Smart Weapons Need Smart Policies: Municipal Liability for the Inappropriate Use of Tasers by Police

• In Event: Police Use of Force: Tactics, Training and Liability

Abstract

Tasers and stun guns, the preferred non-lethal weapons for police officers, are now employed by the majority of law enforcement agencies in the United States. While officers could be directly liable for gratuitously using the taser or stun gun after a suspect has been subdued, police agencies could be held responsible where faulty or broad policies and inadequate training in the appropriate use of conducted energy weapons (CEWs) lead to constitutional rights violations of those within the United States. This article examines federal appellate court decisions by each Circuit to determine where the courts stand on finding municipalities liable and posits that two major U.S. Supreme Court cases, Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York (1978) and City of Canton v. Harris (1989) are used by most courts in guiding their decisions on these twin issues of flawed policies and inadequate training. We conclude by providing suggestions designed to guide police agencies in framing smart use-of-force policies for these smart weapons and in adopting appropriate training for the effective use of CEWs by police officers.

Authors

• Vidisha Worley, Lamar University

• Robert Worley, Lamar University