxicated individuals than mace, and was less prone to secondary contamination (White & Ready, 2007). Finally, OC spray was less likely to cause injury than bodily force, batons, and flashlights (Lumb & Friday, 1997). As summarized by Lumb and Friday (1997),

. . . OC spray is an effective alternative to the more harmful types of weapons available to police. OC causes almost instantaneous incapacitation and leaves no long term residual effects. It allows the officer to stay away from the suspect when affecting a custodial arrest that is being resisted, and there are few problems associated with transporting the person, as OC spray residue dissipates fairly quickly. (p. 138)

Today, although OC spray is standard issue in police departments, CEDs, such as the TASER and other stun devices, are still gaining popularity. First introduced in the 1990s, the TASER is a 50,000 V, 26-W weapon that uses nitrogen cartridges to fire its probes. Once the probes attach to the suspect, the TASER delivers an electrical current, which overrides the central nervous system, causing involuntary muscle contractions and incapacitation (Alpert et al., 2011; Means & Edwards, 2005).

TASERs have potential advantages over other less lethal alternatives including their greater reliability at longer distances, the relatively quick recovery time involved, and their perceived effectiveness in inducing suspect compliance (White & Ready, 2010). In addition, because TASERs do not rely on pain to induce compliance, ideally they should be more effective than other less lethal alternatives on persons who have a higher tolerance of pain, such as people under the influence of drugs or alcohol or who have a mental illness (Means & Edwards, 2005).

Despite their popularity and advantages, OC spray and TASERs are not without controversy. One concern relates to their safety. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, OC spray was claimed to have caused several in-custody deaths (Alpert et al., 2011; American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] of Southern California, 1993). Twenty years later, the TASER was also alleged to be a proximate cause of in-custody deaths (Alpert et al., 2011; White & Ready, 2007). Research has shown that most deaths involving OC spray were instead the result of positional asphyxia, pre-existing health conditions, or were drug-related (Granfield, Onnen, & Petty, 1994; Petty, 2004). With regard to CEDs, it has been demonstrated that the risk of death when a CED is used is very rare (National Institute of Justice [NIJ], 2011), and in those situations, death is likely to be a result of drug intoxication, pre-existing heart conditions, and exposure to other forms of non-lethal police force (White & Ready, 2007).

Another concern relates to police overuse of OC spray and TASERs (Alpert et al., 2011). For instance, members of the ACLU and Amnesty International have voiced concern that OC spray and TASERs are used in a disparate fashion against members of minority groups (ACLU of Southern California, 1993; Amnesty International, 2006). Another related concern is that police have authorized their use too low on use of force continua and consequently are using them against passive (vs. active) resisters (Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002). Finally, there are concerns about the use of OC spray and TASERs with the elderly, children, pregnant women, or persons with medical conditions that put them at greater risk of experiencing dangerous medical side effects (Alpert & Dunham, 2010; Amnesty International, 2006; Sloane & Vilke, 2006). Although many of the initial concerns about OC spray have been assuaged, there are continuing serious discussions about the safety and potential overuse of TASERs (Alpert & Dunham, 2010; Alpert et al. 2011; ACLU of Southern California, 1993; Amnesty International, 2006; NIJ, 2011; Sloane & Vilke, 2006; White & Ready, 2007).

More recently, debate concerns the placement of OC spray and TASERs on use of force continua. OC spray and TASERs tend to be authorized at the same level on use of force continua (Alpert & Dunham, 2010; Alpert et al., 2011; IACP, 2005). However, there is variation between and among departments regarding the level of suspect resistance that would authorize their use (Adams & Jennison, 2007; Government Accountability Office, 2005). For instance, in their analysis of Smith et al. (2009) data, Alpert and Dunham (2010) demonstrated that in 2005, 26% of departments placed CEDs relatively low on use of force continua, where their use would be authorized against passive resisters. Ten percent of departments placed them at a high level on their continua (closer to firearms), whereas the majority (64%) placed them at a midlevel range. In their national survey of chief executive officers of municipal law enforcement agencies, Thomas et al. (2010) also found that agencies tend to place TASERs at a midlevel range. An understanding of the effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs may assist in specifying when these weapons may be best used.

Research on the Use and Effectiveness of OC Spray and TASERs

We review here the studies that directly relate to the objectives of the current study, those that examine the factors associated with the use of OC spray and TASERs and the effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs (where effectiveness was defined in terms of their ability to facilitate the arrests of resisting subjects).

The use of OC spray

Morabito and Doerner (1997) analyzed OC spray use-of-force reports from the Tallahassee Police Department. They examined characteristics of officers and suspects who were associated with the use of OC spray at two points in time: prior to and after a change in the circumstances in which OC spray was authorized in the department. At Time 1, OC spray was only authorized in cases when the suspect was actively physically resisting police. At Time 2, the threshold for the use of OC spray was reduced from active physical resistance to verbal/passive physical resistance. At Time 1, OC spray use was compared with impact weapons such as batons, flashlights, and stun guns. At Time 2, OC spray use was compared with the use of soft hand techniques (punches, kicks, and pain compliance techniques). The officer characteristics of interest included race, gender, education and experience. Suspect variables included race, gender, height and weight (relative to the officer’s height and weight), suspect intoxication, and whether the suspect was armed or attacked the officer. Although none of the predictor variables were significant at Time 1, several factors were associated with OC spray use at Time 2. At Time 2, male, educated, and veteran officers were more likely to use OC spray than soft hand techniques. OC spray was also more likely to be used than soft hand techniques when the suspect was heavier and taller than the officer and when the suspect was armed.

The use of TASERs

Gau et al. (2010) analyzed case file data on TASERs and other types of force used by officers in a state patrol agency from 2005 to 2007. The authors were primarily interested in examining possible racial disparities in the use of TASERs on subjects. TASERs were used in nearly one half of all use of force incidents. They found that compared with other forms of force, TASERs were equally likely to be used on White, Hispanic, and Black subjects; although when a TASER was used, Hispanic subjects were more likely than White subjects to have a TASER be the first type of force used. The authors also found that females were less likely to be “tased” than males, and that subjects who actively resisted and who were assaultive were less likely to be tased than those who passively resisted. Finally, White officers were significantly less likely to use a TASER than officers of other races.

Crow and Adrion (2011) analyzed 461 use-of-force incidents (reports) that occurred between 2004 and 2010 in a medium-sized municipal police department. The authors compared incidents where a TASER was used and incidents where “other” types of force were used (takedowns, physical force, pepper foam, impact weapons, police dog, use of a vehicle as a weapon, and firearms). The authors found that a TASER was less likely to be used than other forms of force when subjects physically resisted and when resistance involved a weapon. A TASER was equally likely to be used when resistance was in the form of “presence,” “flight,” and “verbal” (meanings unspecified). A TASER was more likely to be used than other forms of force on non-White and male subjects. Older officers were significantly more likely to use TASERs. A policy change to restrict the use of TASERs also had its intended affect; after the policy change, TASERs were less likely to be deployed. Call type, time of day of the incident, officer sex, race, age, and rank did not affect the likelihood of TASER use.

Bishopp et al. (2014) examined TASER use among Dallas Police Department (DPD) officers before and after a change in use of force policy. In 2005, DPD officers were authorized to use TASERs in response to “defensive resistance,” which they defined as a suspect’s physical non-compliance with a lawful police order. At the end of 2005, DPD changed their policy, restricting the use of the TASER to situations when suspects engaged in “active aggression,” or took physical action against an officer or innocent third party. The authors compared an 8-month period in 2005 (Time 1, pre-policy change) with the same 8-month period in 2007 (Time 2, post-policy change). They found that there was a 60% reduction in TASER use between Time 1 and Time 2. They also found that DPD officers were significantly less likely to use TASERs when they had previously deployed a TASER and during summer months. Finally, compared with White officers, Black officers were significantly less likely to use the TASER in response to suspect resistance.

The effectiveness of OC spray

Three studies have examined the effectiveness of OC spray, generally defined in terms of the extent to which it facilitates the arrests of suspects who resist (Adang et al., 2006; Kaminski et al., 1999; Morabito & Doerner, 1997). As previously noted, Morabito and Doerner (1997) analyzed use of force reports from the Tallahassee Police Department. Although these authors were most concerned with the factors associated with the use of OC spray, they also briefly considered the effectiveness of it. As the authors explained, OC spray “was considered effective if it induced the expected physiological effects and enabled the officer to take the subject into custody without further incident” (p. 690). They calculated a “success rate” of 73% for OC spray and found that OC spray worked “equally well on mentally disturbed subjects, intoxicated subjects, and physically stressed subjects who were involved in either a foot chase or a physical struggle” (p. 690).

Kaminski et al. (1999) analyzed data on incidents where OC spray was used by officers in the Baltimore County Police Department. Based on assessments provided by officers who were involved in the incidents, three measures of OC spray effectiveness were constructed. In their most conservative measure, they defined effectiveness in terms of whether the use of OC spray incapacitated (fully and immediately immobilized) the suspect (yes/no). According to this measure, OC spray was effective in 71% of cases. Their second measure of effectiveness was also dichotomous, measured as the officer’s assessment of whether the use of OC spray eased arrest (yes/no). In this case, the use of OC spray was deemed effective 85% of the time. Their third measure of effectiveness consisted of a 5-point scale ranging from totally effective (i.e., incapacitated suspect) to totally ineffective (i.e., OC spray had no effect). Here, OC spray was considered effective 84% of the time.

The authors examined the effects of suspect race, gender, age, weight, height, and condition (i.e., suspect was drinking, mentally disturbed, on drugs, or other) on OC spray effectiveness. They also examined the distance from which OC was sprayed. They found that OC spray was more effective (yes/no) with younger and older suspects (but less effective among middle-aged suspects) and intoxicated suspects. It was less effective when it was used on suspects who were under the influence of drugs and when sprayed from longer distances.

Adang et al. (2006) analyzed data on incidents where OC spray was used by police officers in the Netherlands. They used surveys of officers, supervisors, and prosecutors to measure the effectiveness of OC spray in several ways: the degree to which the subject was incapacitated (with options ranging from completely to not at all), the degree to which OC spray made the arrest easier (much easier to much more difficult), whether suspects became more or less aggressive after exposure to OC spray (much more to much less), and how satisfied officers were with the performance of OC spray (dissatisfied to highly satisfied). Estimates of effectiveness ranged from 69% (suspects who became less aggressive after being sprayed with OC) to 92% (officers who were satisfied with the performance of OC spray). In the model predicting the extent of suspect incapacitation, 4 of 13 independent variables were statistically significant. Specifically, OC spray was less effective when used by less experienced officers, against minority suspects, when suspects were warned beforehand they were going to be sprayed, and when suspects were under the influence of drugs.

The effectiveness of TASERs

Two studies have examined the effectiveness of TASERs with regard to the incapacitation of subjects in arrest situations (White & Ready 2007, 2010). White and Ready (2007) examined the effects of TASERs based on self-report surveys completed by (primarily Special Weapons and Tactics [SWAT]) officers who worked in a large metropolitan police department. They considered the TASER effective if it led to the “successful incapacitation” of the subject. They found that after deploying a TASER, “85% of subjects were subdued by the TASER and taken into custody” (p. 183). The authors developed a multivariate “violence escalation scale” that they used to score each TASER incident. The scale included whether the subject was violent, armed with a weapon (and what type of weapon), under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or mentally ill; the weight of the subject; and whether the officer was alone. Although individual analyses were not provided on each variable, the analyses performed on the scale revealed that the TASER was the most effective in the “highest risk” situations.

White and Ready (2010) analyzed TASER deployments from the New York City Police Department; the data were derived from the reports that officers completed subsequent to the deployment of the weapon. Three measures of TASER effectiveness were used in the study. The first measure was the officer’s assessment of whether the TASER performed satisfactorily (yes/no). Officers rated the performance of the TASER as satisfactory in 79% of cases. Although this indicator of effectiveness was also used in prior studies (see Adang et al., 2006), the other two are unique in that they measure suspect resistance or, in other words, the ineffectiveness of the TASER. The authors classified suspect resistance two ways: First, “continual resistance” included those situations where the suspect was not affected at any point by the weapon, the suspect continued to resist after the TASER was deployed. This occurred in 33% of all TASER deployments. In these instances the TASER was clearly ineffective. Second, “any resistance” included those situations where the TASER temporarily resulted in the incapacitation of the suspect, but the suspect resisted again prior to the conclusion of the incident. This occurred in about 11% of TASER deployments.

In their models predicting TASER (in)effectiveness, White and Ready (2010) explored the impact of multiple officer, suspect, and incident characteristics. They found the TASER to be less effective on heavier subjects (i.e., more than 200 lbs), subjects who were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, subjects who were violent, when another less lethal weapon was used, when one or both prongs missed the subject, and when the TASER was fired from farther away (i.e., greater than three feet). When effectiveness was based on officer satisfaction, the TASER was also perceived to be more effective when the suspect was armed with a knife or gun.

Conclusion

There are too few studies available to draw confident conclusions about the factors that affect the use and effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs. Other than that males are more likely than females to be subjected to a TASER than other forms of force (Crow & Adrion, 2011; Gau et al., 2010), that OC spray is less likely to be effective on subjects who are under the influence of drugs compared with those who are not (Adang et al., 2006; Kaminski et al., 1999), and that departmental policy affects the use of OC spray and TASERs (Bishopp et al., 2014; Crow & Adrion, 2011; Ferdik et al., 2014; Morabito & Doerner, 1997), there is little consistency in findings. There is also little consistency in variables included in previous studies and the measurement of those variables.

In the studies reviewed here, rates of OC spray effectiveness ranged from 69% to 92% (Adang et al., 2006), whereas the effectiveness of the TASER ranged from 66% to 89% (White & Ready, 2010). The variation in effectiveness estimates notwithstanding, it appears that most studies show the TASER to be more effective than OC spray.

Our study adds to the discussion on the use and effectiveness of OC spray and the TASER in several ways. First and most important, this study is the first that examines OC spray with TASERs in terms of their use and their effectiveness, and we do so in the context of the same study site. Second, we include all intentional OC spray and TASER deployments to provide an inclusive assessment of use and effectiveness. Finally, we provide a logical measure of weapon effectiveness and we use this same measure to evaluate OC spray and TASERs. In doing so, the study provides a better understanding of the use and effectiveness of OC spray vis-à-vis TASERs.

Method

Data

The data for this study were obtained from a large municipal police department. At the time of the study, the department employed approximately 2,000 sworn officers, about 1,200 of whom were patrol officers. The police department served a population of approximately 600,000; 40% of the population was African American and 10% was Latino.

Analyses were performed on all use of force incidents in 2010 and 2011 where an officer from the department intentionally discharged OC spray (n = 259) or deployed a TASER (n = 245) against a person. The 24 incidents that involved the use of OC spray and a TASER are also considered.

All officers in the department were trained and authorized to carry and use OC spray. During the academy, officers received 4 to 8 hours of instruction on the use of OC spray. Only about 300 officers (approximately 25% of patrol officers) were trained and certified to use a TASER. Furthermore, on each of the three shifts at each of the eight districts, approximately six to eight TASERs were available to be signed out and carried by the certified TASER officers. Therefore, at any given time during the time of this study, there were no more than 68 TASERs actually being carried by officers. With regard to TASER training, officers who volunteered for training first had to be approved by Internal Affairs. Officers who were selected to be TASER trained participated in 16 hours of “new user” training and an additional 8 hours of “refresher” training every 2 years.⁵ TASERs were first deployed in the department in 2005.

At the time of the study, the use of force policy of the department specified OC spray and TASERs as “control devices.” According to the policy, “the goal of control devices is to overcome active resistance or its threat” (emphasis added). Although a continuum of force was not specified per se, “intervention options” were provided; these options ranged from presence, dialogue, control alternatives, protective alternatives (e.g., focused strikes, vertical stuns), to deadly force (see Figure 1). In line with recommendations of human rights groups, law enforcement agencies, and researchers who have argued that CEDs should only be authorized against persons who are actively resisting or assaulting police (Alpert & Dunham, 2010; Amnesty International, 2004; PERF, 2005), the study department situated OC spray and TASERs as “midrange” tools on their “continuum” of force (Alpert & Dunham, 2010; Thomas et al., 2010).

Figure 1.

Description of “intervention options” used in study department.

Most of the data for the study were obtained from a case management system used by the police department and were converted into a data file for analyses. The database was organized with use of force incidents as the unit of analysis. The use of force data were based on reports that were completed by supervisory officers when a use of force incident occurred. According to the official policy of the department at the time of the study, a use of force report was to be completed by a supervisor when an officer (a) discharged a firearm; (b) used a baton; (c) discharged OC; (d) deployed an electronic control device (ECD); (e) used any other type of force which resulted in an injury, or a complaint of an injury, to a person; or (f) when a department canine bit a subject in the performance of their duty. Clearly, this is a relatively narrow definition of force as it does not include incidents where only bodily force was used when that force did not result in an injury (or a complaint of an injury) to a subject (or verbal force; see Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002). Nevertheless, that the department policy did not require all bodily force incidents to be reported is of little concern in this study. This study focuses specifically on incidents that involved the use OC spray or a TASER. Departmental policy specified that all such incidents be recorded and all types of force used in those incidents be recorded.

Along with the departmental use of force report, a narrative of the incidents was also written by the supervisory officer and was included in the case management system. For this study, all of the narratives for incidents that involved the use of OC spray and/or a TASER were reviewed (787 pages) and additional data were coded from them (e.g., level of subject resistance, the order in which force was used by officers).

Variables

The two primary dependent variables in this study are (a) the use of OC spray and the TASER and (b) the effectiveness of OC spray and the TASER. Determining whether or not a particular type of force was used in an incident was relatively straightforward. If OC was sprayed or a TASER was deployed, OC spray or the TASER was considered to have been used. If the target was missed or if the weapon malfunctioned, the incident was still included. If the objective is to understand the circumstances in which OC spray and TASERs are used, then it would seem appropriate to include all incidents where OC spray and TASERs were used. In the incidents that involved multiple subjects, the number of subjects was coded as were the characteristics of the primary subject, as identified in the officer’s report. Also coded were the number of officers present during the incident and the number of officers who used force during the incident.

Determining the effectiveness of OC spray and the TASER was more complicated. As discussed earlier, previous studies have used different measures of effectiveness although each study, in one way or another, examined how well, or to what degree, OC spray or the TASER incapacitated the subject who resisted the police. Of course, the variation in measurement is important to consider when interpreting findings across studies. Ultimately, in a use of force incident, the legitimate objective is to neutralize the threat posed by the subject and gain control over that subject. Most often, practically speaking, “gaining control” means using as much force as necessary to place handcuffs on the subject. Many use-of-force situations are complicated; they unfold quickly, one action leads to another, but ultimately force is used to gain control over the physical actions of the subject.

In this study, we provide a relatively straightforward, bottom-line measure of OC spray and TASER effectiveness. OC spray and/or TASERs were considered effective in two circumstances: First, if OC spray or a TASER was the only type of force that was used in the incident to subdue/handcuff, the subject, OC spray, or the TASER was considered effective. In these situations, OC spray or the TASER, by itself, led to the legitimate desired outcome; it was effective. Second, if OC spray or a TASER was the last type of force used in the incident prior to the subject being subdued/handcuffed, then OC spray or the TASER was considered effective. For example, if OC spray was deployed but then some other type of force was necessary to gain control over the subject to the point of placing him in handcuffs, then OC spray was considered ineffective. OC spray may or may not have had some effect, but ultimately it was not effective in achieving the legitimate objective of the use of force incident—additional force needed to be used. Of course, the amount of force that is “needed” or “necessary” in a situation is not a clear or agreed upon line; it is possible that in some situations, the use of OC spray and/or TASERs may have been more than what was needed to gain control over the subject.

One must not lose sight of the possible cumulative effects that various types of force that were used in an incident may have in bringing an incident to an end. Given the nature of the data analyzed in this study, measuring the precise effect that various forms of force may have had in a use of force incident is difficult, if not impossible. Nevertheless, to the extent possible, and when possible, we consider not only the last type of force used, but all types of force used in the incident. It is also important to highlight that the same criteria are used in measuring the effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs. It is in these ways that an understanding of the relative effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs can be achieved.

The independent variables in this study consist of subject’s characteristics and actions (see Tables 1 and 2 for coding and descriptive statistics). In particular, we focus on (a) who was the subject? and (b) what did the subject do? Officer characteristics are not included primarily because of the analytic difficulties in doing so. The number of officers who used force in an incident and the number of officers present when force was used were coded and included in the analyses as controls.⁶ The number of subjects who had force used upon them was also coded and included as a control.⁷

Table 1.

OC or TASER Used: Coding and Descriptive Statistics.

		OC used			TASER used
Variable	Scale	M	SD	n	M	SD	n
Subject
Characteristics
Race	0 = minority	0.11	0.31	253	0.20	0.40	241
	1 = White
Age	in years	30.70	11.17	252	30.06	10.65	239
Sex	0 = female	0.88	0.33	251	0.92	0.27	240
	1 = male
Height	in inches	69.42	3.28	192	69.81	3.46	186
Weight	in pounds	187.49	40.76	192	188.35	46.91	186
Subject actions
Mental disturbed	0 = no	0.09	0.29	259	0.23	0.42	245
	1 = yes
Under influence	0 = no	0.43	0.50	258	0.46	0.50	244
	1 = yes
Under influence	0 = no	0.43	0.50	258	0.46	0.50	244
	1 = yes
Believed armed	0 = no	0.22	0.41	259	0.40	0.49	245
	1 = yes
Actually armed	0 = no	0.08	0.28	259	0.16	0.37	245
	1 = yes
Fled police	0 = no	0.23	0.41	259	0.36	0.49	245
	1 = yes
Resistance	0 = none	2.40	0.76	258	2.44	0.73	245
	1 = passive/verbal
	2 = defensive
	3 = active
Assaulted police	0 = no	0.17	0.38	259	0.13	0.34	245
	1 = yes
Controls
No. of subjects		1.12	0.47	259	1.04	0.35	245
No. of officers used force		1.72	0.86	259	1.92	1.12	245
No. of officers present		2.44	1.16	259	3.37	2.03	245

Note. OC = oleoresin capsicum; TASER = Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle.

Table 2.

OC or TASER Effective: Coding and Descriptive Statistics.

		OC effective			TASER effective
Variable	Scale	M	SD	N	M	SD	N
Subject
Characteristics
Race	0 = minority	0.12	0.32	187	0.19	0.40	217
	1 = White
Age	in years	30.86	11.47	185	30.02	10.62	215
Sex	0 = female 1 = male	0.86	0.35	184	0.92	0.28	216
Height	in inches	69.29	3.37	140	69.67	3.38	170
Weight	in pounds	184.40	39.78	140	188.05	44.00	170
Subject actions
Mental disturbed	0 = no	0.09	0.29	191	0.23	0.42	221
	1 = yes
Under influence	0 = no	0.42	0.50	190	0.46	0.50	220
	1 = yes
Believed armed	0 = no	0.18	0.39	191	0.38	0.49	221
	1 = yes
Actually armed	0 = no	0.07	0.26	191	0.15	0.36	221
	1 = yes
Fled police	0 = no	0.19	0.39	191	0.37	0.48	221
	1 = yes
Resistance	0 = none	2.28	0.80	190	2.44	0.71	221
	1 = passive/verbal
	2 = defensive
	3 = active
Assaulted police	0 = no	0.14	0.34	191	0.12	0.33	221
	1 = yes
Controls
No. of subjects force used upon		1.14	0.49	191	1.04	0.37	221
No. of officers used force		1.60	0.75	191	1.85	1.06	221
No. of officers present		2.31	1.02	191	3.29	1.92	221

Note. OC = oleoresin capsicum; TASER = Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle.

Data on “who the subject was” (i.e., the characteristics of the subject) were coded according to the supervisor’s report. These variables consisted of subject race (White/minority⁸), age, sex, height, and weight.

The data on “what the subject did” (i.e., how the subject acted) were coded from the narrative reports prepared by supervisory officers and the statements included in the reports. These variables consisted of whether the subject was perceived to be mentally disturbed (yes/no), whether the subject was perceived to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol (yes/no), whether a subject was believed to be armed with a weapon (yes/no), whether a subject was actually armed with a weapon (yes/no), whether a subject fled the police on foot (yes/no), whether a subject assaulted an officer (“yes” if it was stated in the narrative that the subject intentionally hit, kicked, bit, shot, stabbed, or spat upon an officer, “no” otherwise), and the level of resistance offered by the subject.⁹

Results

Given the purposes of this study, results are organized into two sections: (a) those that relate to the use of OC spray and the TASER and (b) those that relate to the effectiveness of OC spray and the TASER. We begin with bivariate analyses and multivariate analyses of OC spray/TASER use and then turn attention to bivariate and multivariate analyses of OC spray/TASER effectiveness.

The Use of OC Spray and TASERs

How do the 259 incidents where OC spray was used differ from the 245 incidents where a TASER was used? This question was first addressed by calculating statistical differences between the variables of interest and OC spray and TASER incidents on the basis of chi-square and t tests (for the sake of space, results are not tabled here). Next, a logistic regression equation was estimated to identify factors that predicted TASER use over the use of OC spray; these results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Models of OC Versus TASER Use.

	Type of force used
	0 = OC		1 = TASER
Variable	B	p	Exp(B)
Subject race	0.579	.056	1.785
Subject age	–0.017	.093	0.983
Subject sex	0.076	.836	1.079
Subject mental disturbed	1.193	.000	3.296
Subject under influence	0.316	.150	1.372
Subject believed armed	0.619	.023	1.858
Subject actually armed	–0.149	.704	0.862
Subject fled police	0.897	.000	2.452
Subject resistance	0.199	.207	1.221
Subject assaulted police	–0.527	.079	0.590
No. of Subjects	–0.584	.041	0.558
No. of officers used force	–0.202	.140	0.817
No. of officers present	0.512	.000	1.668
Constant	–1.301	.054	0.272
Log likelihood	565.613
Model χ²	103.617
df	13
Significance	.000
R² (Nagelkerke)	.258
n	483

Note. OC = oleoresin capsicum; TASER = Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle; B = log odds; Exp(B) = odds ratios.

In the bivariate analyses, OC spray was significantly more likely than a TASER to be used on minority subjects (χ² = 6.82, p < .01, 14.0% point difference); OC spray and a TASER were equally likely to be used regardless of subject age (0.64 difference in mean age), sex (4.1% point difference), weight (0.90 difference in mean weight), or height (0.40 difference in mean height). A TASER was significantly more likely to be used than OC spray when the subject appeared to be mentally disturbed (χ² = 18.61, p < .01, 14.05% point difference), was believed to be armed with a weapon (χ² = 19.23, p < .01, 18.0% point difference), was actually armed with a weapon (χ² = 6.52, p < .05, 7.4% point difference), and fled the police on foot (χ² = 16.14, p < .01, 16.4 % point difference). OC spray and TASERs were equally likely to be used when the subject was believed to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs (3.3% point difference), when the subject assaulted a police officer (3.9% point difference), and regardless of the amount of resistance provided to the police (0.05 difference in means). OC spray was more likely to be used than a TASER in situations where when more than one subject had force used upon them (t = −2.03, p < .05, .16 difference in means); a TASER was more likely to be used than OC spray when more officers used force in the incident (t = 2.30, p < .05, .20 difference in means) and when more officers were present at the incident (t = 6.39, p < .01, .93 difference in means).

Table 3 shows the results of the logistic regression analyses with type of force used (0 = OC spray; 1 = TASER) as the dependent variable.¹⁰ Due to substantial missing data, subject height and weight were not included in the equation. Overall, the model was statistically significant (χ² = 103.617, p < .001, df = 13). The independent variables identified as significant in the earlier analyses are similar to those identified as significant here. First, all other variables held constant, in incidents where OC spray or a TASER was used, and when the subject was believed to be mentally disturbed, a TASER was more than 2 times more likely to be used than OC spray (odds ratio = 3.296, p = .000). Second, when the subject was believed to be armed, a TASER was significantly more likely to be used than OC spray (odds ratio = 1.858, p = .023). Third, in use of force incidents where the subject fled the police on foot, a TASER was significantly more likely to be used on the subject than OC spray (odds ratio = 2.452, p = .000). Fourth, when there were more subjects involved, a TASER was significantly less likely to be used than OC spray (odds ratio = 0.558, p = .04). Finally, when there were more officers present at the incident, a TASER was significantly more likely to be used than OC spray (odds ratio = 1.668, p = .000).

The Effectiveness of OC Spray and TASERs

Before examining the factors associated with the effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs, it is necessary to calculate an effectiveness rate for OC spray and TASERs (see Table 4). Of the 259 incidents where OC spray was used, 63 involved only the use of OC spray. That no other force was needed to subdue the subject can be considered reasonable evidence that OC spray was effective. In the other 196 incidents, OC spray and some other force were used. In these 196 incidents, the order in which force was applied is meaningful. In 128 of these 196 incidents, OC spray ended the encounter; presumably OC spray was used to subdue the subject because the force that was applied prior to the OC spray did not work, or did not appear to be working, at least in the judgment of the officer who deployed the OC spray. There were 68 incidents where OC spray was deployed during the incident but some other force ended the encounter. To calculate an effectiveness rate of OC spray, the 63 incidents that only involved OC spray and the 128 incidents where OC spray was used last are combined (63 + 128) and divided by the total number of incidents in which OC spray was used (259). This calculation results in a 73.8% effectiveness rate.

Table 4.

OC and TASER Effectiveness.

OC spray was used in 259 incidents (no TASER used)

In 63 incidents only OC used

In 196 incidents OC and other form(s) of force were used

In 128 of the 196 incidents, OC ended the encounter

In 68 of the 196 incidents, another type of force ended encounter (i.e., bodily force = 63, baton = 5)

63 + 128 = 191/259 = OC 73.8% effective rate

TASER was used in 245 incidents (no OC used)

In 85 incidents only a TASER used

In 160 incidents a TASER and other form(s) of force were used

In 136 of the 160 incidents, a TASER ended the encounter

In 24 of the 160 incidents, another type of force ended encounter (bodily force = 21, baton = 1, firearm = 2)

85 + 136 = 221 / 245 = TASER 90.2% effective rate

OC spray and a TASER were used in 24 incidents

In 22 of the 24 incidents, the TASER ended the encounter

In 2 of the 24 incidents, OC ended the encounter

Another weapon was used in 45 incidents (no OC or TASER)

In 22 of the 45 incidents, only a firearm was used

In 14 of the 45 incidents, bodily force and a baton were used

In 4 of the 45 incidents, only a baton was used

In 3 of the 45 incidents, bodily force and a firearm were used

In 1 of the 45 incidents, gas and a firearm were used

In 1 of the 45 incidents, bodily force and a flashlight were used

Note. OC = oleoresin capsicum; TASER = Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle.

Of the 245 incidents where a TASER was used, in 85 of them, only a TASER was used. In the other 160 incidents, a TASER and some other force were used. In 136 of the 160 incidents, a TASER was the last type of force used. In the other 24 incidents, a TASER was deployed first but some other force ended the encounter. To calculate an effectiveness rate of TASERs, the 85 incidents that only involved a TASER and the 136 incidents where a TASER was used last are combined (85 + 136) and divided by the total number of incidents in which a TASER was used (245). This calculation results in a 90.2% effectiveness rate. Using the same parameters for calculating the effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs, it is clear that TASERs demonstrate a substantially higher effectiveness rate than OC spray.

Interestingly, of the 24 incidents where both OC spray and a TASER were used, in 22 of them (91.7%) a TASER was the last type of force used. In only two incidents (8.3%) was OC spray used after a TASER was used. In essence, when OC spray and a TASER were used in the same incident, the TASER was substantially more likely than OC spray to incapacitate the subject.

As demonstrated in prior studies, OC spray and TASERs may be more effective with some subjects than with others. Again, we calculated statistical differences between the variables of interest and OC spray and TASER incidents on the basis of chi-square and t tests (results not tabled). Overall, the results did not show OC spray effectiveness to vary by subject race, sex, age, height, or weight. TASER effectiveness also did not vary by these characteristics. However, OC spray was significantly less likely to be effective when the subject was believed to be armed (χ² = 4.67, p < .05, 12.6% point difference), when the subject assaulted the police (χ² = 5.88, p < .05, 12.9% point difference), and when the subject provided higher levels of resistance (t = 4.23, p < .01, .44 difference in mean resistance scores). Interestingly, TASERs were equally effective regardless of subject resistance (0.02 difference in mean resistance scores). The results also showed that OC spray and TASERs were less likely to be the last type of force used (less likely to be “effective”) when more officers used force in the incident (t = 3.73, p < .01, .44 difference in means and t = 3.29, p < .01, .41 difference in means, respectively). OC spray and TASERs were also less likely to be the last type of force used when more officers were present during the incident (t = 3.00, p < .01, .48 difference in means and t = 2.04, p < .05, .88 difference in means, respectively). There were not any statistical differences for any other variables regarding TASER effectiveness.

To identify more directly the factors that predict the effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs, two logistic regression equations were estimated: one for OC spray effectiveness and the other for TASER effectiveness (see Table 5). For each model, the comparison was between effective versus not effective. There are two primary findings worthy of discussion based on the logistic regression results. First, overall, the OC spray model was statistically significant (χ² = 41.147, p < .001, df = 13). The TASER model was not statistically significant (χ² = 15.443, p = .281, df = 13).¹¹ In essence, the TASER demonstrates a high level of effectiveness (90.2%) regardless of the situations in which it is used. Second, of all the variables examined, the only significant predictor of OC spray effectiveness is subject resistance. With more resistance offered, OC spray was 48% less likely to be effective (odds ratio = .515, p = .027). Apparently, OC spray is not enough to subdue a subject who is more resistive.

Table 5.

Logistic Regression of OC and TASER Effectiveness.

	OC effective			TASER effective
	0 = no		1 = yes	0 = no		1 = yes
Variable	B	p	Exp(B)	B	p	Exp(B)
Subject race	0.424	.434	1.528	–0.317	.617	0.728
Subject age	0.012	.451	1.012	–0.014	.557	0.986
Subject sex	–1.433	.076	0.239	–0.419	.714	0.658
Subject mental disturbed	–0.423	.455	0.655	–0.001	.999	0.999
Subject under influence	–0.340	.323	0.712	0.071	.890	1.073
Subject believed armed	–0.351	.411	0.704	–0.416	.456	0.660
Subject actually armed	–0.726	.251	0.484	–0.397	.556	0.672
Subject fled police	–0.265	.483	0.767	–0.768	.144	0.464
Subject resistance	–0.664	.027	0.515	0.232	.516	1.261
Subject assaulted police	–0.529	.189	0.589	–0.754	.255	0.470
No. of subjects	0.661	.222	1.037	0.657	.697	1.929
No. of officers used force	–0.414	.062	0.661	–0.531	.017	0.588
No. of officers present	–0.174	.286	0.840	0.000	.998	1.000
Constant	4.651	.001	104.660	3.647	.122	38.343
Log likelihood	244.171			139.531
Model χ²	41.147			15.443
df	13			13
Significance	.000			.281
R² (Nagelkerke)	.224			.134
n	248			235

Note. OC = oleoresin capsicum; TASER = Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle; B = log odds; Exp(B) = odds ratios.

Discussion

Previous research on the use and effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs is characterized by incomplete and conflicting findings. There are simply too few studies from which to draw conclusions. Varying study sites, comparisons, data sources, and measurement schemes contribute to these conflicting findings. Nevertheless, this study reaffirms two basic conclusions of previous research: (a) OC spray and TASERs are used in different circumstances and (b) TASERs are generally more effective than OC spray in incapacitating subjects. Beyond these basic conclusions, this study provides additional findings that are important to highlight.

Use of OC Spray and TASERs

Based on the multivariate analyses, only one factor increased the odds of OC spray being used: When there were more subjects involved, OC spray was significantly more likely to be used than a TASER. This finding speaks directly to an advantage of OC spray over the TASER: It can be used on more than one subject at a time.

The best predictor of TASER use was whether the subject was mentally disturbed. No previous studies of TASER use have included this variable. In our study, the TASER was more than 2 times more likely than OC spray to be used on mentally disturbed subjects (23% of the time a TASER was used, it was with a mentally disturbed subject; see Table 1). This finding is likely a function of several factors. First, officers may perceive the TASER to be particularly appropriate (and effective) with potentially volatile and unpredictable subjects. Relatedly, and with good reason, officers may be reluctant to get too close to such subjects because of concern of their reaction. Finally, the greater likelihood of TASERs being used on mentally disturbed subjects may simply be due to the fact that officers who encounter such subjects may radio request a TASER-equipped officer.

Another significant predictor of TASER use was whether the subject fled the police on foot: In situations where a subject fled on foot, a TASER was significantly more likely to be used than OC spray. Again, no previous studies of OC spray or TASER use have included this variable. TASERs have the unique advantage of being able to be used while a foot chase is in progress; indeed, of the incidents where a TASER was used in a foot chase situation, approximately 18% (n = 17) occurred while it was in progress (in nearly all of these situations, the subject was struck in the back). A foot chase was in progress in only 5% (n = 3) of incidents where OC spray was used. TASERs were also more frequently deployed than OC spray after a chase ended (n = 68 vs. n = 45). Because of the chase, officers may be physically strained. A TASER, more so than OC spray, would allow an officer to keep his or her distance from the subject, reducing the need for close contact and possibly additional physical exertion in the form of bodily force. Furthermore, as with mentally disturbed subjects, a foot chase is usually broadcast over squad radios and additional officers, including officers equipped with TASERs, may be more likely to respond to assist. In foot chase situations and in other situations more generally, when there are more officers present at the scene, a TASER was more likely to be used than OC spray. Even though all officers present at a scene have OC spray, it may be that if a TASER-equipped officer is among the officers at the scene, a TASER is more likely to be used. The exact reason for this remains unknown but may relate to officers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the TASER.

When the subject was believed to be armed with a weapon, a TASER was also significantly more likely to be used than OC spray. Prior studies of OC spray and TASER use have not included this variable. A TASER allows officers to keep their distance from such a subject but still deal with the uncertain threat posed by him or her. OC spray and TASERs were equally (un)likely to be used when the subject was actually confirmed to be armed with some type of weapon. It is likely that in these situations a firearm was more likely to be used, or at least displayed and/or threatened, in lieu of OC spray or a TASER.

It is also noteworthy, but not surprising given the placement of OC spray and TASERs together on the department’s “intervention options” scale, that OC spray and TASERs were equally likely to be used regardless of subject resistance. More than half the time that OC spray and TASERs were used, it was on active resisters. Finally, contrary to Gau et al. (2010) and Crow and Adrion (2011), but similar to Morabito and Doerner (1997), neither OC spray nor TASER use appears to depend on subject’s characteristics. None of the multivariate analyses showed subject race, age, or sex to exert a significant influence on OC spray or TASER use.

Effectiveness of OC Spray and TASERs

The only significant predictor of OC spray (in)effectiveness was subject resistance. The more a subject resisted the police, the less likely OC spray was to be effective. In particular, when OC spray was used in situations where the subject resisted, it was likely that OC spray was not the last type of force used. Either the OC spray caused additional resistance that had to be overcome with other force, or OC spray was not effective in subduing a subject who was already resisting. The model predicting TASER effectiveness was neither significant nor did any variables predict TASER effectiveness. The observed high level of TASER effectiveness may be a function of the circumstances in which TASERs are used, the amount and quality of training officers received with the TASER, as well as their limited deployment in the study department, variables that we were not able to account for in this study.

With regard to the effectiveness rates of OC spray and the TASER, and congruent with previous studies, we found that the TASER was substantially more effective than OC spray. Given the research that has been conducted, it is safe to say that TASERs have inherent advantages over OC spray in their ability to incapacitate subjects.

In summary, OC spray and TASER use and effectiveness are clearly different outcomes with different predictors. Overall, subject behaviors are of value in predicting the use of OC spray and TASERs but not when predicting their effectiveness. Although subject behaviors relate to the use of OC spray or the TASER, other factors determine whether OC spray or the TASER actually work to induce suspect compliance. For example, whether OC spray actually works may have less to do with the subject’s characteristics and actions, and more to do with the capabilities of the weapon itself (e.g., amount of OC sprayed, distance between officer and suspect when OC is sprayed). Further research may highlight other critical variables that would help explain the circumstances in which OC spray and TASERs are effective (or fail).

Policy Considerations

Although one must be cautious in making policy recommendations on the basis of a single study, there are several policy issues that should be considered. First, use of force continua are generally guided by the amount of resistance provided by the subject; more subject resistance calls for more force. In the study department, the use of OC spray and TASERs were situated together on the “continuum” of force and, in accordance with policy, were equally likely to be used regardless of subject resistance. However, OC spray was significantly less likely to be effective on subjects who provided more resistance to the police. This relationship did not hold for TASERs. It appears, then, that the use of TASERs would be more appropriate than OC spray when subjects are more resistive or combative. As such, one could argue that OC spray and TASERs should not necessarily be placed together on force continua. It was also found in this study that TASERs were more likely to be used in some circumstances than in others, and vice versa, but these circumstances did not relate (directly at least) to subject resistance or, by implication, the use of force continuum. Regardless if officers were trained to use TASERs or OC spray in these circumstances, it is clear that the continua of force do not determine the circumstances in which TASERs or OC spray are used. Force continua have major limitations in this regard.

Second, the overall effectiveness of TASERs in this study is striking. In the overwhelming proportion of incidents where a TASER was used, once a TASER was used that incident came to an end. The same cannot be said with OC spray. Although other outcomes need to be considered (e.g., injury to officers and subjects, cost), if incapacitation of subjects is the goal, it appears that TASERs are the tool. The evolution of force weapons may continue. Decades ago, the baton was the weapon of choice for many officers. Because technology evolved, and other options became available, now batons are seldom used in force situations. The same may hold true for OC spray; it may become less frequently used because of its relative lack of effectiveness in incapacitating subjects.

Finally, it is reasonable to expect that use-of-force tools will be more effectively used if accompanied by better training. The high rate of TASER effectiveness observed in this study may be at least a partial function of the training that officers received with the weapon. A commitment to the deployment and use of TASERs should be accompanied by a serious commitment to train and re-train officers with the weapon. Only then may the full value of the weapon be realized.

Directions for Future Research

It would be worthwhile to further examine the factors associated with OC spray and TASER effectiveness and ineffectiveness. The effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs are likely to depend on factors not included in this study or in most others, including the distance from which the weapon was used, the type of clothing worn by the subject (heavy clothing being worn by the subject may inhibit the use of a TASER and/or the effectiveness of it), whether the target was moving at the time of weapon deployment, weather conditions, and the height/weight the subject in relation to the officer.

Another interesting topic for research on the issue is the impact of the threat of TASER use on resisting subjects. Adang et al. (2006) examined the impact of threats with respect to OC spray (in their study, OC spray was less effective when suspects were warned beforehand they were going to be sprayed), but no studies have looked at this issue with respect to TASERs; we currently lack information about how often TASERs are threatened to be used (or how often they are even displayed) by officers and the effects of those actions. Such studies could enhance our understanding of the overall value of the weapons.

While there is a clear need for additional research on the use of effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs, there is also a need for additional research on the use and effectiveness of bodily force in use of force situations, especially given its frequency. Most use of force incidents begin with bodily force and most injuries to officers and subjects are as a result of bodily force (Adams, 1999). As such, it would be worthwhile for researchers to consider the effectiveness and other issues related to the use of bodily force. What factors predict the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of bodily force? There are many forms of bodily force, what types are most often used and most effective? Answers to these questions may provide insight into situations where bodily force (or certain types of bodily force) should be avoided and OC spray or TASERs used instead.

Limitations

This study contributes to the discussion about the factors associated with the use and effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs, but it has limitations. First, the data used in the study were collected from police reports, which provide the official account of what happened during the use of force incident. Even the order in which force was used, which was critical for the measurement of OC spray and TASER effectiveness in this study, could be misrepresented in the reports. Although there is no evidence of systematic distortion or under-reporting in the reports, the accuracy of the reports could be questioned in this regard. Although many other use of force studies, and studies on other topics for that matter, also use official police reports, the veracity of the reports needs to be considered when drawing conclusions on the basis of them.

Second, the generalizability of the findings presented here needs to be considered, just as it needs to be considered in other single site studies (e.g., Bishopp et al., 2014; Crow & Adrion, 2011; Kaminski et al., 1999; Morabito & Doerner, 1997; White & Ready, 2010). Establishing external validity is always an empirical issue. This is especially the case in this study because the department had a particular arrangement for the deployment of TASERs among officers and had a specific policy regarding use of force incidents that involved OC spray and TASERs.

Finally, critical to our discussion of, and conclusions about, OC spray and TASER effectiveness was the determination of the last type of force used in the incident. The presumption is that when officers have control over the subject, force ends. Of course, it would be naïve to think that this is always the case, and this measurement limitation must be considered when assessing the findings of the study. In essence, this study is not able to differentiate “necessary” force from “unnecessary” force. Many other studies of force, including those that used official reports or observations of officers, have had to deal with a similar issue. To the extent that future research can address these limitations, we can continue to move toward a more complete understanding of the factors that predict the use and effectiveness of OC spray and TASERs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Steven G. Brandl is a professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His research focuses on police decision making and behavior and the hazards of police work. He is currently conducting studies on police use of force and police officer injuries.

Meghan S. Stroshine is an associate professor at Marquette University located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Her research focuses on police behavior, patrol practices, and police-citizen relationships.

References

Adams

(1999). What we know about police use of force. In Adams

(Ed.), Use of force by police: Overview of national and local data (pp. 1-14). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Adams

Jennison

(2007). What we do not know about police use of tasers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 30, 447-465.

Adang

O. M. J.

Kaminski

R. J.

Howell

M. Q.

Mensink

(2006). Assessing the performance of pepper spray in use-of-force encounters: The Dutch experience. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 29, 282-305.

Alpert

G. P.

Dunham

R. G.

(2010). Policy and training recommendations related to police use of CEDs: Overview of findings from a comprehensive national survey. Police Quarterly, 13, 235-259.

Alpert

G. P.

Smith

M. R.

Kaminski

R. J.

Fridell

L. A.

MacDonald

Kubu

(2011). NIJ Research in Brief: Police use of force, TASERs, and other less-lethal weapons. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (1993). Pepper spray: A magic bullet under scrutiny. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Amnesty International. (2004). Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use of TASERs. London, England: Author.

Amnesty International. (2006). Amnesty International’s continued concern about TASER use. New York, NY: Author.

Bishopp

S. A.

Klinger

D. A.

Morris

R. G.

(2014, July 21). An examination of the effect of a policy change on police use of TASERs. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/088740341453558

10.

Bittner

(1970). The functions of police in modern society. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

11.

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. (1999). Standards. Fairfax, VA: Author.

12.

Crow

M. S.

Adrion

(2011). Focal concerns and police use of force: Examining factors associated with TASER use. Police Quarterly, 14, 366-387.

13.

Ferdik

F. V.

Kaminski

R. J.

Cooney

M. D.

Sevigny

E. L.

(2014). The influence of agency policies on conducted energy device use and police use of lethal force. Police Quarterly, 17, 328-358.

14.

Force

(2004). Police involved shootings lowest in 14 years. Phoenix, AZ: Phoenix Police Department Media Relations Detail.

15.

Friedrich

R. J.

(1980). Police use of force: Individuals, situations, and organizations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 452, 82-97.

16.

Fyfe

J. J.

(1988). Police use of deadly force: Research and reform. Justice Quarterly, 5, 165-205.

17.

Garner

F. H.

Schade

Hepburn

Buchanan

(1995). Measuring the continuum of force used by and against the police. Criminal Justice Review, 20, 146-168.

18.

Gau

J. M.

Mosher

Pratt

T. C.

(2010). An inquiry into the impact of suspect race on police use of TASERs. Police Quarterly, 13, 27-48.

19.

Government Accountability Office. (2005). TASER weapons: Use of TASERs by selected law enforcement agencies (GAO-05–064). Washington, DC: Author.

20.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386. (1989).

21.

Granfield

Onnen

Petty

C. S.

(1994). Pepper spray and in-custody deaths. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police.

22.

Hickman

M. J.

Reaves

B. A.

(2003). Local police departments, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

23.

J. D.

Dawes

D. M.

Johnson

M. A.

Lundin

E. J.

Miner

J. R.

(2007). Impact of conducted electrical weapons in a mentally ill population: A brief report. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 25, 780-785.

24.

International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2005). Electro-muscular disruption technology (EMDT): A nine-step strategy for effective deployment. Alexandria, VA: Author.

25.

Kaminski

R. J.

Edwards

S. M.

Johnson

J. W.

(1998). The deterrent effects of oleoresin capsicum on assaults against the police: Testing the Velcro-effect hypothesis. Police Quarterly, 1, 1-20.

26.

Kaminski

R. J.

Edwards

S. M.

Johnson

J. W.

(1999). Assessing the incapacitative effects of pepper spray during resistive encounters with the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 22, 7-29.

27.

Kaminski

R. J.

Engle

R. S.

Rojek

Smith

M. R.

Alpert

(2013). A quantum of force: The consequences of counting routine conducted energy weapon punctures as injuries. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/07418825.2013.788729

28.

Klockars

C. B.

(1985). The idea of police. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

29.

Lin

Y. S.

Jones

T. R.

(2010). Electronic control devices and use of force outcomes: Incidence and severity of use of force, and frequency of injuries to arrestees and police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 33, 152-178.

30.

Long

J. S.

Freese

(2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

31.

Lumb

R. C.

Friday

P. C.

(1997). Impact of pepper spray availability on police officer use of force decisions. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 20, 173-185.

32.

MacDonald

J. M.

Kaminski

R. J.

Smith

M. R.

(2009). The effect of less lethal weapons on injuries in police use of force events. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2269-2274.

33.

Means

Edwards

(2005). Electronic control weapons: Liability issues. The Police Chief, 72, 10-11. Retrieved from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=520&issue_id=22005

34.

Morabito

E. V.

Doerner

W. G.

(1997). Police use of less-than-lethal force: Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 20, 680-697.

35.

Morrison

Garner

(2011). Latitude in deadly force training: Progress or problem? Police Practice and Research, 12, 341-361.

36.

National Institute of Justice. (2011). Study of deaths following electro muscular disruption. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

37.

Neter

Kutner

M. H.

Nachtsheim

C. J.

Wasserman

(1996). Applied linear statistical models. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

38.

Paoline

E. A.

Terrill

Ingram

J. R.

(2012). Police use of force and officer injuries: Comparing conducted energy devices (CEDs) to hands- and weapon-based tactics. Police Quarterly, 15, 115-136.

39.

Petty

C. S.

(2004). Deaths in police confrontations when oleoresin capsicum is used: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

40.

Police Executive Research Forum. (2005). PERF conducted energy device policy and training guidelines for consideration. Washington, DC: PERF Center on Force and Accountability.

41.

Reaves

B. A.

(2010). Local police departments, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

42.

Reiss

A. J.

Jr. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

43.

Ross

D. L.

(1999). Developing and implementing a use-of-force policy. In Hemmens

Atherton

(Eds.), Use of force: Current practice and policy (pp. 91-111). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

44.

Sloane

Vilke

G. M.

(2006). Riot control agents, TASERs, and other less lethal weapons. In Ross

D. L.

Chan

T. C.

(Eds.), Sudden deaths in custody (pp. 113-139). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

45.

Smith

M. R.

Kaminski

R. J.

Alpert

G. P.

Fridell

L. A.

MacDonald

Kubu

(2009). A multi-method evaluation of police use of force outcomes. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

46.

Smith

M. R.

Kaminski

R. J.

Rojek

Alpert

G. P.

Mathis

(2007). The impact of conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 30, 423-446.

47.

Sousa

Ready

Ault

(2010). The impact of Tasers on police use-of-force decisions: Findings from a randomized field training experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 35-55.

48.

TASER International. (2002). Advanced TASER M26 field report analysis. Scottsdale, AZ: Author.

49.

Taylor

Woods

D. J.

(2010). Injuries to officers and suspects in police use-of-force cases: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Police Quarterly, 13, 260-289.

50.

Terrill

(2003). Police use of force and suspect resistance: The micro process of the police-citizen encounter. Police Quarterly, 6, 51-83.

51.

Terrill

Mastrofski

S. D.

(2002). Situational and officer-based determinants of police coercion. Justice Quarterly, 19, 215-248.

52.

Terrill

Paoline

E. A.

(2007). Force continuums: Moving beyond speculation and toward empiricism. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 7, 27-31.

53.

Terrill

Paoline

E. A.

(2012a). Conducted energy devices (CEDs) and citizen injuries: The shocking empirical reality. Justice Quarterly, 29, 153-182.

54.

Terrill

Paoline

E. A.

(2012b). Examining less lethal force policy and the force continuum: Results from a national use-of-force study. Police Quarterly, 16, 38-65.

55.

Thomas

K. J.

Collins

P. A.

Lovrich

N. P.

(2010). Conducted energy device use in municipal policing: Results of a national survey on policy and effectiveness assessments. Police Quarterly, 13, 290-315.

56.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

57.

Tyler

T. R.

(2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy, 593, 84-99.

58.

White

M. D.

Ready

(2007). The TASER as a less lethal force alternative: Findings on use and effectiveness in a large metropolitan agency. Police Quarterly, 10, 170-191.

59.

White

M. D.

Ready

(2010). The impact of the TASER on suspect resistance: Identifying predictors of effectiveness. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 70-102.

60.

Williams

G. T.

(2002). Force continuums: A liability to law enforcement? FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 71, 14-19.