TRENTON
– Attorney General Paula T. Dow and
Criminal Justice Director Stephen J. Taylor
today announced a revised policy governing
the use of stun guns by law enforcement
officers in New Jersey, which was developed
in consultation with the law enforcement
community.
The
new policy replaces a policy issued by the
Attorney General’s Office last year,
under the prior administration. Law enforcement
professionals had expressed concern that
the prior policy made it impractical to
use stun guns because that policy was too
restrictive regarding the number of officers
who could carry stun guns and the circumstances
in which they could be used.
The
new policy continues to restrict use of
stun guns, for the most part, to situations
where an officer seeks to prevent a suspect
from causing death or serious bodily injury
to an officer, to another person, or to
himself or herself. Law enforcement officers
may not use them against a person who is
only offering passive resistance to commands.
However, the new policy eliminates restrictions
in the prior policy that, as a practical
matter, would frequently have prevented
officers from using stun guns as an alternative
to deadly force during a swiftly unfolding
crisis. The prior policy was so restrictive
that, in some instances, it prohibited the
use of a stun gun in situations where an
officer could use lethal force.
“Law
enforcement officers have a very tough job,
and we want to give them every tool that
can assist them in their work of protecting
lives,” said Attorney General Dow.
“In consultation with the law enforcement
community, we have developed a fair and
balanced policy on stun guns that will provide
officers with a practical alternative to
using deadly force in appropriate situations.”
“There
was a consensus among law enforcement professionals
that the stun gun policy adopted by the
prior administration was too restrictive,
both in terms of the number of officers
who could carry the devices and the limits
imposed on their use in a rapidly developing
use of force situation,” said Director
Taylor. “This new policy provides
responsible and realistic parameters within
which police can use stun guns.”
“These
revisions take the handcuffs off law enforcement
to use stun guns for what they were designed
to do: protect the people of New Jersey,”
said Major Karl Kleeberg of the New Jersey
State Police. “The video and data
recording capabilities of these devices
ensure that officers will be backed up legally
for the justifiable use of stun guns,”
Kleeberg added.
“The
New Jersey law enforcement community and
the public will be well served by this revised
policy,” said Cranford Police Chief
Eric Mason, President of the NJ State Association
of Chiefs of Police. “It removes the
unworkable and overly restrictive mandates
from the original policy. As a result, it
provides police officers with a much needed
tool and the necessary guidelines for its
use. Attorney General Dow’s willingness
to get constructive input from law enforcement
on this issue has resulted in better public
policy, and we believe better policing.”
The
prior policy permitted the use of a stun
gun only if the officer made a judgment
that the targeted person was “mentally
ill” or “temporarily deranged.”
The officer also needed authorization from
an on-scene supervisor. The new policy does
not require officers to make a clinical
diagnosis that a person is emotionally disturbed
and does not require the approval of a supervisor
before a stun gun is used.
The
new policy eliminates arbitrary limits that
had been placed on the number, rank, and
duty assignment of officers who could carry
and use stun guns. Outside of SWAT teams,
police forces in the largest cities could
equip only four officers with stun guns
under the prior policy, and those officers
had to be of a supervisory rank. Cities
with under 25,000 residents could equip
only one additional officer. The new policy
allows a department’s chief executive
to determine which officers may carry stun
guns, considering their experience and demonstrated
judgment.
The
policy requires the use of stun guns approved
by the Attorney General that will make a
date- and time-stamped digital video recording
of every instance when the device is discharged.
Such recordings must be secured by a superior
officer as part of a prompt and thorough
investigation of every discharge of a stun
gun. The findings of those investigations
must be reviewed by the county prosecutor
and forwarded to the Division of Criminal
Justice for review.
The
policy requires that all officers who carry
stun guns receive a course of training on
stun guns approved by the Police Training
Commission and re-qualify every six months.
The course will include training on how
to recognize mental illness and deal with
an emotionally disturbed person.
The
policy applies to “conducted energy
devices,” defined as any device approved
by the Attorney General that fires electrode
darts attached by wires to the main body
of the device, which is held by the officer.
The darts transmit an electrical charge
or current to temporarily disable a person.
The charge stuns and temporarily incapacitates
the person by causing involuntary muscle
contractions.
Under
the prior policy, a stun gun could be used
only if the suspect were “isolated
and contained.” That meant that a
stun gun could not be used if there were
a hostage or other innocent person nearby.
The new policy provides that an officer
must consider whether there is a substantial
risk that an innocent person might inadvertently
be struck by the electrode darts. An officer
should fire a stun gun, despite such risk,
only when necessary to protect the nearby
innocent person from attack. The new policy
recognizes that there are instances when
firing a stun gun would be the safest alternative
for the innocent person.
The
prior policy contemplated that stun guns
would be used, for the most part, only if
a SWAT team were deployed. However, the
law enforcement community expressed concern
that the prior policy failed to recognize
that officers who are first on the scene
of a rapidly developing use of force situation
may need to act quickly with a stun gun,
before other units arrive, in order to resolve
a confrontation before it escalates to the
point where deadly force is required.
The
new policy generally brings the rules for
stun guns into line with the policy adopted
in March 2008 for less lethal ammunition.
That policy established a new level of force
called “enhanced mechanical force”
immediately under deadly force.
Under
the Attorney General’s Use of Force
Policy, deadly force may only be used when
an officer reasonably believes such force
is immediately necessary to protect an officer
or another person from imminent danger of
death or serious bodily injury. The rules
for less lethal ammunition, and now stun
guns, do not require that the threat of
death or serious bodily injury be imminent
or immediate.
The
prior policy allowed for use of a stun gun
only against a suspect who was armed with
a deadly weapon. The new policy permits
use of a stun gun against a person who is
posing a risk of death or serious bodily
injury to another person by, for example,
choking the person, kicking the person’s
head, or holding the person and threatening
to strangle him or her.
The
new policy allows use of a stun gun in several
other circumstances where it was prohibited
under the prior policy. The new policy allows
an officer to use a stun gun, if needed,
to prevent the escape of a suspect believed
to have caused or attempted to cause the
death or serious bodily injury of another.
The
prior policy absolutely prohibited use of
a stun gun against a handcuffed subject
as well as use of a stun gun in “drive
stun mode,” meaning when the device
is placed directly against the subject instead
of being fired from a distance. The new
policy allows for those two uses of a stun
gun in circumstances where deadly force
would be permitted or where there is an
imminent threat that the subject will kill
or cause serious bodily injury to himself
or herself. The new policy allows a stun
gun to be used against a handcuffed suspect
only if other types of physical or mechanical
force are not available, would not be effective,
or would be too dangerous for the officer
to attempt to use.
The
new policy for stun guns recognizes that
while they are designed and intended to
be used as less lethal weapons, they can
cause serious injury or death. The policy
requires officers to use particular care
when using them against a person who may
be vulnerable due to age or medical condition.
The
policy prohibits use of a stun gun against
the operator of a motor vehicle. It also
prohibits the firing of two or more stun
guns at a person at the same time. It directs
that a stun gun shall not be used against
a person who is in a precarious, elevated
position, unless reasonable efforts have
been made to guard against a fall-related
injury. It further directs that a stun gun
shall not be used close to a body of water
or flammable materials.
The
policy imposes limits on when an officer
may unholster and display a stun gun, including
“spark displays,” in which an
arc of electricity is emitted from the device
as a demonstration to discourage resistance.
These restrictions are patterned closely
after the current standard used to justify
unholstering and exhibiting a firearm.
The
policy makes clear that there is no requirement
that an officer exhaust the option of using
a stun gun before using lethal ammunition
in any circumstance where deadly force would
be justified and authorized under the Attorney
General’s Use of Force Policy.
Attorney
General Dow thanked Assistant Attorney General
Ron Susswein for drafting the policy, as
well as the many law enforcement representatives
who provided extensive input regarding the
policy, including, in particular, Dr. Richard
Celeste, who is Director of the Somerset
County Police Academy, Cranford Police Chief
Eric Mason, who is President of the New
Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police,
Executive Director Mitchell C. Sklar of
the Police Chiefs Association, and Somerset
County Sheriff Frank Provenzano Sr., President
of the Sheriffs’ Association of New
Jersey She also thanked Sarah Miller, a
legal intern with the Division of Criminal
Justice who compiled and analyzed feedback
from the law enforcement community.
### |