a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on National Security, Emerging Threats 

and International Relations, Committee 

on Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

May 2005 TASER WEAPONS

Use of Tasers by 

Selected Law 

Enforcement Agencies

GAO-05-464
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-464.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robert J. 

Cramer at (202) 512-7455 or 

cramerr@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-464, a report to 

the Chairman, Subcommittee on National 

Security, Emerging Threats and 

International Relations, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

May 2005

TASER WEAPONS

Use of Tasers by Selected Law 

Enforcement Agencies 

The seven law enforcement agencies we contacted have established 

use-of-force policies, training requirements, operational protocols, and 

safety procedures to help ensure the proper use of Tasers. Although none of 

the agencies have separate use-of-force policies that specifically address 

Tasers, all seven agencies include the use of Tasers into their existing 

policies. Taser training is required for officers who use the weapons, and 

agency officials said that training for officers and other non-law enforcement 

persons who are allowed to use Tasers is critically important to help ensure 

their safe use. Operational protocols require that Tasers be visually 

inspected daily, appropriately safeguarded, and, in some cases, tested 

weekly or at the beginning of an officer’s shift. Safety procedures require 

that Tasers not be used on children, pregnant suspects, or near bystanders 

or flammable liquids and that individuals hit in specific body areas with 

Taser barbs, such as the neck or face, be examined by a physician. 

Some federal, state, and local jurisdictions have laws that address Tasers but 

requirements differ. For example, at the federal level, the Army prohibits 

Tasers from being brought into selected military installations in Georgia. 

Also, TSA may approve the use of Tasers on aircraft but must prescribe 

training rules and guidance on appropriate circumstances for using Tasers. 

At the state and local levels, the state of Indiana and the city of Chicago, 

Illinois, regulate the sale or possession of Tasers by non-law enforcement 

persons by subjecting Tasers to the same restrictions that apply to firearms. 

Other states, such as California, prohibit Tasers from being carried into 

public facilities such as airports. 

GAO observes that as the Taser becomes more widely used, especially by 

non-law enforcement persons, training is critical to help ensure its safe, 

effective, and appropriate use. TSA, Taser International, and the seven law 

enforcement agencies we contacted generally agreed with the information in 

this report. 

Two Examples of Taser Models 

Source: GAO; Prince George's County, MD, Sheriff's Office; Prince George's County, MD, Police Department.

X-26 Model Taser

M-26 Model Taser

Emerging domestic and 

international threats have 

generated a growing interest in the 

use of less-than-lethal weapons by 

government and law enforcement 

agencies and other entities such as 

commercial airlines. One such 

weapon—the Taser—is a hand-held 

weapon that delivers an electric 

shock via two stainless steel barbs, 

effectively incapacitating an 

individual. According to the 

manufacturer—Taser International, 

Incorporated (Taser 

International)—Tasers are 

currently used by over 7,000 of the 

18,000 law enforcement agencies in 

the United States, with more than 

140,000 Tasers in use by police 

officers in the field and an 

additional 100,000 Tasers owned by 

civilians worldwide. Tasers have 

been used on over 100,000 

volunteers, including individuals 

involved in training seminars and 

research experiments, and involved 

in over 70,000 actual field uses 

during police encounters. 

In light of the expanding interest in 

the Taser, GAO was asked to 

provide information on (1) the 

policies and procedures related to 

the issues of “use-of-force,” 

training, operations, and safety for 

selected law enforcement agencies 

that have purchased and used 

Tasers and (2) federal, state, and 

local laws that specifically address 

Tasers, including the 

Transportation Security 

Administration’s (TSA) authority to 

regulate Tasers on aircraft. 

What GAO Recommends
Page i GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 4

Selected Law Enforcement Agencies Have Established Policies and 

Procedures to Help Ensure Proper Taser Use 7

Some Federal, State, and Local Laws Address Tasers But 

Requirements Differ 17

Concluding Observations 20

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22

Appendix II: Comments from the Secretary, Transportation Security 

Administration 24

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 25

Tables Table 1: Information Related to Tasers in Use-of-Force Policies for 

Seven Law Enforcement Agencies 10

Table 2: Training Requirements in Seven Law Enforcement 

Agencies 11

Table 3: Operational Protocols in Seven Law Enforcement 

Agencies 14

Table 4: Safety Procedures in Seven Law Enforcement Agencies 16

Figures Figure 1: Taser (M-26 Model) 5

Figure 2: Taser (X-26 Model) 6

Figure 3: FLETC Use-of-Force Continuum 8
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Abbreviations

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

ATSA Aviation and Transportation Security Act

DOJ Department of Justice

EMT Emergency medical technician

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

GAO Government Accountability Office

NIJ National Institute of Justice

TSA Transportation Security Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 26, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Christopher Shays

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security,

Emerging Threats and International Relations

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Emerging domestic and international threats have generated a growing 

interest in the use of less-than-lethal weapons1

 by government and law 

enforcement agencies and other entities such as commercial airlines. 

One such weapon—the Taser—is a hand-held weapon that delivers an 

electric shock via two stainless steel barbs, effectively incapacitating an 

individual.2

 According to the manufacturer—Taser International, 

Incorporated (Taser International)—Tasers are currently used by over 

7,000 of the 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, with 

more than 140,000 Tasers in use by police officers in the field and an 

additional 100,000 Tasers owned by civilians world-wide. Taser 

International officials told us that Tasers have been used on over 

100,000 volunteers, including individuals involved in training seminars and 

research experiments. They also told us that Tasers have been involved in 

over 70,000 actual field uses during police encounters. In addition to law 

enforcement agencies, other entities have requested that they be permitted 

to use Tasers. For example, in October 2004, the Department of Homeland 

Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) approved Korean 

Airlines’ request that specially trained cabin attendants be allowed to use

1

 According to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Institute of Justice—the agency 

within DOJ responsible for researching issues related to crime and law enforcement—lessthan-lethal weapons are designed to temporarily incapacitate or restrain an individual when 

lethal force is not appropriate. These weapons and devices include, among others, pepper 

spray, stun guns, batons, and nights sticks.

2

 According to Taser International, Taser is a trademark and an acronym for the 

Thomas A. Swift Electrical Rifle, which was first developed in the 1970s. For the purposes 

of this report, the term Taser will refer to a weapon that shoots two stainless steel barbs up 

to a distance of 25 feet and results in an incapacitating 50,000 volt electric shock.
Page 2 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Tasers onboard passenger flights. TSA is the federal agency that is 

responsible for establishing guidelines that govern the circumstances in 

which Tasers may be used on aircraft.3

In light of this expanding interest in the Taser, you asked us to obtain 

information on (1) the policies and procedures related to the issues of “use 

of force,”4

 training, operations, and safety for selected law enforcement 

agencies that have purchased and used Tasers; and (2) federal, state, and 

local laws that specifically address Tasers, including TSA’s authority to 

regulate Tasers onboard aircraft.

To accomplish the first objective, we reviewed Taser-related policies and 

procedures established by the seven state and local law enforcement 

agencies that have purchased and used the largest number of Tasers for the 

longest period of time. We also interviewed law enforcement officials in the 

seven agencies. The agencies were the Austin, Texas, Police Department; 

the Ohio Highway Patrol; the Orange County, Florida, Sheriff’s Department; 

the Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department; the Sacramento, California, 

Police Department; the Sacramento, California, Sheriff’s Department; and 

the San Jose, California, Police Department. To accomplish the second 

objective, we examined various federal, state, and local laws, including 

statutes, regulations, and ordinances, to determine whether they 

specifically address Tasers. We also reviewed the Aviation and 

Transportation Security Act (ATSA)5

 to obtain information on TSA’s 

authority concerning Tasers, including its authority to regulate Tasers 

onboard aircraft. A more detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and 

methodology is included in appendix I. We conducted our work from May 

2004 through February 2005 in accordance with quality standards for 

investigations as set forth by the President’s Council on Integrity and 

Efficiency.

3

 GAO will report separately on TSA’s efforts to approve and oversee the use of Tasers 

onboard commercial aircraft. Among other things, we will report on the type of analysis the 

federal government conducted to assess the safety and effectiveness of Tasers, what criteria 

TSA used to determine whether to approve Tasers on aircraft, and whether TSA has 

established a training program for flight crews.

4

 For purposes of this report, use of force refers primarily to a policy established by a law 

enforcement agency that provides police officers with a clearly defined set of rules or 

guidance to follow when encountering a subject based on the subject’s actions, the officer’s 

perception of the situation, and the available types of officer responses. 

5

 Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.).
Page 3 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Results in Brief The seven law enforcement agencies we contacted have established 

use-of-force policies, training requirements, operational protocols, and 

safety procedures to help ensure the proper use of Tasers. All of the seven 

agencies had included the use of Tasers into their existing use-of-force 

policies so that police officers would have guidance on the circumstances 

in which the use of Tasers may be appropriate. Officials in all seven law 

enforcement agencies told us that Taser training is required for officers 

who use the weapons and that training—especially for non-law 

enforcement individuals who may be authorized to use Tasers—is of 

critical importance to help ensure the safe use of these weapons. For the 

seven agencies, operational protocols, which provide guidance on police 

officers’ daily law enforcement activities, require that Tasers be visually 

inspected on a daily basis, be appropriately safeguarded, and, in some 

cases, be tested on a weekly basis or at the beginning of an officer’s shift. 

Safety procedures established by all seven agencies require that the Taser 

not be used on children, pregnant suspects, or near bystanders or 

flammable liquids and that individuals hit in specific body areas with Taser 

barbs, such as the neck or face, be examined by an emergency room 

physician.

Some federal, state, and local jurisdictions have laws that address Tasers 

but requirements concerning such weapons differ. In some instances, the 

extent to which the Taser is regulated may depend on whether it is 

classified as a firearm. For example, at the federal level, the Department of 

Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has 

not classified the Taser as a firearm, which exempts the weapon from 

federal firearms requirements. However, the Department of the Army 

(Army) has established Taser-related regulations governing the possession, 

use, and sale of Tasers on specific military installations. In addition, TSA 

has identified the Taser as a prohibited weapon that cannot be brought past 

airport security checkpoints by unauthorized personnel. TSA also has 

authority to approve the use of Tasers by flight crews onboard commercial 

aircraft and must prescribe rules for training flight crews in the proper use 

of Tasers and provide guidance on the circumstances under which such 

weapons may be used. In addition, some state and local jurisdictions, such 

as the state of Indiana and the city of Chicago, Illinois, regulate the sale or 

possession of Tasers by non-law enforcement persons within their state or 

municipal boundaries by subjecting Tasers to their firearms restrictions. 

Other states, such as California, prohibit Tasers from being carried into 

public facilities such as schools and airports.
Page 4 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Based on our work, we observe that as the Taser becomes more widely 

available for use, especially by non-law enforcement persons, training is 

critical to help ensure its safe, effective, and appropriate use.

In commenting on a draft of this report, TSA, Taser International, and the 

seven law enforcement agencies generally agreed with the information in 

the report. Also, TSA as well as the Department of Homeland Security’s 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC),6

 Taser International, 

and three of the seven law enforcement agencies provided technical 

comments that were incorporated into the report where appropriate.

Background Although a number of companies manufacture various non-lethal weapons, 

such as stun guns, the only company that manufactures Tasers is Taser 

International in Scottsdale, Arizona. First developed in the 1970s for use by 

police departments, Tasers differ from stun guns in that they can be fired 

from a distance and do not require contact with skin in order to work.7

Taser International has produced various models of Taser weapons 

including Air Tasers8

 and the M-18, M-18L, M-26, X-26, and X-26C models. 

The M-18 and X-26C models are available to the civilian market. The M-26 

and X-26 models are sold only to law enforcement agencies, the military, 

and more recently have been made available for use in maintaining aviation 

security. Both models, while varying in size, operate in the same manner 

and deliver approximately the same electrical charge. For the purposes of 

this report, Tasers refer to the M-26 and X-26 models. Figure 1 shows a 

picture of an M-26 model Taser, and figure 2 shows a picture of an X-26 

model Taser.

6

 FLETC, with headquarters in Glynco, Georgia, is an interagency law enforcement training 

organization for federal law enforcement personnel. It also provides training services to 

state, local, and international law enforcement agencies. FLETC’s mission is to prepare law 

enforcement professionals to fulfill their responsibilities safely and proficiently, while 

ensuring that training is accomplished in the most cost-effective manner.

7

 Tasers can be also used in “touch stun” mode by pressing the electrical barbs directly onto 

a person’s skin.

8

 According to Taser International, production of the Air Taser has been discontinued.
Page 5 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Figure 1: Taser (M-26 Model)

Source: GAO; Prince George's County, Maryland, Police Department.
Page 6 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Figure 2: Taser (X-26 Model)

The Taser fires two metal barbs that are attached to wires, which can cover 

a distance of up to 25 feet.9

 Once the barbs are embedded in an individual 

or on the individual’s clothing, the weapon delivers an electrical charge of 

50,000 volts through the wires to the barbs. This charge causes the muscles 

of the individual to involuntarily contract, which immediately incapacitates 

the individual for the duration of the shock, usually lasting about 5 seconds.

The barbs need not be embedded in an individual’s body in order to 

function. Because of the high voltage, an individual will be shocked even if 

the barbs are attached to an outer layer of clothing, such as a coat. If the 

barbs penetrate the skin, it is impossible to predict how deeply they will 

embed because of various factors, including wind speed and a subject’s 

weight and muscle mass. The manufacturer estimated that the barbs will 

9

 In commenting on a draft of this report, an official from Taser International told us that his 

company is developing a new cartridge that will fire up to 35 feet and will be sold only to law 

enforcement agencies.

Source: GAO; Prince George's County, Maryland, Sheriff's Office.
Page 7 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

generally penetrate bare skin no more than half an inch. Once the Taser 

weapon’s shock subsides, the individual can recover completely in about 10 

seconds. If the weapon is fired correctly and the barbs hit the individual, no 

collateral damage occurs to the surrounding environment.

The Taser can be reactivated numerous times as long as the barbs remain in 

the individual or the individual’s clothing. Secondary electric shocks also 

last for about 5 seconds. The operator has the ability to shut the weapon 

off, thus ending the charge. A data port contained in the latest models of 

Tasers provides information suitable for downloading onto a computer 

detailing the date, time, and duration of each instance that the Taser was 

fired. A visual battery level indicator is located on the back of the hand 

guard. The Taser also utilizes a laser sight system. This system enables the 

operator, even with limited experience, to direct the barbs to the desired 

location on the individual. 

Selected Law 

Enforcement Agencies 

Have Established 

Policies and 

Procedures to Help 

Ensure Proper Taser 

Use

The seven law enforcement agencies we contacted have attempted to 

ensure proper deployment of the Taser weapon by establishing and 

employing use-of-force policies, training requirements, operational 

protocols, and safety procedures.

Use-of-Force Policies Although none of the seven agencies had separate use-of-force policies that 

specifically addressed Tasers, all of the agencies included the use of such 

weapons into their existing policies so that police officers would have 

guidance on the circumstances in which the use of Tasers may be 

appropriate. A use-of-force policy provides police officers with a clearly 

defined set of rules or guidance to follow when encountering a subject, 

based on the subject’s actions, the officer’s perception of the situation, 

and the available types of officer responses. The use-of-force model—

frequently referred to by law enforcement officials as the use-of-force 

continuum—was developed using federal law enforcement training 

guidelines established by FLETC. According to FLETC, the continuum 

serves as a visual tool to help explain about the application of the use-offorce policy. Specifically, the continuum establishes for a police officer 
Page 8 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

various options to use in responding to a subject’s actions, while employing 

the minimum amount of force necessary under the circumstances. 

Generally, an officer should employ more forceful means to control a 

subject only if the officer determines that a lower level of force is 

inadequate. Officials in the seven law enforcement agencies we contacted 

told us that they rely on the continuum to help provide officers with 

guidance in carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities.

As shown in figure 3, the use-of-force continuum includes five levels of 

potential subject actions and corresponding officer responses. For 

example, if a subject is compliant, an officer should use only “cooperative 

controls,” such as verbal commands, to control the subject. On the other 

hand, the guidelines provide that if a subject is assaultive and an officer 

perceives a threat of serious physical injury or death—a lethal situation on 

the use-of-force continuum—the officer may use deadly force to control 

the subject.

Figure 3: FLETC Use-of-Force Continuum

Source: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Department of Homeland Security.

Lethal

Harmful

Volatile

Tactical

Strategic

Deadly

force

Defensive

tactics

Compliance

techniques

Contact

controls

Cooperative

controls

Assaultive

(physical

injury)

Resistant

(active)

Resistant

(passive)

Compliant

Subject action

Officer perception

Officer response

Officer selection

Officer assessment

Assaultive

(Serious physical

injury/death)
Page 9 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Officials in the seven law enforcement agencies we contacted stated that 

each agency has a use-of-force policy in which all officers are trained. Each 

of the seven agencies has incorporated the Taser into its existing use-offorce policy.

The placement of the Taser on the use-of-force continuums of the agencies 

varied.10 Specifically, we found that the seven agencies placed the Taser at 

three different levels on their use-of-force continuums. As shown in table 1, 

two agencies—the Sacramento Police Department and the Sacramento 

Sheriff’s Department—permit the use of Tasers when a police officer 

perceives the situation as potentially harmful, as when a subject engages in 

assaultive behavior that creates a risk of physical injury to another. Impact 

weapons, such as night sticks and batons, can also be used in these 

situations. They include, for example, instances in which a subject attacks 

or threatens to attack an officer by fighting and kicking.

Four other police departments—the Austin Police Department, the Ohio 

Highway Patrol, the Phoenix Police Department, and the San Jose Police 

Department—allow the use of Tasers at a lower level in the use-of-force 

continuum in situations that the officer perceives as volatile.11 This occurs, 

for example, when a subject is actively resisting arrest but not attacking the 

officer. The use of chemical sprays12 to subdue the subject is another 

option in such a situation. Finally, one agency—the Orange County Sheriff’s 

Department—allows the use of Tasers in situations that an officer 

perceives as tactical, such as when a subject is “passively resisting” by not 

responding to the lawful, verbal commands of the officer.

10 In their comments on a draft of this report, FLETC officials stated that they believe that to 

avoid the inconsistency among law enforcement agencies as to where Taser use is placed in 

the use-of-force continuum, a standardized training program on the use of Tasers is needed. 

Also, they stated that greater research into safety and deployment guidelines should be 

conducted by entities not associated with the manufacturer.

11 In commenting on a draft of this report, an official from the Austin Police Department 

explained that according to departmental policy, the Taser may be used to control a 

dangerous or violent subject when (1) deadly force does not appear to be justified or 

necessary, (2) attempts to subdue the subject by other conventional tactics have been or are 

likely to be ineffective in the situation at hand, or (3) there is a reasonable expectation that 

it will be unsafe for officers to approach within contact range of the subject.

12 Typically, chemical sprays are divided into two groups: chlorobrnzylidene malononitrile 

(tear gas) and oleoresin capsicum (pepper spray).
Page 10 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Table 1: Information Related to Tasers in Use-of-Force Policies for Seven Law Enforcement Agencies

Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from seven law enforcement agencies.

Training Requirements Officials in all seven law enforcement agencies told us that adequate Taser 

training is critically important in helping to ensure the safe, effective, and 

appropriate use of Tasers not only by law enforcement officials but also by 

other non-law enforcement individuals who may be permitted to use 

Tasers. The officials in these agencies agreed that it is essential to provide 

such training prior to issuing Tasers to police officers and to other users. 

They also told us that training only works when weapons are standardized; 

that is, when weapons are constructed and manufactured in the same way. 

For example, an official in the Orange County Sheriff’s Department said 

that

“...it is of paramount importance that officers expect and receive the same results from one 

Taser to another. Their confidence in the weapon is based on the knowledge that all Tasers 

will operate the same each and every time and will achieve the same desired results each 

and every time.”

In all seven agencies, the training cycle begins by disseminating the 

previously discussed use-of-force policy. Police officers also receive 

mandatory firearms training. As shown in table 2, three of the agencies we 

contacted—the Sacramento Police Department, the Sacramento Sheriff’s 

Department, and the San Jose Police Department—require a minimum of 

100 hours of such training; three agencies—the Ohio Highway Patrol, the 

Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and the Phoenix Police Department—

require a minimum of 80 hours; and one agency—the Austin Police 

Department—requires a minimum of 60 hours. In addition, all seven 

agencies require Taser-specific training. This training stresses such matters 

Agency

Separate policy on 

Taser use?

Taser use incorporated into 

existing policy? Other options

Austin Police No Yes Chemical spray/pepper spray and impact 

weapons

Ohio Highway Patrol No Yes Chemical spray/mace

Orange County Sheriff No Yes Verbal commands

Phoenix Police No Yes Chemical spray/

mace

Sacramento Police No Yes Impact weapons

Sacramento Sheriff No Yes Impact weapons

San Jose Police No Yes Chemical spray/mace
Page 11 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

as how to (1) properly handle the weapon, (2) locate the shot, 

(3) safeguard the Taser, (4) conduct proper function tests, (5) overcome 

system malfunctions in a timely fashion, and (6) perform post-Taser 

deployment actions. Three agencies require 8 hours of Taser training, while 

three require 5 hours and one requires 4 hours. All seven agencies require 

officers to demonstrate physical competency with the weapon, and three 

agencies also require written tests generally consisting of approximately 10 

true or false questions related to the application of the use-of-force policy, 

proper use of the weapon, and appropriate safety measures.

Furthermore, six of the seven agencies required yearly recertification in the 

use of Tasers. One agency—the San Jose Police Department—does not 

require yearly recertification for Tasers and is not currently considering the 

establishment of such recertification. However, an official from the San 

Jose Police Department told us that the department includes Tasers in its 

annual use-of-force simulations training in which officers are trained in the 

use of Tasers that would be considered appropriate in various law 

enforcement scenarios.

Table 2: Training Requirements in Seven Law Enforcement Agencies

Agency

Firearms minimum

training hours

Taser-training 

provider

Taser training

hours

Evaluation 

criteria Recertification

Austin Police 60 Taser 

International and 

agency

8 Physical and written 

test

Yearly

Ohio Highway Patrol 80 Agency 5 Physical and written 

test

Yearly

Orange County Sheriff 80 Taser 

International and 

agency

5 Physical test Yearly

Phoenix Police 80 Taser 

International and 

agency

5 Physical and written 

test

Yearly

Sacramento Police 100 Taser 

International and 

agency

8 Physical test Yearly

Sacramento Sheriff 100 Taser 

International and 

agency

8 Physical test Yearly
Page 12 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from seven law enforcement agencies.

We also discussed with officials from the seven agencies how training other 

Taser users may differ from training law enforcement personnel in Taser 

use. All the officials agreed that the length and intensity of training must be 

increased for users who have no law enforcement experience or firearms 

training. The officials also stressed that any civilian training curriculum 

should have a very explicit use-of-force policy. Unlike police officers, 

civilians are not generally experienced in deciding whether the use of force 

is justified and, if so, to what extent. Therefore, the officials told us that it 

should be the goal of any civilian training curriculum to remove the need 

for independent decision-making as much as possible. Officials from all 

seven agencies agreed that training for non-traditional law enforcement 

individuals should involve as many “real life” scenarios as possible so that 

the trainee understands what level of force is appropriate.

Operational Protocols The seven law enforcement agencies we contacted have operational 

protocols, which are written policies and procedures that address and 

provide guidance on the daily activities of a law enforcement agency’s 

officers. These protocols address a wide range of issues such as 

deployment of law enforcement personnel and weapons, inspection 

techniques, proper use of weapons, and post-incident procedures. 

Regarding Tasers, the protocols in the seven agencies require, among other 

things, that Tasers be visually inspected on a daily basis, be appropriately 

safeguarded, and, in some cases, be tested on a weekly basis or at the 

beginning of an officer’s shift.

With regard to Taser deployment, three of the seven agencies we contacted 

issued the Taser to all of their officers. Three of the agencies deployed 

Tasers only to patrol officers because they were considered to be the most 

likely personnel to have use for the device during the course of their work. 

The remaining agency issued Tasers to its patrol officers and members of 

some specialized police units such as narcotics.

San Jose Police 100 Taser 

International and 

agency

4 Physical test No yearly 

recertification 

required. (Taser 

training is included in 

annual use-of-force 

simulations training.)

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency

Firearms minimum

training hours

Taser-training 

provider

Taser training

hours

Evaluation 

criteria Recertification
Page 13 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Regarding inspections, all seven agencies we contacted required a daily 

function test for Tasers. Officials in the seven agencies told us that this test 

generally consists of visually inspecting the weapon for any signs of 

damage or unusual wear and tear, inspecting the firing cartridge to ensure 

that there is no damage or obvious tampering, and checking the battery 

strength indicator located on the rear of the weapon. Furthermore, one of 

the seven agencies required that on a weekly basis, officers conduct a test 

fire of Tasers in which the officer initiates an arcing of the electric probes 

by pulling the trigger of a Taser that does not contain a firing cartridge. In 

addition, two of the seven agencies require that each officer conduct such a 

test at the beginning of the officer’s shift. All of the agencies mandated that 

the Taser be safeguarded in the same fashion as a firearm issued by the 

agency.

Once the law enforcement agency’s internal policies and procedures were 

satisfied, including compliance with the use-of-force policy, the method 

and manner prescribed for Taser use did not significantly differ among the 

agencies we contacted. Officials in the seven agencies stated that the Taser 

is to be aimed at the center of an individual’s largest amount of body mass, 

which is oftentimes the chest or, in some circumstances, the back. Shots to 

the neck or face are not advisable unless a significant danger exists to the 

officer or others, and this area is the only target area presented. All seven 

agencies we contacted required the officer involved in a use-of-force 

incident to complete an official form detailing the type of force used. As 

shown in table 3, three of the agencies required the officer to complete a 

specific form whenever a Taser was used. These forms included a 

description of barb placement, the effects achieved, and the subject’s 

behavior before and after the Taser deployment. Following the use of the 

Taser, all seven agencies required that the subject be restrained, with 

handcuffs or an emergency restraint belt, to ensure that there would be no 

further threat of physical aggression.
Page 14 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Table 3: Operational Protocols in Seven Law Enforcement Agencies

Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from seven law enforcement agencies.

Safety Procedures Officials we interviewed in all seven law enforcement agencies stated that 

they developed procedures and guidelines to help ensure the safe use of 

Tasers. The officials told us that they make every effort to use the Taser as 

safely as possible but cautioned that it can still be dangerous.13 As an 

official from the Ohio Highway Patrol stated, any time a Taser is used,

“...the officer runs the risk of injuring the intended target. A Taser is by nature a weapon and 

carries with it inherent dangers.”

Agency Deployment Daily inspection Special inspection

Special incident 

report for Tasers?

Post-Taser 

restraint?

Austin Police Patrol officers and 

members of some 

specialized units 

(e.g., narcotics)

Visual and battery 

tests

Test fire at the 

beginning of officer’s 

shift

No Yes

Ohio Highway Patrol Full (all officers) Visual and battery 

tests

Weekly test fire Yes Yes

Orange County Sheriff Patrol officers (56% of the 

department)

Visual and battery 

tests

None No Yes

Phoenix Police Patrol officers (50% of the 

department)

Visual and battery 

tests

Test fire at the 

beginning of officer’s 

shift

No Yes

Sacramento Police Patrol officers (57% of the 

department)

Visual and battery 

tests

None Yes Yes

Sacramento Sheriff Full (all officers) Visual and battery 

tests

None No Yes

San Jose Police Full (all officers) Visual and battery 

tests

None Yes Yes

13 For example, of the seven agencies we contacted, two—the Orange County Sheriff’s 

Department and the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department—reported post-Taser use 

deaths. From 2001 to 2004, Orange County reported that, of the 1,655 individuals on which 

Tasers were used, four later died. However, toxicology tests conducted by the county 

coroner revealed that all four subjects had lethal levels of drugs in their systems. Similarly, 

although Sacramento reported a post-Taser use death, the deceased was later found to have 

died of a cocaine overdose.
Page 15 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

As shown in table 4, the seven agencies’ safety guidelines provide that the 

Taser should not be used on children, pregnant suspects, or near 

bystanders or flammable liquids. All the agencies we contacted require an 

emergency room physician to examine the subject in the event of Taser 

barb placement in the face or neck. The Orange County Sheriff’s 

Department also requires any female subject shot in the breast or groin 

area to be seen by an emergency room doctor. Six of the seven agencies 

provide officers with the discretion to remove the barbs themselves or to 

request that emergency medical technicians (EMT) respond to the scene. 

Once removed, the barbs should be placed in a “Sharps” container to 

ensure safe and hygienic disposal.14 For these agencies, if the officer 

observes an adverse reaction to the electrical shock, he or she can request 

that the subject be transported to a local hospital emergency room. No 

other medical follow-up is required. The remaining agency—the San Jose 

Police Department—does not provide its officers with the discretion to 

remove Taser barbs. The San Jose Police Department calls for officers to 

transport subjects hit with Taser barbs to a hospital so that medical 

personnel can remove the barbs. Also, San Jose officers do not routinely 

call EMTs to the scene of Taser use. They do so only if other life threatening 

needs or medical treatment is needed. If such treatment is not needed, the 

officer transports the suspect to a hospital for medical clearance prior to 

being booked in the county jail.

14 Sharps containers are used for the disposal of needles, syringes, or other sharp objects to 

guard against exposure to bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV and hepatitis.
Page 16 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Table 4: Safety Procedures in Seven Law Enforcement Agencies

Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from seven law enforcement agencies.

a

Use of the Taser in these situations is strongly discouraged but in certain exigent circumstances, an 

officer may use a Taser to prevent loss of life or serious bodily injury.

Agency

Avoid using Tasers on 

or near:a

Barb removal by officer, 

EMT, or hospital medical 

personnel? Emergency room visit required?

Austin Police • Children,

• pregnant suspects, 

bystanders, and

• flammable substances 

Officer’s discretion Impact on face and neck

Ohio Highway Patrol • Children,

• pregnant suspects, 

bystanders, and

• flammable substances 

Officer’s discretion Impact on face and neck

Orange County Sheriff • Children,

• pregnant suspects, 

bystanders, and

• flammable substances 

Officer’s discretion Impact on face and neck; also breast and 

groin (female only)

Phoenix Police • Children,

• pregnant suspects, 

bystanders, and

• flammable substances 

Officer’s discretion Impact on face and neck

Sacramento Police • Children,

• pregnant suspects, 

bystanders, and

• flammable substances 

Officer’s discretion Impact on face and neck

Sacramento Sheriff • Children,

• pregnant suspects, 

bystanders, and

• flammable substances

Officer’s discretion Impact on face and neck

San Jose Police • Children,

• pregnant suspects, 

bystanders, and

• flammable substances 

Hospital medical personnel Impact on face and neck
Page 17 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Some Federal, State, 

and Local Laws 

Address Tasers But 

Requirements Differ

In reviewing various laws, including statutes, regulations, and ordinances, 

we found that Tasers were addressed in some federal, state, and local 

jurisdictions. We also found that these jurisdictions had different 

requirements for regulating Tasers. In some instances, the extent to which 

Tasers are regulated in these jurisdictions may depend on whether the 

Taser is classified as a firearm. For example, at the federal level, ATF has 

not classified Taser as a firearm, which exempts Taser from federal 

firearms requirements. However, we identified other federal agencies, such 

as the Army, that have established Taser-related regulations for the 

possession, use, and sale of Tasers. In addition, TSA has identified the 

Taser as a prohibited weapon that cannot be brought past airport security 

checkpoints by unauthorized personnel.15 TSA also has authority to 

approve the use of Tasers by flight crews on commercial aircraft. We also 

found that the state of Indiana and the city of Chicago, Illinois regulate the 

sale or possession of Tasers by non-law enforcement persons by requiring 

that the same restrictions that apply to firearms must also apply to Tasers. 

Other states, such as California, prohibit Tasers from being carried into 

public facilities such as schools and airports.

15 In our review of federal, state, and local laws, we found that typically, law enforcement 

personnel are exempt from requirements that prohibit or restrict the use of Tasers. Thus, 

under these laws, requirements related to Tasers generally apply to non-law enforcement 

persons who seek to possess, use, purchase, or sell these devices.
Page 18 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

At the federal level, we found that ATF—the federal agency responsible for 

determining whether a weapon should be classified as a firearm, which 

would make the weapon subject to federal firearms regulations—does not 

classify the Taser as a firearm.16 Thus, the Taser is not subject to any federal 

regulations regarding the distribution, sale, and possession of firearms. As 

a result, Tasers can be manufactured and distributed domestically without 

federal restriction.17 However, we identified some federal agencies that 

have established regulations that specifically prohibit the sale, possession, 

and transfer of Tasers. For example, Army regulations prohibit the sale, 

possession, carrying, or transportation of Tasers on or within specific 

installations in Georgia, including Fort Gordon and Fort Stewart, which 

also includes the Hunter Army Airfield.18 In addition, TSA has a regulation 

that prohibits unauthorized individuals from carrying weapons, explosives, 

and incendiaries beyond airport security checkpoints.19 To help provide 

guidance in implementing its regulation, TSA has developed a chart 

outlining specific items that are prohibited in carry-on baggage and has 

identified Tasers as a prohibited weapon. TSA also has broad authority 

under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, as amended by Section 

1405 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, to approve the use of less-thanlethal weapons by flight deck crew members, as long as the TSA Secretary 

prescribes “...rules requiring that any such crew member be trained in the 

proper use of the weapon...” and “...guidelines setting forth the

16 In general, a device is classified as a firearm when it “expel[s] a projectile by the action of 

an explosive.” 18 U.S.C.§ 921 (a)(3)(A). Because the original Taser used gunpowder to fire 

electrical barbs, the ATF in 1976 ruled that Taser was a firearm, “ [s]ince the projectiles are 

expelled by the action of an explosive...” ATF Rul. 76-6. However, in 1994, ATF examined a 

different model Taser—Taser Model 34000—and determined it not to be a firearm “...based 

on the fact that the device...does not expel a projectile by the action of an explosive...” Also, 

neither the M-26 nor the X-26 Model Taser is classified as a firearm because they do not 

expel projectiles by means of an explosive. Instead of gunpowder, they use a combination of 

a battery and nitrogen cartridges to fire the barbs. 

17 The United States regulates Taser export sales. Licenses must be obtained for all export 

shipments (excluding those to Canada) from the United States Department of Commerce. 

15 C.F.R. pt. 774, Supp. 1 (2004).

18 32 C.F.R. §§ 552.127 and 552.101 (2003).

19 49 C.F.R. § 1540.111 (2004). Some individuals, such as police officers, U.S. marshals, and 

federal agents may be authorized to carry weapons, explosives, and incendiaries beyond 

airport security checkpoints when they are performing law enforcement duties. For 

example, a U.S. marshal may carry a weapon when transporting a prisoner by air.
Page 19 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

circumstances under which such weapons may be used.”20 Based on this 

authority, in October 2004, TSA approved a request from Korean Airlines 

that specially trained cabin attendants be permitted to use Tasers on 

commercial flights in U.S. airspace. TSA officials told us they anticipate 

that in the future, other airlines will also submit requests to deploy lessthan-lethal weapons.

In reviewing various state and local laws, we identified some state statutes 

and municipal ordinances that specifically regulate the sale or possession 

of Tasers by non-law enforcement persons within their state or municipal 

boundaries. For example, in the state of Indiana, Tasers are subject to the 

same licensing requirements as other handguns.21 Therefore, in order to 

lawfully possess a Taser in Indiana, prospective purchasers are required to 

meet certain license requirements and consent to a criminal history 

background check.22 In addition, dealers in Indiana cannot sell a Taser until 

after requesting and receiving criminal history information on prospective 

purchasers.23 Similarly, in Chicago, Illinois, prospective purchasers are 

required to obtain a permit to lawfully purchase Tasers.24 Also, in the state 

of Pennsylvania and the city of Wilmington, Delaware, it is unlawful for 

non-law enforcement persons to manufacture, make, sell, or possess a 

Taser.25 In addition, individuals in various states, including California, 

Illinois, and Virginia, are prohibited from carrying Tasers in such areas as 

airports, courthouses, schools, prisons, or public buildings.26

20 See 49 U.S.C. § 44903(i) (2001). In 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act 

directed the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) within the Department of Justice to assess 

the range of less-than-lethal weaponry available for use by flight deck crew members to 

incapacitate an individual who represents a clear and present danger to the safety of the 

aircraft, its passengers, or individuals on the ground and to make this report available to 

TSA for review. NIJ conducted its review and determined that stun devices, specifically 

Tasers, were the most viable less-than-lethal option for aviation security. As part of its 

review, NIJ stated that any weapon chosen should be in current use by law enforcement 

agencies to ensure that it has been tested and proven.

21 Ind. Code Ann. § 35-47-8-4 (Michie 2004).

22 Ind. Code Ann. §§ 35-7-2-1 and 35-7-2.5-3 (Michie 2004).

23 Ind. Code Ann. § 35-47-2.5-4 (Michie 2004).

24 Chicago, Il. Municipal Code, § 4-144-010 (2005).

25 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 908(a) (2004); Wilmington, De. City Code, § 36-161 (2004).

26 Cal. Penal Code §§ 171.5 and 171b; 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/31A-1.2 (2004); and Va. Code 

Ann. §§ 18.2-287.01 and 18.2.308-1 (2004).
Page 20 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Concluding 

Observations

The seven law enforcement agencies we contacted have established 

policies and procedures to attempt to ensure proper use of Tasers. 

Specifically, the agencies employ use-of-force policies, training 

requirements, operational protocols, and safety procedures, although 

specific practices vary from agency to agency. For example, the seven 

agencies place the threshold at which Taser use may be deemed 

appropriate at three different levels on their use-of-force continuums. 

However, even when these policies are strictly enforced, each situation in 

which a Taser may be used is unique. An officer must rely on prior 

experience and training and exercise good judgment to determine whether 

using the Taser constitutes an appropriate level of force. Consequently, 

officials in the seven law enforcement agencies we contacted stressed that 

proper training is essential for successful deployment. If Taser use 

becomes more widespread, particularly among non-law enforcement 

personnel who have little or no firearms experience, we believe that this 

training will become even more critical for safe, effective, and appropriate 

use of the weapon.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We received written comments on a draft of this report from TSA, which 

are included in appendix II. In its comments, TSA stated that it generally 

concurred with the information in the report. Also, TSA stated that it 

agreed that training and oversight are essential for the use of Tasers. In 

addition, TSA discussed its authority to approve the use of less-than-lethal 

weapons by air carriers. Among other things, TSA explained that under the 

Aviation and Transportation Security Act, as amended by Sec. 1405 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, air carriers are to contact TSA to request 

permission to carry less-than-lethal weapons aboard their aircraft. TSA 

would review the air carrier’s request as well as the training program that 

the air carrier would provide for the proposed use of the weapon. After 

TSA approves the air carrier’s request, an amendment to the air carrier’s 

security program must be made to allow for the weapon’s use while the 

aircraft is in flight. Requirements could also be mandated for storage of the 

weapon while the aircraft is standing at an airport. Furthermore, TSA 

stated that it has received a number of requests from air carriers as they 

attempt to enhance aircraft security and will continue to evaluate such 

requests and review training programs provided by air carriers. In addition, 

TSA and FLETC provided technical comments that we incorporated into 

this report where appropriate.
Page 21 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

We also received comments from Taser International and the seven law

enforcement agencies we contacted. They generally agreed with the 

information in the report. In addition, Taser International and three of the 

seven law enforcement agencies—the Austin, Texas, Police Department; 

the Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department; and the San Jose, California, 

Police Department—provided some technical comments that we 

incorporated into this report where appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you announce the contents of this report

earlier, we will not distribute it until 30 days after its issuance date. At that 

time, we will send it to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House 

Committee on Government Reform. We will also send it to the Chairman

and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and 

the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging 

Threats and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform. 

We will also provide copies to the Secretary of the Transportation Security 

Administration and will make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix 

III. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7455 or at cramerr@gao.gov.

Sincerely yours,

Robert J. Cramer

Managing Director, Office of

Special Investigations
Page 22 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

For this report, our first objective was to obtain information on the policies 

and procedures related to the issues of use of force, training, operations, 

and safety for selected law enforcement agencies that have purchased and 

used Tasers. We conducted this work for the purpose of providing 

information about the policies, procedures, and practices these agencies 

use to help ensure safe and successful deployment of the Taser. We did not 

attempt to draw conclusions about whether Tasers are in fact safe. Our 

second objective was to obtain information on federal, state, and local laws 

that specifically address Tasers, including the Transportation Security 

Administration’s (TSA) authority to regulate Tasers on aircraft.

To address the first objective, we used Taser International Incorporated’s 

(Taser International) customer database to identify all U.S. law 

enforcement agencies that had purchased Tasers. As the sole manufacturer 

of Tasers, Taser International maintained the only centralized database 

from which we could obtain this information. Around the time we began 

our work in May 2004, Taser International reported that a total of over 

7,000 law enforcement agencies had purchased Tasers. Time constraints 

would not permit us to contact all these agencies. Thus, we determined that 

the most reasonable approach for selecting law enforcement agencies to 

contact would be to focus on those agencies that had the largest number of 

Tasers for the longest period of time. To do this, we identified two key data 

elements for each agency—the date that the agency made its first Taser 

purchase and the total number of Tasers that the agency purchased. In 

identifying the initial Taser purchase date, we were able to determine how 

long ago various agencies had begun buying Tasers. We focused on this 

date because we determined that by the time we began our work, the 

agencies that had made the earliest Taser purchases would have been more 

likely to have established policies and procedures to help ensure the safe 

and appropriate use of Tasers.

In addition to the initial purchase date, we identified for each agency the 

total number of Tasers that they had purchased. We determined that those 

agencies that purchased a significant number of Tasers would have been 

more likely to deploy them widely, which increased the chances that more 

law enforcement personnel would have used Tasers in training and field 

situations. As such, we reasoned that to help ensure that Tasers would be 

safely and appropriately used, law enforcement agencies would take steps 

as quickly as possible to establish Taser-related policies and procedures.

Using these two data elements, we identified seven law enforcement 

agencies that had deployed the largest number of Tasers for the longest 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 23 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

period of time. These agencies were the Austin, Texas, Police Department; 

the Ohio Highway Patrol; the Orange County, Florida, Sheriff’s Department; 

the Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department; the Sacramento, California, 

Police Department; the Sacramento, California, Sheriff’s Department; and 

the San Jose, California, Police Department. Our efforts in selecting the 

seven agencies constituted a case-study approach. Because we conducted 

case studies rather than a statistical survey, the results of our work can be 

applied only to the seven agencies we contacted; our work results cannot 

be applied to all law enforcement agencies that, according to Taser 

International’s data, have purchased Tasers.

With the assistance of GAO methodologists, we drafted a series of 

questions related to use-of-force policies, training requirements, 

operational protocols, and safety procedures. We asked officials in all 

seven agencies the same questions to ensure that we could compare their 

responses.

To address the second objective, we researched various federal and state 

laws, including statutes and regulations, to determine whether Tasers are 

regulated at the federal and state levels. In addition, we reviewed 

information obtained from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives on local ordinances that regulate 

Tasers. Also, we researched various published local ordinances to 

determine whether Tasers are regulated at the local level. In addition, we 

reviewed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to ascertain federal 

requirements for approving the use of Tasers onboard aircraft.

We conducted our work from May 2004 through February 2005 in 

accordance with quality standards for investigations as set forth by the 

President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
Page 24 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Appendix II

Comments from the Secretary, Transportation 

Security Administration ApendxiI
Page 25 GAO-05-464 Taser Weapons

Appendix III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contact Robert J. Cramer, (202) 512-7455

Acknowledgments In addition to the individual named above, Jennifer Costello, Richard Egan, 

Joseph Funk, Barbara Lewis, Latesha Love, John Ryan, and Barry Shillito 

made key contributions to this report.

(601268)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00