Taser Weapons: Use of Tasers by Selected Law Enforcement Agencies
Published: 2005-05-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 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 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.
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,” 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) 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.
Taser International has produced various models of Taser weapons  including Air Tasers 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.
The Taser fires two metal barbs that are attached to wires, which can cover  a distance of up to 25 feet. 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  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.
section_title: Selected Law Enforcement Agencies Have Established Policies and Procedures to Help Ensure Proper Taser Use
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Use-of-Force Policies
paragraphs: 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-of- force policy. Specifically, the continuum establishes for a police officer  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.
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-of- force policy.
The placement of the Taser on the use-of-force continuums of the agencies  varied. 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. This occurs,  for example, when a subject is actively resisting arrest but not attacking the  officer. The use of chemical sprays 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.
section_title: Training Requirements
paragraphs: “…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  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.
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.
section_title: Operational Protocols
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Safety Procedures
paragraphs: “…the officer runs the risk of injuring the intended target. A Taser is by nature a weapon and  carries with it inherent dangers.”
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. 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.
section_title: Some Federal, State, and Local Laws Address Tasers But Requirements Differ
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. In addition, TSA has a regulation  that prohibits unauthorized individuals from carrying weapons, explosives,  and incendiaries beyond airport security checkpoints. 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-than- lethal 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 circumstances under which such weapons may be used.” 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 less- than-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. 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. In addition, dealers in Indiana cannot sell a Taser until  after requesting and receiving criminal history information on prospective  purchasers. Similarly, in Chicago, Illinois, prospective purchasers are  required to obtain a permit to lawfully purchase Tasers. 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. 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.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Comments from the Secretary, Transportation Security Administration
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: 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.”
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Congressional Relations
section_title: Public Affairs