2U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
Conducted Energy Devices: 
Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance 
The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines 
by 
James M. Cronin 
Joshua A. Ederheimer 


A Less Lethal Weapon Clearinghouse Now Online: www.less-lethal.org 

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, with support from the Office 
of Community Oriented Policing Services, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the 
National Institute of Justice, and other policing organizations and associations, 
has developed an online clearinghouse for information on Less Lethal Weapons 
(www.less-lethal.org). The web site is growing, based on user feedback and 
contributions. It contains links, departmental policies, academic research papers, and 
a variety of other documents that are important to understanding the impact of Less 
Lethal Weapons in the community at large and within law enforcement. 

Conducted Energy Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and Guidance. 
The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines 


Conducted Energy Devices: 
or Consistency and Guidance 
The Creation of National CED Policy and Training Guidelines 
by 
James M. Cronin 
Joshua A. Ederheimer 

This study of conducted energy devices (CEDs) by the Police Executive Research Forum 
(PERF) was supported by Grant #2005-HS-WX-0007 awarded by the U.S. Department of 
Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). Points of view or 
opinions contained in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the 
official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or members of PERF. 

The opinions expressed are generally those based on the consensus of participants in interviews, 
site visits, or expert panel meetings; however, not every view or statement presented in this 
report can necessarily be attributed to each participant. 

Web sites and sources listed provide useful information at the time of this writing, but the 
authors do not endorse any information of the sponsor organization or other information on the 
web sites. 

Published by: 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20530 

and 

Police Executive Research Forum 
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
United States of America 

November 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-73-8 

Suggested citation: 
Cronin, James M. and Joshua A. Ederheimer. Conducted Energy Devices: Development of 
Standards for Consistency and Guidance. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services and Police Executive Research Forum. Washington, D.C., 2006. 

Cover design by Michael A. Sogunro, USDOJ COPS Office 


Acknowledgments 

This report is a culmination of the valuable contributions and 
hard work of many agencies and individuals. Special recognition 
goes to the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) Fellows 
who conducted the studies that served as the foundation of PERFs 
efforts in this area. Thanks to Will Johnson (Arlington [Texas] Police 
Department), Brett Patterson (West Palm Beach [Florida] Police 
Department), and Mark Warren (Baltimore County [Maryland] Police 
Department). In addition, the expertise and hard work of PERF 
Research Director Bruce Taylor and Senior Associate Bruce Kubu of 
the PERF Law Enforcement Center for Survey Research made the 
project possible. 

We would like to thank former Assistant Attorney Deborah Daniels of 
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs and 
former Acting Assistant Attorney General Tracy Henke for their vision 
and support for addressing issues related to less-lethal technology. 
The April 2005 DOJ Less Lethal Technology Symposium and the 
subsequent creation of the DOJ Less Lethal Technology Working 
Group helped to bring conducted energy device (CED) issues to the 
forefront of law enforcement thinking. 

Of course, this report would not have been possible without the 
generous support of the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services (the COPS Office). COPS Director Carl Peed and the COPS 
staff have demonstrated leadership and sustained commitment to 
the issues surrounding CEDs. We appreciate the incredible efforts 
of our project manager and Deputy Director of the COPS Office, 
Pam Cammarata, who provided exceptional guidance and support 
throughout the project, and our current project manager, Albert 
Pearsall III. In addition, the guidance and support we have received 
from Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Director Domingo Herraiz 
and the expertise of BJA Senior Advisor for Law Enforcement Steven 
Edwards helped make this project successful. 

Moreover, we appreciate the assistance provided to us by our fellow 
members of the DOJ Less Lethal Technology Working Group. The 
group, led by COPS Director Carl Peed and BJA Director Domingo 
Herraiz, provided invaluable expertise. The participants are listed in 
Appendix B of this publication. Moreover, critically important to the 
completion of this report was the willingness of an exceptional group 



of individuals to attend a PERF symposiumprofessionals from both 
the law enforcement community and the private sectorwith expertise 
on CEDs. This group of extremely busy individuals graciously spent 
two days in Houston, Texas, discussing CED issues and vetting both 
the glossary and national guidelines. A list of those participants is in 
Appendix A. 

Finally, this report could not have been produced without the incredible 
efforts of talented and dedicated PERF staff. Executive Director 
Chuck Wexler guided this project, playing a key role in moderating the 
expert group in Houston, and helping to create a national consensus 
on both the guidelines and glossary. We thank Dana Murphy and Lisa 
Spahr for editing assistance and Jason Cheney for his research efforts. 
Thanks to Nathan Ballard and Anna Berke for their tireless efforts in 
making the arrangements for the Houston CED summit. 

James Cronin and Joshua Ederheimer 


Foreword

Law enforcement leaders are constantly striving to identify new 
strategies to encourage safe encounters between police officers and 
violent persons. One aspect of encouraging positive outcomes 
during such encounters is by focusing attention on developing less-
lethal strategies that balance minimal use of force with the operational 
necessity of arresting or disarming individuals. 

An important part of a less-lethal strategy involves the identification 
and deployment of weapons and other technology. The goal is to 
provide police officers with alternatives to deadly force in order to 
minimize harm to both community members and police. In an effort 
to more effectively reduce both police-involved shootings and injuries, a 
number of innovative less-lethal devices have been developed. One of 
the most recently developed and prominent weapon is the conducted 
energy device (CED). CEDs are less-lethal devices intended to deliver 
an electrical charge sufficient to momentarily disrupt a subjects central 
nervous system, enabling better officer control of the individual and 
causing minimal discomfort or injury. According to some estimates, 
CEDs have been adopted by more than 8,000 police and sheriffs 
departments across the country. 

During the past 2 years, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) 
has invested considerable time and resources examining the impact 
that CEDs have had on law enforcement agencies and communities 
across the country. PERF staff members have conducted two national 
surveysone focusing on identifying the state of the field, and the 
other examining circumstances and various factors related to deaths 
that occurred in proximity to a CED activation. In addition, PERF 
has hosted several international symposiums, identified and assessed 
available studies and reports, reviewed a large number of police and 
sheriff s department policies, partnered with Canadian and British 
counterparts, consulted with medical doctors, and examined media 
reports. Based on the information gathered through these venues, 
PERF drafted a CED glossary of terms and a series of national policy 
guidelines for the use of CEDs. 

Subsequently, with the support of the Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services (COPS) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 
of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), PERF brought together 
representatives from more than 50 law enforcement agencies that 



use CEDs, medical doctors, labor union representatives, academic 
researchers, and other subject matter experts to carefully vet the CED 
glossary of terms and the guidelines for consideration. While several 
longer term major studies of CEDs are in progress, the field urgently 
needs to have information, guidance, and consistency about these 
devices as soon as possible. While the guidelines and glossary are not 
meant to represent the final and definitive perspectives on CEDs, they 
do provide needed clarification and information that can help guide 
police executives in developing CED policy. 

The glossary and guidelines in this report address policy issues that 
include critical topics such as what resistance levels delineate when 
CED activation is permissible; the number and duration of CED cycles 
that can be applied to a person; CED use against at-risk populations, 
how police should respond to a suspect armed with a CED; tactical 
considerations about when a CED can be activated; and numerous 
other concerns. 

PERF developed the glossary of terms and guidelines for consideration 
in the hope that they will be useful in providing the kind of information 
that law enforcement leaders and policymakers need to better protect 
the public and the safety of their officers. PERF is pleased to bring 
this information to the field to help ensure the well-being of our 
nations officers and to bring the best possible police services to all 
communities. 

Chuck Wexler 
Executive Director, PERF 


Contents 

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii 
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
Conducted Energy Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Describing Conducted Energy Devices....................................................3

Concerns Emerge About CEDs ............................................................3

Need for National Guidelines...........................................................4

The Development of National Guidelines ................................................5

Overview of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

The PERF Surveys ......................................................................7

DOJ Less Lethal Technology Working Group ..............................................8

PERFs National Summit on CEDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 
PERF CED Glossary of Terms ............................................................15 
PERF CED Guidelines for Consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 
References ............................................................................31 
About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 
About the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services ..............................35 
About the Bureau of Justice Assistance ................................................37 
About the Police Executive Research Forum .............................................39 
About the PERF Center on Force and Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 
Resources/Links .......................................................................43 
Appendix A: Participants in the National Summit on CEDs (Houston, Texas) . . . . . . . 45 
Appendix B: DOJs Less Lethal Technology Working Group Members . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 


Introduction 

As more and more conducted energy devices (CED)1 were 
deployed across the United States, their use sparked considerable 
confusion. Police executives were inundated with questions 
about the devices, and had to explainand in some instances, justify 
several of the ways that the devices had been used as tactical weapons 
by their officers. The dearth of available information about how CEDs 
worked and how they were used in daily police work had hampered the 
ability of police executives to make informed policy decisions about the 
devices. Police executives had been provided with little independent 
support and guidance on CEDs, which had compelled them to make 
policy and operational decisions on CEDs with very little reliable 
information to back them. 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and the 
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) of the U.S. Department of Justice 
(DOJ) recognized the pressing need for a greater understanding of 
these devices. They were aware of research activities that had been 
conducted on CEDs by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) 
and other organizations, and supported efforts to provide police chiefs 
with a fuller scope of information to help them make more informed 
decisions. The goal of this report is to share the CED glossary of 
terms and national CED guidelines for consideration, and to provide a 
context for how these items were developed. This report reflects the 
first step in providing guidance to the field to help bring consistency 
and a better understanding of the devices to the profession. As 
more research is completed, new information will be synthesized and 
the guidelines will likely need to be refined. CED technology is still 
maturing and, as it evolves, the profession will have to continually 
ensure that it is deployed safely and efficiently. 

PERFs activities included two national studiesone determining the 
state of the field and the other identifying issues related to proximity 
deaths. PERF had also reached out to, and consulted with, many of 
the most experienced and knowledgeable CED professionals in the 
field to distinguish the most pressing issues and major obstacles. It 
conducted international symposiums with practitioners, medical 
doctors, academics, labor unions, and other expert stakeholders. PERF 
also interacted with representatives from Taser International, advocacy 
organizations, and international groups during the course of this 
endeavor. Also important, PERF consulted with fellow members of 

1 Conducted Energy Device 
(CED) is the preferred terminology for the weapon. However, the CED has also been 
referred to as Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology 
(EMDT); Electro-Muscular 
Incapacitation device (EMI); 
Electro Muscular Device 
(EMD); and Electronic Control Device (ECD). They all 
serve to describe this category 
of less-lethal weapons. 


the DOJ Less Lethal Technology Working Group, who offered their 
expertise and insights on less-lethal weapon issues. 

Complementing these activities, PERF reviewed numerous studies 
and reports from individual law enforcement agencies and other 
organizations. It examined numerous agency CED policies, including 
policy updates and revisions. PERF also examined numerous media 
reports on CEDs, both in-print and electronic mediums. Ultimately, 
PERF drafted a CED glossary of terms and a series of CED guidelines 
for consideration. Building on the knowledge gained from these 
activities, PERFwith the support of COPS and BJAconvened a 
summit attended by international experts and stakeholders to discuss 
pressing CED-related issues and vet the CED glossary of terms and 
guidelines for consideration. This report, therefore, represents the 
culmination of PERFs numerous initiatives on CEDs. 

This report describes CEDs and explains how they work. It also relates 
some of the concerns that arose about the devices, and provides a 
context on why the field needed guidance. The report summarizes 
related research and the development of the guidelines and describes 
the role of the DOJ Less Lethal Technology Symposium. Finally, this 
report contains the CED glossary of terms and 52 CED guidelines for 
consideration that were vetted by the expert group. 

This report fosters consistency in terminology related to CEDs and 
less-lethal weapons, as well as assists law enforcement leaders in 
making more informed policy decisions about CEDs. While additional 
longitudinal research is being conducted, the CED glossary of terms 
and the accompanying guidelines for consideration are resources that 
are available now to help agencies develop clear and consistent policies 
on CEDs. 


Conducted Energy Devices 

Describing Conducted Energy Devices 

At the time of this publication, the most commonly deployed 
conducted energy device (CED) is manufactured by Taser 
International, notably the Taser M26 and X26 models. Taser, 
developed in the 1970s by Jack Cover, is an acronym for the Thomas A. 
Swift Electric Rifle. Swift was a fictional character in a 1930s series of 
science fiction books by Victor Appleton (Sanchez, 2004). Tasers fire 
darts that attach to (or penetrate) a persons skin or clothing and create 
an incapacitating electrical current. 

The Taser has evolved over the years. In 1999, the company developed 
the Advanced Taser M26, which was powered by an alkaline battery 
and used nitrogen cartridges, rather than gunpowder, which was used in 
earlier models, to fire projectiles. Shaped liked a handgun, the Advanced 
Taser M26 became popular with law enforcement officers. In 2003, 
the company introduced the Taser X26, more compact than the 
Advanced Taser M26 and, according to the company, more efficient. It 
is powered by a lithium battery and also uses nitrogen cartridges to fire 
projectiles. These CEDs deliver an electrical current that interferes with 
the bodys neuromuscular system, temporarily incapacitating a targeted 
person. They are laser-sighted and use cartridges attached to the end of 
the weapons barrel (Ederheimer and Fridell, 2005). 

The Taser has two modes: probe and touch stun. In the probe 
mode, the cartridges project, through a set of wires, a pair of barbs (or 
darts with hooks) that attaches to clothing or penetrates the skin after 
the Taser is fired, delivering an electrical charge (Association of Chief 
Police Officers, 2004). When the barbs strike, the electrical current is 
sent down the wires and through the body between the two barb points. 
In the touch stun mode, electrical contacts on the Taser are pressed 
directly onto a person and there is a similar but reduced neuromuscular 
effect (Donnelly et al, 2002). 

Concerns Emerge About CEDs 

According to some estimates, CEDs have been adopted by more 
than 8,000 police and sheriffs offices across the country. Many law 
enforcement leaders have touted the devices, citing them as an effective 
less-lethal option. CEDs have been credited with helping to reduce 


injuries and instances of deadly force; however, as deployments of 
CEDs increased across the United States and abroad, controversy has 
emerged. 

Advocacy organizations raised questions about the devices, claiming 
they were being misused, overused, and posed serious health risks. 
Policy issues emerged on a plethora of concerns ranging from 
placement on the force continuum to activation parameters on at-risk 
populations such as children, the elderly, persons under the influence of 
drugs, and pregnant women. Training questions arose, especially about 
the mandatory exposure of police officers to these devices. Tactical 
issues surfaced, ranging from holster placement to the practice of 
activating persons in vehicles. The medical effects of CEDs wereand 
remaincontroversial because some people have died in proximity to 
a CED activation. Law enforcement executives were confronted with 
these and other CED issues and determined that deeper examination 
of them was necessary. 

Need for National Guidelines 

Any new technologyand in particular, one that has the potential 
to cause injury and possible deathmust be carefully assessed using 
whatever reliable information is available. That assessment can help 
law enforcement agencies develop effective policies in their own 
jurisdictions and at the same time foster accountability by addressing 
apprehensions of the public. Longitudinal research is necessarynot 
only on CEDs, but also on how all less-lethal technology and police 
tactics affect officer and resident safety. While there were a number 
of longer-term studies on CEDs in progress, police departments 
needed information quickly so they could develop effective new CED 
policiesor refine, calibrate, and strengthen current ones. 

The lack of available information prompted Amnesty International to 
call for a moratorium on CEDs, and several local and state legislatures 
offered legislation to restrict or prohibit the devices. Many law 
enforcement agencies delayed or cancelled plans to deploy the devices 
in the field. It quickly became clear that the field needed objective 
and responsible guidance about these devices, and the failure to have 
such guidance could limit the availability of this less-lethal tool for 
law enforcement. The pressing need for standardization and well 
researched guidelines prompted the development of this report. 


The Development of National Guidelines 

Overview of Research 

Prior to the development of the Police Executive Research Forum 
(PERF) CED glossary and guidelines, little U.S. research had 
been made available to law enforcement on CEDs. There were 
few comprehensive assessments of the operation or effectiveness of 
the devices. Primarily, many relied on data from the manufacturer, 
from organizations funded by the manufacturer, media reports, 
or information from a single jurisdiction. PERF staff, however, 
conducted an extensive literature review of available information about 
CEDs. Among the items examined was research conducted by the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), international 
law enforcement partners, technical research by the U.S. Military, 
operational data by police departments, reports by media outlets, and 
studies completed by advocacy organizations. 

PERF examined research conducted by the United Kingdom, which 
had completed an operational trial of CEDs (in this case, Taser brand 
devices), piloting various models in five British police jurisdictions. The 
pilot, conducted by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), 
concluded that the CED (Taser) was a useful and effective piece of 
equipment that can help to de-escalate potentially violent situations 
and reduce harm with more precision than other alternatives. A second 
report conducted by the United Kingdom was completed in 2005. 
Entitled Police Scientific Development Branch: Further Evaluation of the Taser 
Device,. the report concluded that the risk of life-threatening or serious 
injury from the CED was very low. 

PERF also examined Canadian research, which included the 2005 
report entitled Review of Conducted Energy Devices produced by the 
Canadian Police Research Centre. It examined the medical safety of 
CEDs and the effect CED use has on police operations. It concluded 
that there was no definitive research or evidence to establish a causal 
relationship between CED use and deaths. Furthermore, with proper 
training the use of a CED can reduce risk of harm to both police 
officers and suspects. 

Other research reviewed included the U.S. Air Force Research 
Laboratory Human Effects Center on Excellence (HECOE) report 
entitled Human Effectiveness and Risk Characterization of the Electromuscular 


Incapacitation Device- A Limited Analysis of the TASER. The 2005 
HECOE report concluded that CEDs (Taser) are generally effective for 
their intended use and the activation of the device does not appear to 
pose a significant risk to the recipient. 

Some local agencies reported operational effectiveness of CEDs. The 
Miami (Florida) Police Department reported that after it adopted CEDs 
in 2003, the department experienced no police-involved shootings 
for 20 consecutive months. During the same period, the Seattle 
(Washington) Police Department also reported no police-involved 
shooting deaths after adopting the devices, and Chief Gil Kerlikowske 
had given some of the credit to CEDs (Castro, 2004). After it began 
using CEDs, the Phoenix (Arizona) Police Department reported the 
lowest rate of deadly police shootings in 14 years (Kershaw, 2004). In 
Portland, Oregon, police found that 25 to 30 percent of the situations 
in which a CED was used met the criteria for the use of deadly force 
(Jones, 2004). A report by the Madison (Wisconsin) Police Department 
concluded that the deployment of CEDs has reduced officers use of 
deadly force and has reduced injuries to both officers and suspects 
(Wahl, 2005). 

Information critical of CEDs was also examined. The Arizona Republic 
published a series of articles concerning deaths following the use of a 
CED. The newspaper conducted a search of autopsy reports, police 
reports, media reports, and Taser Internationals own records to identify 
deaths that occurred after a CED activation. Amnesty International, 
concerned with the deaths of individuals in the United States and 
Canada after a CED activation, released a report in 2006 called Amnesty 
Internationals Continued Concerns About Taser Use. In the report, the group 
calls for the suspension of CED use until an independent, impartial, and 
comprehensive inquiry into their effects is conducted. 

PERF also reviewed a significant amount of other available information 
and research. The work on CEDs that had been completed to that 
point, however, used disparate terms and definitions, and had not been 
centrally compiled and synthesized. This contributed greatly to the 
confusion in the field. Also important, none of the previous efforts 
had identified the current issues surrounding CEDs in the United 
States, and there was little guidance on CED policy development, 
independent training, and tactics. PERF embarked on two national 
studies to fill this void, with the goal of translating the new data and 
previous research into national guidelines for consideration. 


The PERF Surveys 

To collect the critical information on CEDs needed to help police 
leaders make informed policy decisions, staff from PERFs Center 
on Force & Accountability and PERFs Law Enforcement Center 
for Survey Research completed two major national surveys of law 
enforcement organizations. These two studies, a summit of law 
enforcement experts, and a compilation of research studies were 
instrumental in producing the CED glossary of terms and guidelines 
for consideration.2 

The first study, conducted in early 2005, was coordinated by Major 
Mark Warren of the Baltimore County (Maryland) Police Department, 
who served as a PERF Fellow. It involved 74 participating agencies, 
most of which used at least 100 CEDs and fully deployed the devices 
to all officers on patrol. Recognizing that police CED practices were 
rapidly changing, the study sought to determine the state of the field 
at the time. While many law enforcement organizations have since 
updated their policies, the study provided a national snapshot of the 
field during that period. The information was valuable in developing 
questions for the second survey and, later, in the development of topics 
for the guidelines. 

The second study was coordinated by Lieutenant Will Johnson of 
the Arlington (Texas) Police Department, who also served as a PERF 
Fellow. Completed in October 2005, the study focused on 96 agencies 
in the United States and examined 118 deaths that had allegedly 
occurred in proximity to a CED activation. In addition, data were 
collected from a comparison group of CED incidents where a death 
did not occur. 

These two national surveys helped identify seminal issues related to 
CEDs, and aided PERF staff in formulating the initial draft of the 
glossary and guidelines. The information amassed during the course 
of the surveysand the analysis of the data obtainedled to the 
development of several key conclusions that influenced guideline 
development. For example, the results indicated that multiple and 
continuous activations of CEDs may increase the risk of death or serious 
injury, and that there may be a higher risk of death in people under the 
influence of drugs. Further, the survey reflected that it would be prudent 
to provide a medical evaluation following all CED activations. 

2 The results of these studies 
are published in: Ederheimer, 
Joshua. Chief Concerns: 
Strategies for Resolving Conflict 
and Minimizing Use of Force. 
Washington, D.C.; Police 
Executive Research Forum, 
2006. 


Also, the results indicated that most CED activations were correlated 
with higher levels of aggression by assailants. The surveys also helped 
identify practices in the field that influenced guideline development. 
For training purposes, the number of injuries experienced by officers 
during training supported the practice of informed voluntary exposure 
to CEDs. It also became clear that agencies recognized the need 
for establishing parameters regarding CED activation on at-risk 
populations such as children, the elderly, and pregnant women. Finally, 
the data indicated a real need for more attention to the issues related to 
CED activation on persons operating vehicles, handcuffed persons, and 
fleeing suspects. 

These conclusions represent only a small portion of the findings from 
the two national surveys. As noted earlier, the complete findings 
will be published in a separate publication. Nonetheless, the results 
served as the foundation for developing the draft guidelines and the 
open dialogue among police executives, authorities on use of force, 
researchers, and medical doctors who helped finalize them. 

DOJ Less Lethal Technology Working Group 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recognized that CEDs were 
emerging as a significant issue facing law enforcement. It noted 
the greater use of CEDs by law enforcement and the consequent 
increase in questions surrounding their use. Accordingly, the Bureau 
of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Institute of Justice 
components of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) at the DOJ 
convened the national Less Lethal Technology Symposium in April 
2005 to help centralize CED information and bring contemporary 
information to the field. The symposium created an opportunity 
for PERF, other law enforcement associations, local police officials, 
federal agencies, international partners, and other leaders in the field 
to share information. 

Based on the success of the symposium, the DOJ wanted to 
assist the profession by institutionalizing a national dialogue 
and establishing a central component to guide future less-lethal 
technology efforts. As a result, DOJ created the Less Lethal 
Technology Working Group (LLTWG). 

The LLTWG is led by COPS Director Carl Peed and BJA Director 
Domingo Herraiz, and is hosted quarterly by the Commission on 


Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) Executive 
Director Sylvester Doughtry, Jr., at the CALEA offices in Virginia. The 
group consists of representatives from local law enforcement agencies, 
PERF, the IACP, National Sheriffs Association (NSA), the National 
Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), the 
Police Foundation (PF), the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the Major 
City Chiefs Association (MCC), CALEA, the Major County Sheriffs 
Association (MCSA), and the International Association of Directors of 
Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST). DOJ partners 
include the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 
and several components of the OJP, including: BJA; the Bureau of 
Justice Statistics (BJS); and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). 

The working group has been successful in bringing together 
representatives from different agencies and organizations and 
combining their expertise to create industry consistency and expand 
the professions knowledge concerning less-lethal technology. The 
group creates focus and direction while establishing national priorities 
for law enforcement on less-lethal technology. Most recently, LLTWG 
participants gathered information on less-lethal technology for 
inclusion on the Less Lethal Technology web site supported by the 
IACP. The web site provides a wide array of information on less-lethal 
technology that is dynamic and updated frequently. The web site is 
located at www.less-lethal.org. 

The LLTWG also played an essential role in vetting the PERF CED 
glossary of terms and guidelines for consideration. 

PERFs National Summit on CEDs 

On October 1819, 2005, representatives from more than 50 law 
enforcement agencies, researchers, and subject matter experts met 
in Houston, Texas to participate in PERFs National Summit on 
Conducted Energy Devices. Supported by the COPS Office and BJA, 
the purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss the draft CED 
glossary of terms and CED guidelines for consideration. The drafts 
were developed after the nearly 2 years of research and the completion 
of the two PERF national surveys. 

Summit participants represented a cross section of stakeholders 
police practitioners of various ranks, authorities on use of force, labor 
union representatives, medical doctors, and academicswho vetted 


the guidelines during the event. The culmination of these efforts was 
a standardized glossary of CED terms to promote consistency and 
understanding for policy development, and the formulation of 52 
national CED policy guidelines for consideration. 

The national summit opened with several presentations that provided 
both new information and updates to previously established research. 
This information gave attendees a greater awareness of the CED 
research completed to date, as well as a factual basis from which many 
of the draft policy guidelines were developed. 

Joshua Ederheimer, director of PERFs Center on Force & 
Accountability, began the first panels discussion with a presentation 
on the work that PERF has conducted. He then introduced the key 
personnel who had worked on the two studies, Mark Warren and Will 
Johnson. Highlights of the PERF presentations included data pertinent 
to issues such as: the critical period between CED activation and deaths 
that occur in proximity to use; resistance levels that delineate when 
CED activation is prudent; the impact of the number and duration 
of CED cycles that are applied to a person; CED use against at-risk 
populations; how police should respond to a suspect armed with a 
CED; and tactical considerations on when a CED can be activated. 

The next presentations were made by two international experts 
on CEDs. Superintendent Anthony Bangham of the West Mercia 
Constabulary and the UK Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) 
provided an update on the state of the field of CED use in the United 
Kingdom. Steve Palmer, executive director of the Canadian Police 
Research Centre, provided a similar review of CED research and use in 
Canada. Subsequently, Dr. Gary Vilke and Dr. Christian Sloane from 
the University of California San Diego Medical Center spoke about 
the medical effects of CED use and provided a review of the medical 
literature on CED activation. The doctorswho also discussed the 
medical assessment protocols on CED use that they developed with 
the San Diego Police Departmentcommented on the draft PERF 
guidelines concerning CED post-activation response. 

Dr. Geoffrey Alpert, professor and chair of the Department of 
Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina, 
was the summits keynote speaker. Dr. Alpert has been conducting 
research on high-risk police activity for more than 25 years and 
is considered a leading expert in the field. He discussed better 


management of CED use through policy, training, and accountability. 
Harold Hurtt, chief of the Houston Police Department, was the 
summits keynote dinner speaker. Chief Hurtt discussed police 
leadership and responsibility, and shared his experiences in using CEDs 
both in Houston and in Phoenix, Arizona, where he had also served 
as chief of police. As chief in Phoenix, he was one of the first law 
enforcement executives to introduce CEDs into the field. Currently, 
the Houston Police Department has deployed more CEDs than any 
other police department in the world. 

During the summit, participants focused on reviewing and fine-
tuning the draft guidelines. PERF Executive Director Chuck Wexler 
moderated a discussion in which each draft guideline was examined. 
Following spirited discussion and debate where strong opinions were 
expressed and a variety of viewpoints considered, consensus was 
achieved and the CED glossary of terms and 52 policy guidelines for 
consideration were finalized. 


Conclusion

There was a critical need to provide information, consistency, and 
guidance about CEDs to the law enforcement profession. Law 
enforcement leaders urgently wanted this information to enable 
them to make purchasing and deployment decisions; develop new CED 
policies for their organizations; or to refine, calibrate, and strengthen 
current policies. Their ultimate goal wasand remainsto foster safe 
encounters between police officers and violent subjects. 

The development of the CED glossary and guidelines for consideration 
helped to bring some order to a field that was experiencing confusion 
about how to proceed on CED-related issues. The glossary and 
guidelines resulted from a synthesis of available research and 
information, and represents a culmination of consensus from different 
parts of the country and a varied group of stakeholders. 

The development and dissemination of the glossary and guidelines 
are an important first step in addressing law enforcements needs 
regarding CEDs. As more information becomes available about the 
devices, however, refinement and modifications to them will need to 
occur in the future. 

The collective efforts of PERF, DOJ, and their partners helped to 
address the professions critical need for information about CEDs. 
The initial response to the glossary and guidelines has been favorable. 
Several law enforcement agencies across the nation compared their 
CED policies with the guidelines, and numerous agencies modified 
their policies to reflect all or some of the guidelines. 

Among the agencies influenced by the guidelines were the Cleveland (Ohio)
Police Department; Fremont (California) Police Department; 
Metro Nashville (Tennessee) Police Department; Minneapolis 
(Minnesota) Police Department; Mountain View (California) Police Department; 
Pasadena (California) Police Department; San Jose (California)
Police Department; and the California Commission on 
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST); among others. In 
addition to having an impact on the current CED policies of law 
enforcement agencies, the guidelines influenced the decision to 
deploy CEDs in at least one police department: the Fort Wayne 
(Indiana) Police Department. 



Additional longitudinal research studies are necessary to achieve a 
more complete understanding of the effects of CEDs on individuals,3 
especially individuals engaging in at-risk behaviors like illicit drug usage 
and physical aggression toward police. Law enforcement leaders will 
need to evaluate and prioritize disparate information to formulate 
policies and training that effectively serve their officers and their 
communities. The information presented in this report can assist 
executives with these challenges and help them make more informed 
policy decisions about CEDs now. It will be necessary to review and 
assess these guidelines in the future as new information becomes 
available and longitudinal studies are completed. 

3 PERF is continuing its efforts to aid the field 
concerning CED issues. PERF has 
partnered with the National 
Sheriffs Association to 
examine issues related to the 
deployment of CEDs in a custodial 
setting, such as in courtrooms, 
transport vehicles, jails, 
and other such environments. 
The study is supported by the 
Bureau of Justice Assistance. 
Further, PERF is involved 
in other use of force and 
officer safety studies, and will 
continue to work with various 
international partners to keep 
the field abreast of the most 
contemporary CED issues. 


PERF CED Glossary of Terms 

One of the first issues that led to confusion about conducted 
energy devices (CED) was the disparity of terms used to describe 
the device. Various organizations used an array of terms to 
describe the same apparatus (e.g., electronic control weapons, 
electromuscular incapacitation devices, conducted energy weapon, etc.). Police 
agencies also used varied definitions for similar behaviors that subjects 
exhibited (e.g., the term passive aggression may have different meanings 
for different police agencies). To minimize the confusion in discussing 
CEDs, PERF staff developed a list of terms and definitions used in 
relation to CEDs. 

PERF staff examined numerous research reports and agency policies 
to create this glossary of terms. This list was then vetted through 
the DOJs Less Lethal Technology Working Group prior to review 
at PERFs National Summit on Conducted Energy Devices in 
Houston, Texas, to ensure consensus. The goal of creating these 
terms is to encourage consistency and strengthen clarity regarding the 
accompanying national CED guidelines for consideration. 

Accidental Discharge 

The unintentional firing of a conducted energy device (CED). 

Activate 

Depressing the trigger of a CED causing a CED to arc or to fire 
probes. 

Active Aggression 

A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), 
coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which 
reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent. 

Actively Resisting 

Physically evasive movements to defeat an officers attempt at control, 
including bracing, tensing, pushing, or verbally signaling an intention to 
avoid or prevent being taken into or retained in custody. 

Aggravated Active Aggression 

Deadly force encounter. 



Air Cartridge 

A replaceable cartridge which uses compressed gases to fire two 
probes on connecting wires, sending a high voltage/low current signal 
into a subject. 

Applicable Response 

Response determined appropriate for the given operational scenario. 

Arcing/Arching 

Activating a CED without a cartridge. 

Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) 

An apparatus that monitors the heart of the patient and then 
automatically administers a controlled electric shock to the chest to 
restore normal heart rhythm. 

Basis Response 

Generic responses that describe how people routinely behave as the 
result of the application of a weapon or technology (or tactic, or 
procedure) employed against them. 

Bodily Injury 

Injury to the human body that requires treatment by a doctor or other 
health professional. 

CED Cycle 

Duration of a CED electrical discharge following a CED activation. 

Central Information Display (CID) 

Display of data on the back of a conducted energy device. 

Circular Situational Force Model 

A circular force training model that promotes continuous critical 
assessment and evaluation of a force incident in which the level 
of response is based upon the situation encountered and level of 
resistance offered by a subject. The situational assessment helps officers 
determine the appropriate force option, ranging from physical presence 
to deadly force. 



Coincidental Injury 

Injuries received in the incident not directly related to CED use (such as 
baton use, self-inflicted wounds, and gunshot wounds). 

Conducted Energy Device (CED) 

A weapon primarily designed to disrupt a subjects central nervous 
system by means of deploying electrical energy sufficient to cause 
uncontrolled muscle contractions and override an individuals voluntary 
motor responses.4 

Confetti Tags 

Confetti-like tags expelled from a cartridge of a CED when fired to 
shoot probes. Each tag contains a serial number unique to the specific 
cartridge used. 

Continuum of Force/Response to Resistance 

A training model/philosophy that supports the progressive and 
reasonable escalation and de-escalation of officer-applied force in 
proportional response to the actions and level of resistance offered by a 
subject. The level of response is based upon the situation encountered 
at the scene and the actions of the subject in response to the officers 
commands. Such response may progress from the officers physical 
presence at the scene to the application of deadly force. 

Crowd Control 

The use of police action to stop the activities of persons assembled. 

Crowd Management 

Observing, monitoring, and facilitating the activities of persons assembled. 

Darts 

Projectiles that are fired from a CED and penetrate the skin; wires are 
attached to the probes leading back to the CED. 

Dart Placement 

Point of entry for a probe on a persons body. 

Dart (Barb) Removal 

The act of removing a probe from a persons body or clothing. 

4 Conducted Energy Device 
(CED) is the preferred 
terminology for the weapon. 
It has also been referred to as 
Electro-Muscular Disruption 
Technology (EMDT); Electro-
Muscular Incapacitation device 
(EMI); Electro Muscular 
Device (EMD); and Electronic 
Control Device (ECD). 



Defensive Resistance 

Physical actions that attempt to prevent officers control including flight 
or attempt to flee, but do not involve attempts to harm the officer. 

Deployment 

Sending CED devices into the field with law enforcement officers. 

Deadly Force 

Any tactic or use of force that has an intended, natural, and probable 
consequence of serious physical injury or death. 

Discharge 

Barbs fired at a subject. 

Drive Stun 

To stun a subject with a CED by making direct contact with the 
body after a CED cartridge has been expended or removed for pain 
compliance. 

Duration 

The aggregate period of time that CED shocks are activated. 

Electrocardiogram Monitor (ECG/EKG) 

The machine that measures and records the electrical activity of the heart. 

Electromuscular Disruption/Incapacitation (EMD)(EMI) 

Effect CED has on the body. Overrides the brains communication with 
the body and prevents the voluntary control over the muscles. 

Environmental Factors 

Factors such as wind speed, temperature, humidity, lighting, 
precipitation, terrain, etc. 

Excessive Force 

The application of an unreasonable amount (or force too long applied) 
of force in a given incident based on the totality of the circumstances. 

Excited Delirium 

State of extreme mental and physiological excitement, characterized 
by extreme agitation, hyperthermia, epiphoria, hostility, exceptional 
strength, and endurance without fatigue. 



Exigent Circumstances 

Circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that 
prompt action is necessary to prevent physical harm to civilians and/ 
or officers. 

Firing 

Discharging CED darts at a person. 

Fleeing 

An active attempt by a person to avoid apprehension by a law 
enforcement officer through evasive actions while attempting to leave 
the scene. 

Group Cohesion 

The ability to disrupt or control a group of individuals by either 
restricting or enhancing their organization, cooperation, and density. 

Initial Basic Operator Training 

The first basic CED training provided to officers prior to issuance of 
a CED. 

Intentional Discharge Investigation 

An investigation of the circumstances surrounding the firing or drive-
stunning of a CED. 

Intermediate Weapon 

A weapon usage category situated between a verbal command and lethal 
force on a traditional force continuum. 

Laser Pointing (Red Dot) 

Unholstering and pointing a CED at a person and activating the 
devices laser dot. 

Less Lethal 

A concept of planning and force application that meets an operational 
or tactical objective, with less potential for causing death or serious 
injury than conventional, more lethal police tactics. 

Less-Lethal Weapon 

Any apprehension or restraint device that, when used as designed and 
intended, has less potential for causing death or serious injury than 
conventional police lethal weapons. 



Measures of Effectiveness 

Measures indicating the degree to which a target response satisfies a 
requirement within an operational context. 

Measures of Response 

Measures indicating how a target reacts to a systems effects. 

Objective Reasonableness 

Reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the 
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene in light of the facts and 
circumstances confronting the officer. 

Onset Time 

(Ideally equal to zero) The period between the deployment of a 
less-lethal weapon system (or tactic, technique, or procedure) and 
the point when the magnitude of the desired effect attains some 
particular threshold. 

Operational Effectiveness 

That level of force necessary to achieve compliance, safeguard persons 
and property, or prevent injury. 

Operational Safety 

That degree of risk determined to be acceptable in order to accomplish 
a mission without unduly endangering officers, bystanders, or suspects. 

Passive Resistance 

Physical actions that do not prevent the officers attempt to control, 
for example, a person who remains in a limp, prone position, passive 
demonstrators, etc. 

Pointing/Aiming 

Unholstering and pointing a CED at a person. 

Post-Activation Investigation 

An investigation of the circumstances surrounding the intentional or 
unintentional firing of probes or drive-stunning of a CED. 

Primary Injury 

(1st Order Effect)
Immediate or delayed consequences of a CED resulting directly from 
an electrical current flow in the body. 



Probe Spread 

The amount of distance between probes fired from a CED (e.g., 
approximately 1 foot spread for every 7 feet of travel distance). 

Proximity Death 

The death of a person that occurred in proximity to the use of a 
conducted energy device (usually within 24 hours). 

Psychological Intimidation 

Nonverbal cues in attitude, appearance, demeanor, posture, or physical 
readiness that indicate an unwillingness to cooperate, pre-assaultive 
posturing, or a threat. 

Physical Weapon Characteristics 

The intrinsic qualities of a weapon including dimensional design values 
associated with a weapon (weight, caliber, size, power requirement, 
shelf life, etc.). 

Secondary Injury 

(2nd Order Effect)
Physical trauma indirectly associated with CED use (e.g., injuries 
from falls).

Sensitive Areas 

A persons head, neck, genital area, and a females breast areas. 

Serious Bodily Injury 

Bodily injury that, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later 
time, involves a substantial risk of death, a substantial risk of serious 
permanent disfigurement, a substantial risk of protracted loss or 
impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, or 
breaks, fractures, or burns of the second or third degree. 

Spark Test 

Noncontact testing of a CED by arcing it to ensure it is in proper 
working order. 

Standard CED Cycle 

A 5-second electrical discharge occurring when a CED trigger is 
pressed and released. The standard 5-second cycle may be shortened 
by turning the CED off. (Note: If a CED trigger is pressed and held 
beyond 5 seconds, the CED will continue to deliver an electrical 
discharge until the trigger is released.) 



Substantial Investigation 

An extensive investigation into the use of a conducted energy device 
that is conducted by investigators outside the chain of command of the 
firing officer. 

Target Recovery 

(Ideally, full recovery immediately at the end of the desired duration) 
The period when the target response falls below a particular threshold 
and a full recovery of unimpaired functionality is desired in an 
operationally meaningful context. 

Unintentional Discharge 

The unintentional firing of a CED (includes discharges caused by 
involuntary muscle contraction and mechanical malfunction). 

Ventricular Fibrillation (VF) 

Ventricular fibrillation is a condition in which the hearts electrical 
activity becomes disordered. 

Verbal Non-Compliance 

Verbal responses indicating an unwillingness to comply with an officers 
directions. 



PERF CED Guidelines for Consideration 

These 52 CED guidelines for consideration are presented with the 
understanding that many use-of-force situations can change rapidly 
and may require law enforcement officers to make quick decisions 
about force options. It is impossible to anticipate every possible use-
of-force situation or circumstance that may occur and, in all cases, 
officers need to rely on their training, judgment, and instincts. The 
considerations noted below, however, can help law enforcement officers 
make more informed judgments about CEDs and how and when to use 
CEDs to protect themselves and the public. 

While every effort was made to consider the views of all contributors 
and the best thinking on the vast amount of information received, the 
resulting PERF guidelines do not necessarily reflect the individual views 
of every stakeholder involved in the development process, nor the 
views of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

1. 
CEDs should only be used against persons who are actively 
resisting or exhibiting active aggression, or to prevent individuals 
from harming themselves or others. CEDs should not be used 
against a passive suspect. 

2. 
No more than one officer at a time should activate a CED against 
a person. 

3. 
When activating a CED, law enforcement officers should use it for 
one standard cycle and stop to evaluate the situation (a standard 
cycle is five seconds). If subsequent cycles are necessary, agency 
policy should restrict the number and duration of those cycles to 
the minimum activations necessary to place the subject in custody. 

4. 
Training protocols should emphasize that multiple activations and 
continuous cycling of a CED appear to increase the risk of death 
or serious injury and should be avoided where practical. 

5. 
Training should include recognizing the limitations of CED 
activation and being prepared to transition to other force options 
as needed. 



6. 
That a subject is fleeing should not be the sole justification 
for police use of a CED. Severity of offense and other 
circumstances should be considered before officers use of a 
CED on the fleeing subject. 

7. 
CEDs should not generally be used against pregnant women, 
elderly persons, young children, and visibly frail persons unless 
exigent circumstances exist. 

8. 
CEDs should not be used on handcuffed persons unless they are 
actively resisting or exhibiting active aggression, and/or to prevent 
individuals from harming themselves or others. 

9. 
CEDs should not generally be used when a subject is in a location 
where a fall may cause substantial injury or death. 

10. 
When a subject is armed with a CED and attacks or threatens to 
attack a police officer, the officer may defend himself or herself 
to avoid becoming incapacitated and risking the possibility that the 
subject could gain control of the officers firearm. When possible, 
officers should attempt to move outside the devices range 
(approximately 21 feet) and seek cover, as well as request backup 
officers to mitigate the danger. 

11. 
When possible, emergency medical personnel should be notified 
when officers respond to calls for service in which it is anticipated 
that a CED may be activated against a person. 

12. 
Officers should avoid firing darts at a subjects head, neck, and genitalia. 

13. 
All persons who have been exposed to a CED activation should 
receive a medical evaluation. Agencies shall consult with local 
medical personnel to develop appropriate police-medical protocols. 

14. 
All persons who have been subjected to a CED activation should 
be monitored regularly while in police custody, even if they 
received medical care. 

15. 
CED darts should be treated as a biohazard. Officers should not 
generally remove CED darts from a subject that have penetrated 
the skin unless they have been trained to do so. Agencies should 
coordinate with medical personnel to develop training for such 
removal. Only medical personnel should remove darts that have 
penetrated a persons sensitive areas. 


16. 
Following a CED activation, officers should use a restraint 
technique that does not impair respiration. 

17. 
CEDs should not be used in the known presence of combustible 
vapors and liquids or other flammable substances including but 
not limited to alcohol-based Oleoresin Capsicum (O.C.) Spray 
carriers. Agencies utilizing both CEDs and O.C. Spray should use 
a water-based spray. 

18. 
Agencies should create stand-alone policies and training curriculum 
for CEDs and all less-lethal weapons, and ensure that they are 
integrated with the departments overall use-of-force policy. 

19. 
Agencies should partner with adjacent jurisdictions and enter into 
a Memorandum of Understanding to develop joint CED policies 
and protocols. This should include addressing nonalcoholic O.C. 
Spray carriers. Agencies should also establish multijurisdictional 
CED training, collaboration, and policy. 

20. 
If officers privately owned CEDs are permitted to be used on 
duty, policy should dictate specifications, regulations, qualifications, 
etc. The devices should be registered with the department. 

21. 
The CED Probe Mode should be the primary setting option, 
with Drive Stun Mode generally used as a secondary option. 

22. 
CEDs should be regulated while officers are off duty under rules 
similar to service firearms (including storage, transportation, use, 
etc.). 

23. 
CEDs should not be used against suspects in physical control of 
a vehicle in motion including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, 
ATVs, bicycles, and scooters unless exigent circumstances exist. 

24. 
The use of brightly colored CEDs (e.g., yellow) reduces the risk 
of escalating a force situation because they are plainly visible 
and thus decrease the possibility that a secondary unit mistakes 
the CED for a firearm (sympathetic fire). Note that specialized 
units (e.g., SWAT Units) may want dark-colored CEDs for tactical 
concealment purposes. 



25. 
CEDs should be maintained in a holster on an officers weak 
(support) side to avoid the accidental drawing and/or firing of an 
officers sidearm. 

26. 
Officers should be trained that the TASER CEDs optimum 
range is 15 feet.5 

27. 
Auxiliary/Reserve officers can be armed with CEDs provided 
they receive all mandated training and maintain all requalification 
requirements. Training and local statutes may dictate policy. 

28. 
A warning should be given to a person prior to activating the CED 
unless to do so would place any other person at risk. 

29. 
When applicable, an announcement should be made to other 
officers on the scene that a CED is going to be activated. 

30. 
A supervisor should respond to all incident scenes where a CED 
was activated. 

31. 
A supervisor should conduct an initial review of a CED activation. 

32. 
Every instance of CED use, including an accidental discharge, 
should be accounted for in a use-of-force report. 

33. 
Agencies should consider initiating force investigations outside the 
chain of command when any of the following factors are involved: 
a. A subject experiences death or serious injury. 
b. A person experiences prolonged CED activation. 
c. The CED appears to have been used in a punitive or abusive manner. 
d. There appears to be a substantial deviation from training. 
e. A person in an at-risk category has been subjected to 
activation (e.g., young children; persons who are elderly/frail, 
pregnant women, and any other activation as determined by a 
supervisor). 

34. 
When possible, supervisors and backup officers should anticipate 
on-scene officers use of CEDs by responding to calls for service 
that have a high propensity for arrest and/or use of a CED. 

5 Association of Chief Police 
Officers, 2004. Independent 
Evaluation of the Operational 
Trial of TASER. 


35. Every substantial investigation (and when possible every 
preliminary investigation) should include: 

a. Location and interview of witnesses (including other officers). 
b. Photographs of subject and officer injuries. 
c. Photographs of cartridges/darts. 
d. Collection of CED cartridges, darts/prongs, data downloads, car video, confetti ID tags. 
e. Copies of the device data download. 
f. Other information as indicated in guideline #45. 

36. 
Police leaders should be aware that CED download data may 
be unreliable. Police leaders and investigators should be able to 
articulate the difference between the actual duration of a CED 
activation on a person and the total time of discharge registered on 
a CED device. 

37. 
CED activations should be tracked in the departments early 
intervention system (EIS). 

38. 
The department should periodically conduct random audits of 
CED data downloads and reconcile use-of-force reports with 
recorded activations. Departments should take necessary action as 
appropriate when inconsistencies are detected. 

39. 
Audits should be conducted to ensure that all officers who carry 
CEDs have attended initial and recertification training. 

40. 
Departments should not solely rely on training curriculum 
provided by a CED manufacturer. Agencies should ensure that 
manufacturers training does not contradict their use-of-force 
policies and values. Agencies should ensure that their CED 
curriculum is integrated into their overall use-of-force systems. 

41. 
CED recertification should occur at least annually and consist 
of physical competency and device retention, changes in agency 
policy, technology changes, and reviews of local and national 
trends in CED use. 

42. 
Exposure to CED activation in training should be voluntary; all 
officers agreeing to be subjected to a CED activation should be 
apprised of risks associated with exposure to a CED activation. 
 



43. 
Supervisors and command staff should receive CED awareness 
training so they can make educated decisions about the 
administrative investigations they review. 

44. 
Statistics should be maintained to identify CED trends and 
deployment concerns. Agencies may include display and arcing 
of weapons to measure prevention/deterrence effectiveness. CED 
statistics should be constantly analyzed and made publicly available. 

45. 
The following statistical information should be included when 
collecting information about CED use: 

a. Date, time, location of incident. 
b. The use of the laser dot or display of the CED that deterred a 
subject and gained compliance. 
c. Identifying and descriptive information of the suspect 
(including membership in an at-risk population), all officers 
firing CEDs, all officer witnesses, and all other witnesses. 
d. The type and brand of CED used. 
e. The number of CED cycles, the duration of each cycle, the 
duration between cycles and the duration that the subject was 
actually activated. 
f. Level of aggression encountered. 
g. Any weapons possessed by the suspect. 
h. The type of crime/incident the subject was involved in. 
i. Determination of whether deadly force would have been justified. 
j. The type of clothing worn by the subject. 
k. The range at which the CED was used. 
l. The type of mode used (probe or drive stun). 
m. The point of impact of probes on a subject in probe mode. 
n. The point of impact on a subject in drive stun mode. 
o. Location of missed probe(s). 
p. Terrain and weather conditions during CED use. 
q. Lighting conditions. 
r. The type of cartridge used. 
s. Officer suspicion that subject was under the influence of drugs (specify if available). 
t. Medical care provided to the subject. 
u. Any injuries incurred by an officer or subject. 


46. 
Law enforcement agencies should conduct neighborhood 
programs that focus on CED awareness training. CED training 
should be part of any citizens training academy program. 

47. 
The agencys Public Information Officer should receive extensive 
training on CEDs in order to better inform the media and the 
public about the devices. Members of the media should be briefed 
on the departments policies and use of CEDs. 

48. 
CED awareness should extend to law enforcement partners such as 
local medical personnel, citizen review boards, medical examiners, 
mental health professionals, judges, and local prosecutors. 

49. 
CEDs can be effective against aggressive animals. Policies should 
indicate whether use against animals is permitted. 

50. 
Officers should be aware that there is a higher risk of sudden 
death in people under the influence of drugs and/or symptoms 
associated with excited delirium. 

51. 
CED cartridges with longer barbs may be more effective in 
extremely cold climates. 

52. 
Agencies should be aware that CED cartridges have experienced 
firing problems in extremely cold weather. 


References

Amnesty International. Amnesty Internationals Continued Concerns About 
Taser Use. Amnesty International. USA, 2006. http://news. 
amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510302006?open&of=ENG 
-2AM 

Anglen, Robert. 167 cases of death following stun-gun use. The 
Arizona Republic, Phoenix, Arizona,. 2005. http://www.azcentral. 
com/specials/special43/articles/1224taserlist24-ON.html 

Association of Chief Police Officers. Independent Evaluation of the 
Operational Trial of Taser. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, April 2004. 

Castro, Hector. Police Chief, NAACPs Mack face Taser Zap. Seattle 
Post-Intelligencer. Seattle, Washington, September 17, 2004. 

Donnelly, Tara, Karen Douse, Michelle Gardner, and David Wilkinson. 
PSDB Evaluation of Taser Devices. Police Scientific Development 
Branch, Home Office Policing and Crime Reduction Group. 
United Kingdom, September 2002. 

Ederheimer, Joshua and Lorie Fridell. Use of Force Tools. Chapter 
3 of Chief Concerns: Exploring the Challenges of Police Use of Force. 
Washington. Police Executive Research Forum, 2005, pps. 5781. 

Ederheimer, Joshua. Chief Concerns: Strategies for Resolving Conflict and 
Minimizing Use of Force. Washington. Police Executive Research 
Forum, In publication, 2006. 

Jones, Charisse. Police Say Taser Shocks are Replacing Deadly Shots. 
USA Today, July 14, 2004. 

Kershaw, Sarah. As shocks replace police bullets, deaths drop but 
questions arise. The New York Times. New York, March 7, 2004. 

Levine, Saul D., et al. Cardiac Monitoring of Subjects Exposed to the 
TASER. Academic Emergency Medicine (May 2005); Vol. 12, No. 5 
Supplement 1: University of California, San Diego, California. 



Maier, Andrew, Patricia Nance, Paul Price, Clifford Sherry, J. 
Patrick Reilly, B. Jon Klauenberg, and Jonathan Drummond. 

Human Effectiveness and Risk Characterization of the Electromuscular 
Incapacitation Device- A limited Analysis of the TASER. The Joint 
Non-Lethal Weapons Human Effects Center of Excellence. Texas, 
2005. 

Manojlovic, Drazen, Christine Hall, Darren Laur, Shawna Goodkey, 
Chris Lawrence, Rick Shaw, Sylvain St-Amour, Annik Neufeld, and 
Steve Palmer. Review of Conducted Energy Devices. Canadian Police 
Research Centre, Canada, 2005. 

Sanchez, George. Taser Use Grows Despite Safety Questions. The 
Salinas Californian, Salinas, California, September 4, 2004. 

Streicher, Thomas H. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 
University, and Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of 
Justice on-line conference on less-lethal force, January 18, 2005. 

Wahl, Victor. Madison Police Department Taser Report. Madison police 
Department, Madison, Wisconsin, 2005. 

Wilkinson, David I. PSDB Further Evaluation of Taser Devices. Police 
Scientific Development Branch, Home Office Policing and Crime 
Reduction Group. United Kingdom, 2005. 


About the Authors 

Joshua A. Ederheimer is the director of the Center on Force & 
Accountability for the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) in 
Washington, D.C. He joined PERF in January 2004 after a successful 
career with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of 
Columbia. In that capacity he acquired expertise as a commanding 
officer in several areas, including the internal affairs, use of force, 
equal employment opportunity, and civil rights divisions. Currently, 
Mr. Ederheimer is responsible for providing technical assistance to 
criminal justice agencies and manages national criminal justice research 
and policy development projects. He has traveled extensively in the 
United States and abroad consulting, evaluating, and instructing law 
enforcement professionals and government officials about leadership, 
change management, business process reengineering, and police 
accountability issues. Mr. Ederheimer is also an adjunct professor at 
American Universitys Department of Law, Justice, and Society, where 
he has taught both graduate and undergraduate courses. He holds a 
bachelors degree in justice from American University, and a masters 
degree in management from Johns Hopkins University. 

James M. Cronin is a research associate for PERFs Center on Force 
& Accountability. Since starting work at PERF in 2005, Mr. Cronin 
has become a member of DOJs Less Lethal Technology Working 
Group and has been actively involved in research concerning the use 
of CEDs by law enforcement agencies. Prior to joining PERF, he was 
a researcher for the Maryland Statistical Analysis Center, the Bureau 
of Governmental Research (HIDTA-High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
Areas), the D.C. Sentencing Commission, and the D.C. Criminal 
Justice Coordinating Council. He has conducted research on juvenile 
delinquency prevention, homicide clearance rates, and the rehabilitation 
of offenders. He also assisted in establishing sentencing guidelines 
for the District of Columbia. Mr. Cronin received his master of arts 
degree in criminology and criminal justice in 1994 from the University 
of Maryland. 


About the COPS Office 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS 
Office) was created in 1994 to advance the practice of community 
policing in state, local, and tribal law enforcement jurisdictions of 
all sizes across the United States.

 Since 1994, COPS has invested more than $11.9 billion to add 
community policing officers to the nations streets, enhance crime-
fighting technology, support crime-prevention initiatives, and provide 
training and technical assistance. COPS funding has supported 
community policing innovation conferences, the development of best 
practices, pilot community policing programs, and applied research 
and evaluation initiatives that make possible the growing body of 
substantive knowledge covering all aspects of community policing. 

COPS responds to emerging law enforcement needs by working in 
partnership with law enforcement departments to enhance police 
integrity, promote safe schools, combat the methamphetamine drug 
problem, and support homeland security efforts through proven 
community policing strategies. Most recently, COPS implemented grant 
programs to develop interoperable voice and data communications 
networks among emergency response agencies. 

The COPS Office created a national network of Regional Community 
Policing Institutes (RCPIs) to provide a wide range of training 
opportunities to state and local law enforcement, elected officials, and 
community leaders. Recently, the RCPIs have focused on developing 
and delivering homeland security training. 

COPS also develops and offers a variety of publications, CDs, videos, 
and other materials that detail specific issues facing law enforcement, 
offer best practices for handling problems, and provide high-level 
strategic considerations on issues of important concern. In addition, 
the COPS Office has hosted live, national webcasts/satellite broadcasts 
in which panels of experts discuss current issues such as gangs, meth, 
and police recruitment, hiring, and retention, and which serve as useful 
tools in opening or furthering community safety dialogues. 

To learn more about the COPS Office and its resources, visit 
www.cops.usdoj.gov. 


About the Bureau of Justice Assistance 

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, 
U.S. Department of Justice, supports law enforcement, courts, 
corrections, treatment, victim services, technology, and prevention 
initiatives that strengthen the nations criminal justice system. BJA 
provides leadership, services, and funding to Americas communities by 
emphasizing local control; building relationships in the field; developing 
collaborations and partnerships; promoting capacity building through 
planning; streamlining the administration of grants; increasing 
training and technical assistance; creating accountability of projects; 
encouraging innovation; and ultimately communicating the value of 
justice efforts to decision makers at every level. 

To learn more about BJA, visit www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA. 


About the Police Executive 
Research Forum 

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a professional 
organization of progressive chief executives of city, county, and 
state law enforcement agencies who collectively serve more than 
50 percent of the U.S. population. In addition, PERF has established 
formal relationships with international police executives and law 
enforcement organizations around the globe. Membership includes 
police chiefs, superintendents, sheriffs, state police directors, university 
police chiefs, public safety directors, and other law enforcement 
professionals. Established in 1976 as a nonprofit organization, PERF 
is unique in its commitment to the application of research in policing 
and the importance of higher education for police executives. Besides a 
commitment to police innovation and professionalism, PERF members 
must hold a 4-year college degree. 

PERF continues to conduct some of the most innovative police and 
criminal justice research and provides a wide variety of management 
and technical assistance programs to police agencies throughout the 
world. PERFs groundbreaking work on community and problem-
oriented policing, racial profiling, use of force, less-lethal weapons, 
and crime-reduction strategies has earned it a prominent position in 
the police community. PERF is one of the founding agencies of the 
Community Policing Consortium and the Commission on Accreditation 
for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). PERF continues to work 
toward increased professionalism and excellence in the field through 
its publications and training programs. PERF sponsors and conducts 
the Senior Management Institute for Police (SMIP), which provides 
comprehensive professional management and executive development 
training to police chiefs and law enforcement executives. Convened 
annually in Boston, SMIP instructors include professors from leading 
universities, but primarily from Harvard Universitys Kennedy School 
of Government. 

PERFs success is built on the active involvement of its members. The 
organization also has types of membership that allow the organization 
to benefit from the diverse views of criminal justice researchers, 
law enforcement professionals of all ranks, and others committed 
to advancing policing services to all communities. As a nonprofit 
organization, PERF is committed to the application of research in 
policing and to promoting innovation that will enhance the quality of 



life in our communities. PERFs objective is to improve the delivery 
of police services and the effectiveness of crime control through the 
exercise of strong national leadership, the public debate of criminal 
justice issues, the development of a body of research about policing, 
and the provision of vital management services to all police agencies. 

PERF has developed and published some of the leading literature in 
the law enforcement field. Recently, PERF released two publications 
on contemporary law enforcement issues. The booksChief Concerns: 
Exploring the Challenges of Police Use of Force and Police Management of 
Mass Demonstrations: Identifying Issues and Successful Approachesserve as 
practical guides to help police leaders make more informed decisions. 
In addition, PERF has released a series of white papers on terrorism 
in the local law enforcement context, Protecting Your Community from 
Terrorism: Strategies for Local Law Enforcement, which examined such 
issues as local-federal partnerships, working with diverse communities, 
bioterrorism, and intelligence sharing. Other recent publications 
include Managing a Multijurisdictional Case: Identifying Lessons Learned from 
the Sniper Investigation (2004) and Community Policing: The Past, Present 
and Future (2004). Other PERF titles include the only authoritative 
work on racial profiling, Racial Profiling: A Principled Response (2001), 
Recognizing Value in Policing (2002); The Police Response to Mental Illness 
(2002); Citizen Review Resource Manual (1995), Managing Innovation in 
Policing (1995); Crime Analysis Through Computer Mapping (1995); And 
Justice For All: Understanding and Controlling Police Use of Deadly Force 
(1995); Why Police Organizations Change: A Study of Community-Oriented 
Policing (1996); Police Antidrug Tactics: New Approaches and Applications; 
Under Fire: Gun Buy-Backs, Exchanges and Amnesty Programs (1996). 
PERF publications are used for training, promotion exams, and 
to inform police professionals about innovative approaches to 
community problems. The hallmark of the program is translating the 
latest research and thinking about a topic into police practices that 
can be tailored to the unique needs of a jurisdiction. 

To learn more about PERF visit www.policeforum.org. 


About the PERF Center on Force 
& Accountability 

Created in April 2005, the PERF Center on Force & Accountability 
(CFA) is a significant resource for PERF members and others in 
law enforcement, and serves as the principal clearinghouse for 
ideas, strategies, and data that will address problems related to police 
use of force and accountability. Ultimately, the CFA provides law 
enforcement executives with information and strategies that will help 
them make more informed decisions as they serve their communities. 

The PERF Center on Force & Accountability has four primary 
objectives: 

1. Identify emerging trends and seek out effective new strategies. 
2. Conduct groundbreaking research. 
3. Provide high-quality technical assistance to law enforcement agencies. 
4. Create a central resource for information regarding use of force 
and police accountability issues. 

To that end, the CFA is continually developing competencies in several 
specific areas. For use of force, CFA competencies include community 
outreach and accountability; equipment and weapons; investigations; 
police canines; policy development; review boards; tactics; technology; 
training; trends and identification of promising approaches; statistics, 
tracking, and analysis; vehicle pursuits; and violence against law 
enforcement officers. As it relates to police accountability, CFA 
competencies include community involvement; consent decrees/ 
memoranda of accountability; discipline and conduct review; early 
intervention systems and processes; equal employment opportunities; 
internal investigations; law enforcement ethics; misconduct statistics, 
tracking, and analysis; policy development; technology; training; and 
trends and identification of promising approaches. 

The CFA released national guidelines for conducted energy devices 
that have been embraced by law enforcement agencies throughout the 
country. Further, the CFA completed two guides on early intervention 
systems to help agencies better manage their human resources. The 
CFA also provided technical assistance to municipalities seeking to 
assess their use-of-force and disciplinary systems within their police 
departments. The CFA also examined critical use-of-force issues in a 



2005 publication entitled Chief Concerns: Exploring the Challenges of Police 
Use of Force, and a 2006 publication entitled Chief Concerns: Strategies for 
Resolving Conflict and Minimizing Use of Force. 

To learn more about PERF and the Center on Force & Accountability 
visit www.policeforum.org. 


Resource Links 
http://www.less-lethal.org Less-lethal.org is a source of information on 
less-lethal technology used by law enforcement 
agencies. The web site content is dynamic, with 
updates provided on a periodic basis. The web 
site is funded through a cooperative agreement 
with the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police and the Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services. 
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja Bureau of Justice Assistance 
www.calea.org Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies 
www.fop.net Fraternal Order of Police 
www.theiacp.org The International Association of Chiefs of Police 
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij National Institute of Justice 
www.noblenational.org The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives 
www.sheriffs.org The National Sheriffs Association 
www.cops.usdoj.gov Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
www.policeforum.org Police Executive Research Forum 
www.policefoundation.org Police Foundation 


Appendix A 

Participants in the National Summit on CEDs (Houston, Texas) 

Commander Randy Aleman (Waco Police Department)

Sergeant Robert Allen (Nashville Police Department)

Professor Geoff Alpert (University of South Carolina)

Deputy Chief Mike Ault (Las Vegas Metro Police Department)

Research Assistant Nathan Ballard (Police Executive Research Forum)

Superintendent Anthony Bangham (West Mercia Police, UK, Association 
of Chief Police Officers) 

Lieutenant Jennifer Beidle (Pittsburgh Bureau of Police) 

Executive Director Gary Bullard (International Association of Directors 
of Law Enforcement Standards and Training) 

Captain Chris Burbank (Salt Lake City Police Department) 

Assistant Chief of Police Adam Burden (Miami Police Department) 

Lieutenant Joseph Buttitta (Houston Police Department) 
Deputy Director Pamela Cammarata (Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services) 

Captain Mike Campagna (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department) 

Social Science Analyst Brett Chapman (National Institute of Justice) 

Inspector Francisco Colon (Providence Police Department) 

Research Associate James Cronin (PERF Center on Force & Accountability) 

Captain Frank DeMario (Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office) 

Assistant Chief of Police Michael A. Dirden (Houston Police Department) 

Colonel Jonathan Drummond (U.S. Air Force) 

Deputy Chief Dan Dugan (Chicago Police Department) 

Director Joshua Ederheimer (PERF Center on Force & Accountability) 

Senior Advisor for Law Enforcement Steve Edwards (Bureau of 
Justice Assistance) 

Chief of the Special Operations Division Robert W. Elder (Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) 

Officer Fred Farris (Lenexa [Kansas] Police Department) 

Captain Paul Fields (Tulsa Police Department) 

Professor Lorie Fridell (University of South Florida) 

National Sergeant-at-Arms Frank Gale (Fraternal Order of Police) 

Captain James Gieseke (St. Louis Police Department) 

Lieutenant David Gillespie (Montgomery County Police Department) 

Corporal William Gleason (Prince Georges County Police Department) 

Executive Director John Gnagey (National Tactical Officers Association) 

Captain Alan Goldberg (Montgomery County Police Department) 



Major Bernie Gonzalez (Miami-Dade Police Department)

Captain Michael Hagar (Nashville Police Department)

Deputy Tom Hammond (Tuscaloosa County Sheriff s Office)

Commander Charles Sid Heal (Los Angeles County Sheriff s Office)

Director Domingo Herraiz (Bureau of Justice Assistance)

Lieutenant Christopher Hildreth (Minneapolis Police Department)

Captain Steven Hougland (Orange County Sheriff s Office)

Chief Harold Hurtt (Houston Police Department)

Major Steve Ijames (Springfield [Missouri] Police Department)

Lieutenant Will Johnson (Arlington Police Department)

Lieutenant David Kelly (Phoenix Police Department)

Commander Paul Kennedy (Providence Police Department)

Lieutenant Gary Kirby (San Jose Police Department)

Executive Deputy Chief Patricia Kneblick (Fort Worth Police Department)

Sergeant Dik Kushdilian (Denver Police Department)

Lieutenant Boyd Long (San Diego Police Department)

Director Phil Lynn (International Association of Chiefs of Police)

Sergeant James MacGillis (Milwaukee Police Department)

Assistant Chief of Police Raymond Martinez (Miami Beach 
Police Department) 

Director Andrew Mazzarra (Penn State Applied Research Lab) 

Executive Assistant Chief Charles A. McClelland (Houston 
Police Department) 

Captain Steven Melaragno (Providence Police Department) 

President Robert Mercado (Pasadena Police Department) 

Captain Greg Meyer (Los Angeles Police Department) 

Chief Albert Najera (Sacramento Police Department) 

Deputy Chief Vincent Ortega (Kansas City Police Department) 

Executive Director Steve Palmer (Canadian Police Research Centre) 

Director Robert Parker (Miami-Dade Police Department) 

Captain Brett Patterson (West Palm Beach Police Department) 

Director Carl Peed (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services) 

Deputy Anthony Pulitano (Broward County Police Department) 

Captain John Reed (Louisville Metro Police Department) 

Assistant Chief of Police Winston Robinson (Washington, D.C., 
Metropolitan Police Department) 

Deputy Inspector Anna Ruzinski (Milwaukee Police Department) 

Superintendent Wes Ryan (Toronto Police Service) 

Sheriff Ted Sexton (Tuscaloosa County Sheriff s Office; President, 
National Sheriffs Association) 

Chief Floyd Simpson (Dallas Police Department) 

Dr. Christian Sloane (University of California San Diego Medical Center) 


Attorney Robert Spence (Tuscaloosa County Sheriff s Office)

Commander Rod Uyeda (Pasadena Police Department)

Dr. Gary Vilke (University of California San Diego Medical Center)

Policy Planner Mimi Walsh (Seattle Police Department)

Major Mark Warren (Baltimore County Police Department)

Executive Director Chuck Wexler (Police Executive Research Forum)

Sergeant Don Whitson (National Tactical Officers Association)

Sergeant Steven Wickelgren (Minneapolis Police Department)


Appendix B 

DOJs Less Lethal Technology Working Group Members 

Director Joseph Akers (National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives) 

Consultant Carolyn Allen (Office of Justice Programs) 

Project Manager Albert Arena (International Association of Chiefs 
of Police) 

Deputy Director Pamela Cammarata (Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services) 

Program Manager Joseph Cecconi (National Institute of Justice) 

Social Science Analyst Brett Chapman (National Institute of Justice) 

Research Associate James Cronin (PERF Center on Force & 
Accountability) 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Cybele Daley (Office of 
Justice Programs) 

Executive Director Sylvester Daughtry, Jr. (Commission on the 
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies) 

Director Joshua Ederheimer (PERF Center on Force & Accountability) 

Senior Advisor for Law Enforcement Steven Edwards (Bureau of 
Justice Assistance) 

Executive Director Thomas N. Faust (National Sheriffs Association) 

Executive Director Thomas C. Frazier (Major City Chiefs Association 
and Frazier Group, LLC) 

Curriculum Specialist William Fink (Northern Virginia Criminal Justice 
Training Academy) 

Lieutenant David Gillespie (Montgomery County Police Department) 

Captain Alan Goldberg (Montgomery County Police Department) 

Director Earl Hamilton (Police Foundation) 

Project Manager William Harrison (Community Policing Consortium) 

Director Domingo Herraiz (Bureau of Justice Assistance) 

Executive Director Patrick J. Judge (International Association of 
Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training) 

Director Philip Lynn (International Association of Chiefs of Police) 

Senior Intergovernmental and Public Liaison Linda Mansour (Office 
of Justice Programs) 

Assistant Director John Morgan (National Institute of Justice) 

Administrator David Paulson (International Association of Chiefs 
of Police) 

Senior Policy Analyst Albert A. Pearsall (Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services) 



Director Carl Peed (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services) 

Deputy Director for Communications Jim Pinkelman (Office of 
Justice Programs) 

Senior Legislative Liaison Tim Richardson (Fraternal Order of Police) 

Executive Director Dan Rosenblatt (International Association of 
Chiefs of Police) 

Sheriff Ted Sexton (Tuscaloosa County Sheriff s Office; President, 
National Sheriffs Association) 

Deputy Director John Thompson (National Sheriffs Association) 

Chief MaryAnn Viverette (Gaithersburg Police Department and 
President, International Association of Chiefs of Police) 

Executive Director Chuck Wexler (Police Executive Research Forum) 

President Hubert Williams (Police Foundation) 

Director Fred Wilson (National Sheriffs Association) 

Executive Director Joseph Wolfinger (Major County Sheriffs Association) 


For More InForMatIon: 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov