U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Special REPORT

Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption:

Interim Report

J

U

N. 0

8

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Michael B. Mukasey

Attorney General

Jeffrey L. Sedgwick 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

David W. Hagy

Director, National Institute of Justice

This and other publications and products of the National Institute

of Justice can be found at:

National Institute of Justice

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular

Disruption: Interim Report

JUN. 08

NCJ 222981
Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not

reflect the official position and policies of their respective organizations or the U. S. Department

of Justice. 

The products, manufacturers and organizations discussed in this document are presented for

informational purposes only and do not constitute product approval or endorsement by the 

U. S. Department of Justice. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Community

Capacity Development Office; the Office for Victims of Crime; the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,

Registering, and Tracking (SMART).

David W. Hagy

Director, National Institute of Justice
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The National Institute of Justice gratefully acknowledges the following individuals. Their

information, insight and knowledge benefited the development of this Interim Report.

Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D.

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice

University of South Carolina

Cynthia Bir, Ph.D.

Department of Biomedical Engineering

Wayne State University

William Bozeman, M.D.

Department of Emergency Medicine

Wake Forest University

Michael Cao, M.D.

Keck School of Medicine

University of Southern California, Los Angeles

Theodore C. Chan, M.D.

Department of Emergency Medicine

University of California, San Diego

Steve Clark, Ph.D

National Association of Medical Examiners

John D’Andrea

Joint Non Lethal Weapons Directorate

Department of Defense

Jason Disterhoft

Amnesty International, USA

John Firman

Research Center

International Association of Chiefs of Police

John E. Gardner

EMS Division Chief

Miami‐Dade Fire Rescue

Alan Goldberg

Captain

Montgomery County, Maryland, Police

Department

Jeffery Ho, M.D.

Department of Emergency Medicine

Hennepin County Medical Center

Anita C. Hege, R.N.

Department of Emergency Medicine

Wake Forest University

John Kenny, Ph.D.

Institute for Non‐Lethal Defense Technologies

Pennsylvania State University

David A. Klinger, Ph.D.

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice

University of Missouri–St. Louis

Mark W. Kroll, Ph.D.

Board of Directors

TASER® International

Phil Lynn

National Policy Center

International Association of Chiefs of Police

Charlie Mesloh, Ph.D.

Weapons and Equipment Research Institute

Florida Gulf Coast University

Christopher Mumola

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Javier Sala Mercado, M.D., Ph.D.

School of Medicine

Wayne State University

Richard J. Servatius, Ph.D

Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences

New Jersey Medical School

Rick Smith

Chief Executive Officer

TASER® International

Gary M. Vilke, M.D.

Department of Emergency Medicine

University of California, San Diego

John G. Webster, Ph.D.

Department of Biomedical Engineering

University of Wisconsin

Chuck Wexler

Executive Director

The Police Executive Research Forum

iii
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

PANEL MEMBERS

STUDY OF DEATHS FOLLOWING ELECTRO MUSCULAR DISRUPTION

S TEERING G ROUP

John C. Hunsaker III, M.D, J.D, ‐ Co‐Chair

Associate Chief Medical Examiner

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Representing the National Association of Medical Examiners

John Morgan, Ph.D. ‐ Co‐Chair

Deputy Director for Science and Technology

National Institute of Justice

Harlan Amandus, Ph.D.  

Supervisory Research Epidemiologist

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Representing the Centers for Disease Control

Wendy M. Gunther, M.D., FCAP

Assistant Chief Medical Examiner

OCME, Tidewater District, Norfolk, Virginia

Representing the College of American Pathologists

C ARDIOLOGY

Lisa Gleason, M.D.  

Capt, MC, USN

Department Head Cardiology

Electrophysiology Specialist

Naval Medical Center, San Diego

E MERGENCY M EDICINE

William P. Bozeman, M.D. FACEP, FAAEM  

Associate Professor, Associate Research Director

Department of Emergency Medicine

Wake Forest University

P ATHOLOGY

J. Scott Denton, M.D., AP, CP, FP

Coronerʹs Forensic Pathologist

Bloomington, Illinois

Assistant Professor of Pathology

Rush Department of Pathology and

University of Illinois Medical School at Peoria

Randy Hanzlick, M.D., AP, FP

Chief Medical Examiner

Fulton County, Georgia

Professor of Forensic Pathology  

Emory School of Medicine  

Mark Flomenbaum, M.D., PhD., AP, FP

Associate Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Boston University School of Medicine

William Oliver, M.D., AP, CP, FP

Regional Medical Examiner

Georgia Bureau of Investigation

Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, M.D., FRAP, FACP, FCAP, ABP,

ABIM

Chief Medical Examiner‐Coroner

County of Los Angeles, California

Clinical Professor of Pathology and Medicine,  

USC Keck School of Medicine

Clinical Professor of Pathology, UCLA Geffen School of Medicine

T OXICOLOGY

Yale H. Caplan, Ph.D., DABFT

National Scientific Services

Baltimore, Maryland

iv
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

Background...................................................................................................................................................................1

Study Methodology.....................................................................................................................................................2

Findings........................................................................................................................................................................3

Post‐Event Medical Care...........................................................................................................................................  5

Considerations for the Death Investigation........................................................................................................... 6

Glossary of Terms......................................................................................................................................................  8

Selected References....................................................................................................................................................10

v
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

During the three years from 2003 through 2005, 47 states and the District of Columbia reported 1,095

arrest‐related deaths proximal to law enforcement’s use of force. For many years police leaders have

sought alternatives to lethal force and better methods to subdue individuals to limit injuries and death.

Less‐lethal technologies have been used in law enforcement for this purpose extensively since the early

1990s. In recent years, electro‐muscular‐disruption (EMD) technology, also known as conducted energy

devices (CEDs), have become the less‐lethal weapon of choice for a growing number of law enforcement

agencies. CED uses a high‐voltage, low‐power charge of electricity to induce involuntary muscle

contractions that cause temporary incapacitation.  

Industry reports suggest some 11,500 law enforcement agencies have acquired CEDs. Approximately

260,000 EMD devices are deployed in the operational environments of law enforcement agencies. Studies

undertaken by law enforcement agencies deploying CED indicate reduced injuries to officers and

suspects resulting from use of force encounters and reduced use of deadly force. However, a significant

number of individuals have died after exposure to a CED. Some were normal healthy adults; others were

chemically dependent or had heart disease or mental illness.  

The leading manufacturer of CEDs is TASER® International of Scottsdale, Ariz. In 2003 TASER

International introduced the TASER X26®. The X26 model is the prevailing conducted energy device

being acquired by law enforcement today. Other CEDs have been used in incidents in which a death

occurred, including the TASER M26®, other stun guns and shields.  

These deaths have given rise to questions from law enforcement and the public regarding the safety of

CEDs. Because many gaps remain in the body of knowledge with respect to the effects of CEDs, the

National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S.

Department of Justice, has undertaken a study, Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption, to address

whether CEDs can contribute to or cause mortality and if so, in what ways.

1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

STUDY METHODOLOGY

The study is directed by a steering group with representation from NIJ, the American College of

Pathologists, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Association of Medical

Examiners. To support the study, the steering group appointed a medical panel composed of physicians,

medical examiners, and other relevant specialists in cardiology, emergency medicine, epidemiology,

pathology and toxicology.  

In formulating the interim findings reported here, the panel conducted mortality reviews of CED‐related

deaths and reviewed the current state of medical research relative to the effects of CED. Mortality reviews

have included analysis of autopsy and toxicology results, findings from the scene investigation, post‐

exposure symptomatology, post‐event medical care, and the extent of natural disease presented in a

decedent, if any. This report contains recommendations concerning death investigation arising from the

mortality reviews conducted by the panel and a review of currently available research. The panel

examined the currently recognized causes of sudden deaths, chiefly physical, cardiac, pulmonary,

metabolic and thermoregulatory mechanisms. The medical panel has also consulted stakeholders such as

human rights groups, law enforcement professionals, research scientists and manufacturers of CEDs.  

Many aspects of the safety of CED technology are not well‐known, especially with respect to its effects

when used on populations other than normal healthy adults (i.e., at‐risk individuals). A significant

number of relevant studies are now under way, including studies involving healthy adults, animals and

field exposures during actual use‐of‐force incidents. Additional research is needed to improve the

understanding of how CEDs function, their effect on at‐risk individuals, complicating medical conditions

and related aspects of CED exposure. This report provides a consensus view of the panel members from a

complete review of the available, peer‐reviewed research literature and extensive information concerning

the use of CEDs in the field. The findings have been limited to those conclusions that can be reached

based on current understanding. The panel will continue to examine new research and case studies of

deaths proximate to the use of CED.

2
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS

Although exposure to CED is not risk free, there is no conclusive medical evidence within the state of

current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CED

exposure. Field experience with CED use indicates that exposure is safe in the vast majority of cases.

Therefore, law enforcement need not refrain from deploying CEDs, provided the devices are used in

accordance with accepted national guidelines. (For example: Electronic Control Weapons, a model policy of

the International Association of Chiefs of Police.)

The potential for moderate or severe injury related to CED exposure is low. However, darts may cause

puncture wounds or burns. Puncture wounds to an eye by a barbed dart could lead to a loss of vision in

the affected eye. Head injuries or fractures resulting from falls due to muscle incapacitation may occur.

CEDs can produce secondary or indirect effects that may result in death. Examples include deploying a

device against a person who is in water, resulting in drowning, or against a person on a steep slope

resulting in a fall, or ignition risk resulting from deployment near flammable materials such as gasoline,

explosives or flammable pepper spray that may be ignited by a spark from a device.

There is currently no medical evidence that CEDs pose a significant risk for induced cardiac dysrhythmia

when deployed reasonably. Research suggests that factors such as thin stature and dart placement in the

chest may lower the safety margin for cardiac dysrhythmia. There is no medical evidence to suggest that

exposure to a CED produces sufficient metabolic or physiologic effects to produce abnormal cardiac

rhythms in normal, healthy adults.

Research shows that human subjects maintain the ability to breathe during exposure to CED. Although

there is evidence of hyperventilation in human subjects immediately following CED exposure, there is no

medical evidence of lasting changes in respiratory function in human subjects following exposure to

CED.  

CED technology may be a contributor to “stress” when stress is an issue related to cause of death

determination. All aspects of an altercation (including verbal altercation, physical struggle or physical

restraint) constitute stress that may represent a heightened risk in individuals who have pre‐existing

cardiac or other significant disease. Current medical research suggests that CED deployment is not a

stress of a magnitude that separates it from the other components of subdual.  

Excited delirium is one of several terms that describe a syndrome characterized by psychosis and agitation

and may be caused by several underlying conditions. It is frequently associated with combativeness and

elevated body temperature. In some of these cases, the individual is medically unstable and in a rapidly

declining state that has a high risk of mortality in the short term even with medical intervention or in the

absence of CED deployment or other types of subdual.  

Excited delirium that requires subdual carries with it a high risk of death, regardless of the method of

subdual. Current human research suggests that the use of CED is not a life‐threatening stressor in cases of

excited delirium beyond the generalized stress of the underlying condition or appropriate subdual.  

3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS

In many cases of excited delirium, high body temperature is the primary mechanism of death. There is no

medical evidence that exposure to CED has an effect on body temperature.

The purported safety margins of CED deployment on normal healthy adults may not be applicable in

small children, those with diseased hearts, the elderly, those who are pregnant and other at‐risk

individuals. The effects of CED exposure in these populations are not clearly understood and more data

are needed. The use of a CED against these populations (when recognized) should be avoided but may be

necessary if the situation excludes other reasonable options.  

Studies examining the effects of extended exposure in humans to CED are very limited. Preliminary

review of deaths following CED exposure indicates that many are associated with continuous or repeated

discharge of the CED. The repeated or continuous exposure of CED to an actively resisting individual

may not achieve compliance, especially when the individual may be under drug intoxication or in a state

of excited delirium. The medical risks of repeated or continuous CED exposure are unknown and the role

of CEDs in causing death is unclear in these cases. There may be circumstances in which repeated or

continuous exposure is required but law enforcement should be aware that the associated risks are

unknown. Therefore, caution is urged in using multiple activations of CED as a means to accomplish

subdual.

All CED use should conform to agency policies. The decision to use a CED or another force option is best

left to the tactical judgment of trained law enforcement at the scene.

4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

POST‐EVENT MEDICAL CARE

Medical evaluation is not mandatory after all CED exposures. Individuals who have been exposed to

CEDs may suffer injuries. Appropriate medical care should be provided if this is suspected, especially

when probes penetrate vulnerable areas of the head, face, neck, genitals, or female breast regions or in

cases of injury from falls, burns or other trauma. In most cases, probes embedded in the skin may be

removed by properly trained medical or law enforcement personnel in accordance with local protocols.

Medical care should be provided when probes are located in the vulnerable areas noted above or if there

is concern for underlying injuries.

Underlying medical conditions may be responsible for behavior that requires subdual by law

enforcement, including the use of CEDs. Abnormal mental status in a combative or resistive subject may

be associated with a risk for sudden death. This should be treated as a medical emergency. In these cases,

medical providers are encouraged to assess body temperature and obtain and retain blood samples and

an electrocardiogram as early as possible. If needed, cooling, sedation and hydration should be provided

as soon as possible. Emergency medical services protocols specifying these interventions may be useful.  

Sudden lack of responsiveness may occur at any time and may indicate a medical crisis. Therefore,

individuals should be monitored for changes in condition. Those reporting illness or suspected of having

significant medical or psychiatric conditions should be provided with appropriate medical care.  

Darts and clothing removed during medical care should be retained for investigative purposes and

handled as evidence. When removing embedded darts, care should be taken to avoid exposure to

bloodborne pathogens. Detailed records of treatment should be maintained.  

5
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

CONSIDERATIONS IN DEATH INVESTIGATION

When a death occurs following deployment of a CED by law enforcement personnel who are subduing,

restraining or apprehending a subject, the death will be investigated by the appropriate medical

examiner’s or coroner’s office as an in‐custody death. Because deaths following CED deployment involve

somewhat typical scenarios and complex and predictable issues, the death investigation needs to include

consideration of information that may not be gathered in a routine death investigation or in a typical in‐

custody death investigation. It is not the intent of this Interim Report to provide a comprehensive

checklist of tasks that should be performed. Rather, the most crucial areas of helpful information are

outlined below.  

The information needed for investigation of death following CED use will need to be collected by death

investigators from multiple sources and in consultation with the medical examiner or coroner who has

ultimate responsibility for the case. Further, the forensic pathologist who performs the autopsy will need

to be provided such information for review. Information obtained from the autopsy examination may

trigger or require additional investigation. The forensic pathologist who performs the autopsy is an

integral part of the investigative team.  

The following information can be useful in establishing facts and should be considered during the death

investigation:

a. A timeline of all events with attempts to verify, to the extent possible, the accuracy of the dates and times

of reported events, with specific emphasis on the interval between CED use, unresponsiveness, and death.

b. Clarification as to whether the CED was used in drive stun and/or cartridge mode(s).

c. Recent activities of the subject prior to the incident.

d. The emotional state of the subject.

e. The subject’s medical conditions determined by medical history taking, medical record review and

medical conditions determined at autopsy.

f. The subject’s drug use history including both prescription and illicit drugs as well as alcohol.

g. Specific inquiry into the subject’s cardiac history including review of any electrocardiograms or other

cardiac function or laboratory tests that have been performed in the past.

h. Specific inquiry to the subject’s seizure history to rule out history of seizures or to clarify the nature of a

past seizure disorder.  

i. Review of witness accounts, police reports, use of force reports, emergency medical services records,

medical and psychiatric records, and any videos, photographs or digital images of the events.

j. When possible, darts should not be removed from the decedent’s body or clothing

k. Measure and document body and ambient temperature taken at the scene and other locations such as the

hospital.

l. If death occurs after arrival at a hospital, obtain blood drawn upon arrival at the hospital so it may be

tested for intoxicants, if needed.  

m. Review information downloaded from the CED with special emphasis on number and duration of

discharges over the time interval involved.

n. Investigate the subject’s place of residence and recent activities to determine if additional medical history

or evidence of drug use exists. This may require the coordination of the medical examiner/coroner with

law enforcement.

6
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

CONSIDERATIONS IN DEATH INVESTIGATION

Assuming that the investigation and autopsy are performed and documented/reported in accordance

with NIJ’s Guide for the Death Scene Investigator and the National Association of Medical Examiners’

Forensic Autopsy Performance Standards, additional information and procedures that may be helpful are:

a. Performance of a complete autopsy of the scope usually performed for deaths in custody.

b. Comprehensive postmortem toxicology, specifically including tests for alcohol, nervous system stimulants,

common drugs of abuse, anti‐seizure drugs, and therapeutic drugs often prescribed for psychiatric disorders.

c. Measurement of the thickness of the anterior chest wall from the skin to the rear of the pre‐pericardial sternum at

intercostal space between the left fourth and fifth ribs.

d. Measurement of the thickness of clothing in the area(s) where CED darts or prongs were applied.

e. Documentation of the CED dart’s barb length(s).  

f. Consideration of unusual or atypical current flow paths, such as body to ground, body to water, body to metal,

etc.

g. Determination of the nature of any other forms of subdual or restraint that were employed in the case in

question.  

h. Utilization of appropriate consultants such as cardiologists, cardiac pathologists, and neuropathologists as

needed.

The medical examiner’s or coroner’s office conducting the death investigation will ultimately be

responsible for certifying the cause and manner of death. This Interim Report does not include guidelines

for such certifications.  

7
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Cardiac Mechanisms

The ways the heart can fail when injured or sick.

Conducted Energy Device (CED)

A weapon primarily designed to disrupt a subject’s central nervous system by means of deploying

electrical energy sufficient to cause uncontrolled muscle contractions and override an individual’s

voluntary motor responses.

Darts

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

to the CED.

Dart (Barb) Removal

The act of removing a probe from a person’s body or clothing.

Deployment

Sending CED devices into the field with law enforcement officers.

Duration

The aggregate period of time that CED shocks are activated.

Dysrhythmia  

Any disturbance or irregularity of the heartbeat.

Electrocardiogram

A graphic produced by an electrocardiograph, which records the electrical activity of the heart over time.

Electro Muscular Disruption

Effect CED has on the body. Overrides the brain’s communication with the body and prevents voluntary

control over the muscles.

Excited Delirium

State of extreme mental and physiological excitement, characterized by extreme agitation, hyperthermia,

euphoria, hostility, exceptional strength and endurance without fatigue.

Hyperventilation

Breathing faster and/or deeper than normal, thereby reducing the amount of carbon dioxide, or CO2, in

the blood to below normal.  

8
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.

Metabolic Mechanisms

The ways the metabolism can fail when injured or sick.

Physical Mechanisms

The way in which illness or injury can compromise heart/lung function or put body metabolism at risk.

Pulmonary Mechanisms

The way in which lung function can be compromised by injury or sickness.

Respiratory

Relating to the act or process of inhaling (breathing in) and exhaling (breathing out); breathing, also

called ventilation.

Restrain

To control, limit, or prevent movement.

Restraint

A device that restricts movement.  

Sensitive Areas

A person’s head, neck, and genital area, and a female’s breast areas.

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.

Subdual

To bring under control.

Symptomatology

The combined symptoms of a disease: the symptom complex of a disease.  

9
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

SELECTED REFERENCES

Anders, S., M. Junge, F. Schulz, and K. Puschel. “Cutaneous

Current Marks Due to a Stun Gun Injury,” Journal of Forensic

Science 48 (3) (May 2003): 640–642.

Barnes, D.G., J.E. Winslow III, R.L. Alson, J. Johnson, and

W.P. Bozeman. “Cardiac Effects of the Taser Conducted

Energy Weapon,” Annals of Emergency Medicine  48 (4–1)

(October 2006): 102.

Bozeman, W.P., J.E. Winslow, D. Graham, B. Martin, W.E.

Hauda, and J.J. Heck. “Injury Profile of Electrical Conducted

Energy Weapons,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 50 (3)

(September 2007): S65.

Bozeman, W.P., and J.E. Winslow. “Medical Aspects of Less

Lethal Weapons,” The Internet Journal of Rescue and Disaster

Medicine (5) 1.

Burdett‐Smith, P. “Stun Gun Injury,” Journal of Accident and

Emergency Medicine  (14) (6) (November 1997): 402–404.

Cao, M., J.S. Sinbane, J.M. Gillberg, and L.A. Saxon. “Taser‐

Induced Rapid Ventricular Myocardial Capture

Demonstrated by Pacemaker Intracardiac Electrograms,”

Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 18 (8) (August

2007).

Chan, T., C. Sloane, T. Neuman, S. Levine, E. Castillo, G.

Vilke, K. Bouton, and F. Kohokorst. “The Impact of the Taser

Weapon on Respiratory and Ventilatory Function in Human

Subjects,” Academic Emergency Medicine (2007).

Chang‐Sheng, K., L. Shoa‐Lin, H. Tsui‐Lieh, W. Shih‐Pu, and

C. Mau‐Song. “Myocardial Damage Associated With

Electrical Injury,” American Heart Journal 118 (3) (September

1989): 621–624.

Chen, S.L., C.K. Richard, R.C. Murthy, and A.K. Lauer.

“Perforating Ocular Injury by Taser,” Clinical and

Experimental Ophthalmology Journal (2006).

Cronin, J.M., and J.A. Ederheimer. “Conducted Energy

Devices: Development of Standards for Consistency and

Guidance,” Police Executive Research Forum (November 2006):

15–23.

Dawes, D.M., J.D. Ho, M.A. Johnson, E. Lundin, and J.R.

Miner. “15‐Second Conducted Electrical Weapon

Application Does Not Impair Basic Respiratory Parameters,

Venous Blood Gases, or Blood Chemistries and Does Not

Increase Core Body Temperature,” Annals of Emergency

Medicine 50 (3) (September 2007): S6.

Dawes, D.M., J.D. Ho, M.A. Johnson, E. Lundin, and J.

Miner. “Breathing Parameters, Venous Blood Gases, and

Serum Chemistries With Exposure to a New Wireless

Projectile Conducted Electrical Weapon in Human

Volunteers,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 50 (3) (September

2007): S133.

Dawes, D.M., J.D. Ho, J.R. Miner, and M. Johnson. “The

Neuroendocrine Effects of the TASER X26 Conducted

Electrical Weapon as Compared to Oleoresin Capsicum,”

Annals of Emergency Medicine 50 (3–1) (September 2007):  

S132–S133.

Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, Atul Khasnis, Jennifer Antenacci,

Kay Ryshcon, Mina K. Chung, Donald Wallick, William

Kowalewski, Dimpi Patel, Hanka Mlcochova, Ashok

Kondur, James Vacek, David Martin, Andrea Natale, and

Patrick Tchou. “Do Electrical Stun Guns (TASER‐X26 w)

Affect the Functional Integrity of Implantable Pacemakers

and Defibrillators?” The European Society of Cardiology, May 9,

2007.

Einarson, A., B. Bailey, G. Inocencion, K. Ormond, and G.

Koren. “Accidental Electric Shock in Pregnancy: A

Prospective Cohort Study,” American Journal of Obstetrics and

Gynecology 176 (3) (1997): 678–681.  

Erwin, C., and R. Philibert. “Shocking Treatment: The Use of

Tasers in Psychiatric Care,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics

34 (1) (Spring 2006): 116–120.  

Fish, R.M. and L.A. Geddes. “Effects of Stun Guns and

Tasers,” Lancet Journal 358 (9283) (September 1, 2001): 687–

688.

  

Frechette, A., and M.E. Rimsza. “Stun Gun Injury: A New

Presentation of the Battered Child Syndrome,” Pediatrics

Journal 85 (5–part 1) (May 1992): 898–901.

Goldman, R.D., A. Einarson, and G. Koren. “Electric Shock

During Pregnancy,” Canadian Family Physician (March 2003).

Harada, A., and T. Suzuki. “Homicidal Manual

Strangulation and Multiple Stun‐Gun Injuries,” The American

Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 13 (4) (December

1992): 320–323.

Heightman, A.J. “Don’t Be Shocked,” Journal of Emergency

Medical Services (May 2005): 31–32.

10
Ho, J., D. Dawes, L. Bultman, R. Moscati, L. Skinner, J. Bahr,

R. Reardon, M. Johnson, and J. Miner. “Physiologic Effects of

Prolonged Conducted Electrical Weapon Discharge on

Acidotic Adults,” Academy of Emergency Medicine 14 (5)

(2007): 63.

Ho, J.D., D.M. Dawes, L.L. Bultman, J.L. Thacker, L.D.

Skinner, J.M. Bahr, M.A. Johnson, and J.R. Miner.

“Respiratory Effect of Prolonged Electrical Weapon

Application on Human Volunteers,” Academic Emergency

Medicine (November 6, 2006).

Ho, J., D. Dawes, H. Calkins, and M. Johnson. “Absence of

Electrocardiographic Change Following Prolonged

Application of a Conducted Electrical Weapon in Physically

Exhausted Adults,” Academy of Emergency Medicine 14 (5–

Supplement 1) (2007): S128‐b–129S ‐b.

Ho, J.D., R. Luceri, D.R. Lakireddy, and D.M. Dawes.

“Absence of Electrocardiographic Effects Following Taser

Device Application in Human Volunteers.” Paper presented

at 15th World Congress in Cardiac Electrophysiology and

Cardiac Techniques (Cardiostim 2006), Nice, France, June

2006.

Ho, J.D., J.R. Miner, D.R. Lakireddy, L.L. Bultman, and W.G.

Heegaard. “Cardiovascular and Physiologic Effects of

Conducted Electrical Weapon Discharge in Resting Adults,”

Academic Emergency Medicine 13 (6) (March 21, 2006): 589–

595.

Ho, J.D., R.F. Reardon, D.M. Dawes, M.A. Johnson, and J.R.

Miner. “Ultrasound Measurement of Cardiac Activity

During Conducted Electrical Weapon Application in

Exercising Adults,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 50 (3)

(September 2007): S108.

Ideker, R.E., and D.J. Dosdall. “Can the Direct Cardiac

Effects of the Electric Pulses Generated by the TASER X26

Cause Immediate or Delayed Sudden Cardiac Arrest in

Normal Adults?” American Journal of Forensic Medicine and

Pathology 28 (3) (September 1, 2007): 195–201.

International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Law

Enforcement Policy Center. Electronic Control Weapons Model

Policy. Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of

Chiefs of Police, August 2005.

Jauchem, J.R., C.J. Sherry, D.A. Fines, and M.C. Cook.

“Acidosis, Lactate, Electrolytes, Muscle Enzymes, and Other

Factors in the Blood of Sus Scrofa Following Repeated

TASER Exposures,” Forensic Science International 20 (August

10, 2006): 161.

Jenkinson, E., C. Neeson, and A. Bleetman. “The Relative

Risk of Police Use‐of‐Force Options: Evaluating the Potential

for Deployment of Electronic Weaponry,” Journal of Clinical

Forensic Medicine 13 (5) (July 2006): 229–241.

  

Jensen, P.J., P.E. Thomsen, J.P. Bagger, A. Nørgaard, and U.

Baandrup. “Electrical Injury Causing Ventricular

Arrhythmias,” British Heart Journal 57 (3) (March 1987): 279–

283.

Kelley, K.M., N. Pliskin, G. Meyer, and R.C. Lee.

“Neuropsychiatric Aspects of Electrical Injury,” Annals New

York Academy of Sciences: 213–218.

Kim, P.J., and W.H. Franklin. “Ventricular Fibrillation After

Stun‐Gun Discharge,” The New England Journal of Medicine

353 (9) (September 1, 2005): 958–959.

Kornblum, R.N. and S.K. Reddy. “Effects of the Taser in

Fatalities Involving Police Confrontation,” Journal of Forensic

Sciences 36 (3) (March 1991): 434–448.

Koscove, E.M. “Taser Dart Ingestion,” The Journal of

Emergency Medicine 5 (1987): 493–498.

  

Kroll, M.W., H. Calkins, and R.M. Lucer. “Electronic Control

Devices and the Clinical Milieu,” Journal of the American

College of Cardiology 49 (6) (February 13, 2007): 732.

Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya R. , Donald W. Wallick, David O.

Martin, Atul Verma, Mina K. Chung, Jagdish Butany, Walid

I. Saliba, Andrea Natale and Patrick J. Tchou. “Cardiac

Vulnerability to Ventricular Fibrillation During Electrical

Stun Gun (TASER‐X26) Application,” Heart Rhythm Journal,

Volume 3, Issue 5, Supplement 1, Page S330, May 2006.

Lakkireddy, D., D. Wallick, K. Ryschon, M.K. Chung, J.

Butany,  D. Martin, W. Saliba, W. Kowalewski, J. Butany, D.

Martin, W. Saliba, K. William. “Effects of Cocaine

Intoxication on the Threshold for Stun Gun Induction of

Ventricular Fibrillation,” Journal of American College of

Cardiology 48 (2006): 805–811.

Lawton, B.A. “Levels of Nonlethal Force: An Examination of

Individual, Situational, and Contextual Factors,” The Journal

of Research in Crime and Delinquency 44 (2) (May 2007): 163.

Lee, R.C., D.C. Gaylor, D. Bhatt, and D.A. Israel. “Role of

Cell Membrane Rupture in the Pathogenesis of Electrical

Trauma,” Journal of Surgical Research 44 (6) (1988): 709–719.

Levine, S.D., C. Sloane, T.C. Chan, G.M. Vilke, and J.

Dunford. “Cardiac Monitoring of Human Subjects Exposed

to the Taser,” Academic Emergency Medicine 13 (5–supplement

1) (2006): 47.

Lipley, N. “Set to Stun: Emergency Care Staff Should Be

Prepared to Treat More and More People Who Have Been

‘Tasered’ by the Police,” Emergency Nurse 14 (5) (September

2006): 5.  

Lutes, M. “Focus On: Management of TASER Injuries,”

American College of Emergency Physicians News (May 2006).

11
Maguire, K., D.M. Hughes, M.S. Fitzpatrick, F. Dunn, L.G.

Rocke, C.J. Baird. “Injuries Caused by the Attenuated Energy

Projectile,” Emergency Medicine Journal 24 (2) (February 2007):

103–105.

McBride, J.W., K.R. Labrosse, H.G. McCoy, D.H. Ahrenholz,

L.D. Solem, and I.F. Goldenberg. “Is Serum Creatine Kinase‐

MB in Electrically Injured Patients Predictive of Myocardial

Injury?” Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (6)

(February 14, 1986): 764.  

Moscati, R., J. Ho, D. Dawes, J. Miner, R. Reardon, W.

Heegaard, T.M. Johnson, and L. Bultman. “Physiologic

Effects of Prolonged Conducted Electrical Weapon

Discharge on Intoxicated Adults,” Academy of Emergency

Medicine Journal 14 (5–Supplement 1) (May 2007): p. S63‐b–

64S ‐b.

Mumola, C.J. Arrest‐Related Deaths in the United States, 2003–

2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, October

1997, NCJ–219534.

Nanthakumar, K., I.M. Billingsley, S. Masse, P. Dorian, D.

Cameron, V.S. Chauhan, E. Downar, and E. Sevaptsidis.  

“Cardiac Electrophysiological Consequences of

Neuromuscular Incapacitating Device Discharges,” Journal of

American College of Cardiology 48 (2006): 798–804.

Ordog, G.J., J. Wasserberger, T. Schlater, and S.

Balasubramanium. “Electronic Gun (Taser) Injuries,” Annals

of Emergency Medicine 16 (1) (January 1987): p. 73–78.

Rehman, T., H. Yonas, and J. Marinaro. “Intracranial

Penetration of a TASER Dart,” The American Journal of

Emergency Medicine 25 (6) (July 2007): 733.e3–733.e4.

  

Robison, D. and S. Hunt. “Sudden‐In‐Custody Death

Syndrome,” Topics in Emergency Medicine 27 (1) (2005): 36–43.

Schmiederer, B., A. Du Chesne, P.F. Schmidt, and B.

Brinkmann. “Specific Traces in Stun Gun Deployment,”

International Journal of Legal Medicine 119 (4) (July 2005): 207–

12.

Seth, R.K., G. Abedi, A.J. Daccache, J.C. Tsai. “Cataract

Secondary to Electrical Shock From a Taser Gun,” Journal of

Cataract and Refractive Surgery 33 (9): 1664–1665.

Sloane, C., G. Vike, T. Chan, S. Levine, J. Dunford. “Serum

Troponin: Measurement of Subjects Exposed to the Taser X‐

26,” Academic Emergency Medicine Journal 14 (5–Supplement

1) (2007): 103 –104.  

Smith, M.R., R.J. Kaminski, J. Rojek, G.P. Alpert, and J.

Mathis. “The Impact of Conducted Energy Devices and

Other Types of Force and Resistance on Officer and Suspect

Injuries,” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies

& Management 30 (3) (2007): 423–446.  

Stratton, S.J., R. Christopher, K. Brickett., and G. Grunzinski.

“Factors Associated With Sudden Death of Individuals

Requiring Restraint for Excited Delirium,” The American

Journal of Emergency Medicine 19 (3) (May 2001): 187–191.

Strote, J., R. Campbell, J. Pease, M.S. Hamman, and R.

Hutson. “The Role of Tasers in Police Restraint‐Related

Deaths,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 46 (3–Supplement 1)

(September 2005): 85.

Turner, M.S., and M.L. Jumbelic. “Stun Gun Injuries in the

Abuse and Death of a Seven‐Month Old Infant,” Journal of

Forensic Sciences 48 (1) (January 2003): 180–182.

Valentino, D., R. Walter, A. Dennis, B. Margeta, K. Nagy, J.

Winners, F. Bokhari, D. Wiley, J. Kimberly, and R. Roberts.

“TASER Discharges Capture Cardiac Rhythm in a Swine

Model,” Academic Emergency Medicine Journal 14 (5–

Supplement–1) (2007): S104‐a.  

Valentino, D.J., R.J. Walter, A.J. Dennis, K.K. Nagy, M.M.

Loor, J. Winners, F. Bokhari, D.E. Wiley, A. Merchant, and

R.R. Roberts. “Neuromuscular Effects of Stun Device

Discharges,” Journal of Surgical Research 137 (2) (February

2007): 344.

Vilke, G.M., C.M. Sloane, K.D. Bouton, F.W. Kolkhorst, S. D.

Levine, T.S. Neumanom, E.M. Castillo, and T.C. Chan.

“Physiological Effects of a Conducted Electrical Weapon on

Human Subjects,” Annals of Emergency Medicine (November

2007): 569.  

Vilke, G., C. Sloane, K. Bouton, S. Levine, T. Neumann, E.

Castillo, F. Kolkhorst, and T. Chan. “Cardiovascular and

Metabolic Effects of the Taser on Human Subjects,” Academic

Emergency Medicine 14 (51) (2007): S104.  

Vilke, G.M., C. Sloane., A.C., Suffecool, T.S. Neuman, E.M.

Castillo, F.W. Kolkhorst, and T.C. Chan. “Physiologic Effects

of the TASER on Human Subjects After Exercise,” Annals of

Emergency Medicine 50 (3–Supplement 1) (September 2007):

S55.

Webster, J.G., J.A. Will, H. Sun, J‐Y. Wu,, A.P. O’Rourke,

S.M. Huebner, and P.S. Rahko. “Can Tasers® Directly Cause

Ventricular Fibrillation?” International Federation for Medical

and Biological Engineering Proceedings, 14 (2006): 3307–3310.  

Whitehead, S. “After Shock: A Rational Response to Taser

Strikes,” Our Newsletter: A Monthly Publication for the

Employees of Laurens County Emergency Medical Services 1 (3)

(2005): 7–11.

Whitehead, S. “Sorting Taser Truths From Taser

Mythology,” Journal of Emergency Medical Services 30 (5) (May

2005): 64, 66.

12
Winslow, J.E., W.P. Bozeman, M.C. Fortner. “Thoracic

Compression Fractures as a Result of Shock From a

Conducted Energy Weapon: A Case Report,” Annuals of

Emergency Medicine (September 7, 2007).

Wu, J‐Y., H. Sun, A.P. O’Rourke, S. Huebner, P.S. Rahko, J.A.

Will, and J.G. Webster. “Dart‐to‐Heart Distance When

TASER® Causes Ventricular Fibrillation in Pigs,”

International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering

Proceedings 15 (2006): 578–583.  

Wu, J.‐Y., H. Sun, A. O’Rourke, S. Huebner, P. S. Rahko, J. A.

Will, and J. G. Webster. “Taser Blunt Probe Dart‐to‐Heart

Distance Causing Ventricular Fibrillation in Pigs,“ Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transaction on Biomedical

Engineering (in press).

13
About the National Institute of Justice

NIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ’s

mission is to advance scientific research, development, and evaluation to enhance the administration of justice and public safety. NIJ’s principal authorities are derived from the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (see 42 U.S.C. §§ 3721–3723).

The NIJ Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the

U.S. Department of Justice, and the needs of the field. The Institute actively solicits the views of

criminal justice and other professionals and researchers to inform its search for the knowledge

and tools to guide policy and practice.

Strategic Goals

NIJ has seven strategic goals grouped into three categories: 

Creating relevant knowledge and tools

1. Partner with State and local practitioners and policymakers to identify social science research

and technology needs. 

2. Create scientific, relevant, and reliable knowledge—with a particular emphasis on terrorism,

violent crime, drugs and crime, cost-effectiveness, and community-based efforts—to enhance

the administration of justice and public safety.

3. Develop affordable and effective tools and technologies to enhance the administration of

justice and public safety. 

Dissemination

4. Disseminate relevant knowledge and information to practitioners and policymakers in an

understandable, timely, and concise manner. 

5. Act as an honest broker to identify the information, tools, and technologies that respond to

the needs of stakeholders. 

Agency management

6. Practice fairness and openness in the research and development process.

7. Ensure professionalism, excellence, accountability, cost-effectiveness, and integrity in the

management and conduct of NIJ activities and programs. 

Program Areas

In addressing these strategic challenges, the Institute is involved in the following program areas:

crime control and prevention, including policing; drugs and crime; justice systems and offender

behavior, including corrections; violence and victimization; communications and information

technologies; critical incident response; investigative and forensic sciences, including DNA; lessthan-lethal technologies; officer protection; education and training technologies; testing and

standards; technology assistance to law enforcement and corrections agencies; field testing of

promising programs; and international crime control. 

In addition to sponsoring research and development and technology assistance, NIJ evaluates

programs, policies, and technologies. NIJ communicates its research and evaluation findings

through conferences and print and electronic media.

To find out more about the National

Institute of Justice, please visit:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

or contact:

National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

http://www.ncjrs.gov