The impact of conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries

Michael Robert Smith · Robert J. Kaminski · Jeff J. Rojek · Geoffrey P. Alpert · Jason Mathis

95 citations0/0 files storedPolicing An International Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Policing Practices and Perceptions Occupational Health and Performance Restraint-Related Deaths

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of police use of conducted energy devices (CEDs) on officer and suspect injuries while controlling for other types of force and resistance and other factors. Design/methodology/approach Data on 1,645 use‐of‐force incidents occurring between January 1, 2002 and July 2006 were obtained from two different law enforcement agencies. Logistic and generalized ordered logistic regressions are used to model the odds of injury and severity of injury. Findings The use of CEDs was associated with reduced odds of officer and suspect injury and the severity of suspect injury in one agency. In the other agency CED use was unrelated to the odds of injury; however, the use of pepper spray was associated with reduced odds of suspect injury. Among other findings, in both agencies the use of hands‐on tactics by police was associated with increased odds of officer and suspect injury, while the use of canines was associated with increased odds of suspect injury. Research limitations/implications Although this research was carried out in two distinctly different law enforcement agencies with different histories of CED adoption, the fact that CED use was associated with reductions in injuries in one agency but not the other indicates the need for additional research on the impact of CED use in other settings Practical implications The analysis suggests that relative to other forms of force, the use of CEDs and pepper spray can reduce the risk of injury to both suspects and law enforcement officers. This information should prove useful to law enforcement agencies considering adopting CEDs and suggests that agencies should consider the use of these less lethal alternatives in place of hands‐on tactics against actively resistant suspects. Originality/value At the time of this writing there was no published independent research on the risks of injury associated with CED use in field settings. The findings reported herein will help inform the public debate on the utility of CEDs for law enforcement.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 95 citations exist upstream.

References

2004Understanding Police Use of Force 2002Characteristics associated with the prevalence and severity of force used by the police 1982Deadly force: What we know.2004Understanding police use of force officers, suspects, and reciprocity 2004The Use of Force between the Police and Persons with Impaired Judgment 1995A multivariate analysis of individual, situational and environmental factors associated with police assault injuries 1978Shots fired : an examination of New York City police firearms discharges

Cited by

2016Mental Illness, Police Use of Force, and Citizen Injury 2010Injuries to Officers and Suspects in Police Use-of-Force Cases: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation 2011Focal Concerns and Police Use of Force 2010Policy and Training Recommendations Related to Police Use of CEDs: Overview of Findings From a Comprehensive National Study 2012The Physical Hazards of Police Work Revisited 2011Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) and Citizen Injuries: The Shocking Empirical Reality

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.