New Jersey is the ONLY state in the nation where it is illegal for law enforcement to use TASER devices or other electronic control devices (ECDs) in protecting their communities. Prohibiting those who have sworn to protect and to serve from utilizing this life-saving technology is not only outdated thinking, but it puts both the officers and the communities at risk.  

Electronic weapons and stun guns have been prohibited for use by law enforcement and the general public in New Jersey since 1985 — nine years before TASER International was founded. The only other three states to totally prohibit law enforcement from using stun devices have already changed their laws to allow officers to carry electronic control devices — Massachusetts (2004), Michigan (2002), and Hawaii (2001).  

For more than three years, the Attorney General of New Jersey has considered allowing New Jersey law enforcement officers to use ECDs. Under New Jersey law, the Attorney General can grant permission for law enforcement to use these life-saving devices — yet she refuses.   

Two years ago, Attorney General Ann Milgram formed a committee to review and evaluate alternative law enforcement use of force options, including ECDs and stun guns. While the committee has made recommendations regarding certain “less-lethal” ammunition — such as rubber bullets and bean bag rounds — they have yet to make any recommendations on TASER brand devices or any other ECDs, leaving law enforcement agencies across New Jersey, who know the value of ECDs, wanting and waiting to deploy.

The time for action is now. The lack of movement by the Attorney General on this critical issue is not only endangering the safety of New Jersey officers, it may also have precluded New Jersey communities from taking advantage of the more than $2.8 billion in federal stimulus monies targeted for law enforcement and community policing technologies. The deadline for submitting applications to the U.S. Department of Justice Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program is soon approaching. Without immediate action from the Attorney General, or the legislature, permitting the use of ECDs by law enforcement in New Jersey, cash-strapped communities will miss an unprecedented opportunity to apply for federal assistance for purchasing this revolutionary technology, without putting undue strain on already tight budgets.

The New Jersey State Senate is also considering the use of ECDs. S-182, a bill to authorize certain law enforcement officers and corrections officers to possess and use stun guns while on duty, has passed the Senate Law and Public Safety and Veteran’s Affairs Committee. However, the Senate has not taken further action on the legislation, citing a need for the Attorney General to finish her report on stun guns and ECDs. It’s time for either the legislature or the Attorney General to step up and be accountable on this important safety issue.

ECDs are saving lives, reducing injuries and saving precious taxpayer dollars in workman’s compensation and litigation in the communities across the United States patrolled by the nearly 14,000 law enforcement agencies that carry TASER devices — except in New Jersey!   

It is time that Attorney General Milgram and Senate President Richard Codey stop ducking the issue and act. Calls from law enforcement and the general public in New Jersey who agree may help persuade them to become leaders for a change. Their numbers are: 

Attorney General Ann Milgram: 609-292-4925

Senate President Richard Codey: 973-731-6770

New Jersey is a distinctive state with a unique beauty, heritage and people. Being the last state to prohibit the use of a technology proven to protect life is not a distinction worthy of this great state. Law enforcement officers in New Jersey deserve to have the benefits of electronic control devices, just like they do in all 49 other states in the nation. 

The right to select one’s own means of self-protection is something we affirm at TASER International. We believe it is important that people have choices when it comes to selecting a method with which to feel comfortable and safe —  regardless of whether or not an individual chooses to protect themselves with a TASER® C2™. For instance, I do not feel comfortable carrying a gun (although I would like to be trained in how to use one), but I do feel comfortable carrying my TASER C2. By the way, it’s pink.  

Since I work for TASER, I have had a lot of exposure to the device — I have deployed it, taken a full voluntary exposure including the probes (download the video of my TASER hit here), and even shocked myself once accidentally! I know exactly how it works, should I ever need to use it to protect myself. Since I know it’s effective, I feel comfortable choosing it as my means of self-protection. Sure, I have a big fiancé, but he’s not always with me and, even if he is, what would we do if someone assaults us? I don’t carry my TASER C2 around like a citizen-vigilante, hunting creepsters on street corners, but I do feel much safer walking to my car in the parking garage, or around the city at night. I grew up in a small town, I went to college in a small town, and now I live 3,000 miles away from my family. Having a TASER device makes me feel much safer since adjusting to post-college urban living.  

The right to select a means of self-protection is an issue that was hotly debated over the last two years in the Maryland State Legislature. Maryland legislators — rightfully concerned with the potential misuse of stun devices — began last year with legislation to prohibit an individual the right to own a TASER device or stun gun in the state. This year, following many months of persistent engagement and education on the subject, the Maryland Legislature passed what we believe is an effective regulatory bill addressing and affirming the citizen’s use of electronic control device technology.   

Elected officials have an obligation to promote public safety and regulate products that could potentially be dangerous. But as the Maryland Legislature rightfully concluded, the answer to effective electronic control device regulation is NOT to ban them. Rather, the Legislature chose to keep stun devices out of the hands of minors and those who have been convicted of a crime of violence. They also chose to promote some industry best practices.  

TASER International has refused to sell to persons under the age of eighteen and anyone who has been convicted of a felony. Since its inception, the company has also installed accountability systems in all its devices, such as owner registrations and the Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) tracking systems. Today, the TASER C2 even requires the owner to pass an identification verification check and a felony background check to activate the TASER C2. Thus, the device has built-in systems that deter those who would misuse the technology and protect those, like me, who wish to utilize it for personal safety.   

Working with industry experts, safety advocates and law enforcement, the Maryland Legislature passed responsible legislation — legislation which deters the misuse of the stun device, but allows for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones, as they choose, in a safe and effective manner.

Inside the walls of TASER, we have a clear understanding of what ECDs can and can’t do. We are constantly engaged in studies and tests to determine the true impact that TASER ECDs can have. One thing we’ve come to understand over the years is the positive impact TASER devices have on law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. Thankfully, you don’t have to take our word for it. There are numerous independent studies (approximately 80 percent of all TASER studies are independent) from third party sources not related to TASER International that back up our claims. 

One such study comes from the Michigan Municipal Risk Management Association (MMRMA) — a public entity self-insurance pool, providing liability and property coverage. The MMRMA represents 149 Michigan law enforcement agencies and the approximately 6,000 officers employed by those agencies. Ultimately, the MMRMA provides risk management, claims administration, legal defense and reinsurance services to its local government members from unexpected liability and property losses.

For some history, the MMRMA is quite familiar with TASER ECDs and has studied the impact of these devices upon its members since 2003. In fact, they actually maintain a TASER® Risk Avoidance Program (RAP).

In July 2003, after extensive review, they began partial reimbursement to clients upon purchase of TASER ECDs. The MMRMA is able to provide this reimbursement because its research indicates that agencies with a TASER program reduce use-of-force litigation and excessive force claims reported by members. 

Just this month, the MMRMA provided the most recent review of its 2003-2008 field results. The findings provide a unique snapshot of the impact TASER ECDs have on the state of Michigan. 

Of the 1,768 instances in which a TASER ECD has been used in Michigan, only 83 reported secondary injuries (4.6 percent), and only three of the injuries were considered significant. Let’s take a look:

• 1 injury reported — probe contact to the eye
• 1 injury reported — infection developed while at hospital (second party involvement)
• 1 injury reported — probe contact to the head
• 899 reported instances of substance abuse (50.8%)
• 748 involved the use of alcohol (42.3%)
• 151 instances of drug/narcotics use (8.5%)
• 152 incidents (8.5%) were involving individuals in need of psychiatric intervention 

Interestingly, the results also show a continuining decline in the number of claims filed against Michigan’s law enforcement agencies, as well as the requisite dollar amounts of these claims:

         Year                 Claims                  Claim Amounts

• 2000                   66                        $2,712,979
• 2001                   46                        $922,147
• 2002                   61                        $2,081,971
• 2003                   84                        $7,068,232*
• 2004                   125                      $6,448,316
• 2005                   68                        $6,085,516
• 2006                   57                        $831,943
• 2007                   49                        $508,340
• 2008                   17                        $366,600

*Michigan law enforcement agencies begin TASER ECD programs

Many folks have asked me why these results are so positive. I have my opinions and, quite frankly, these statistics are right in concert with the field studies that I have collected from law enforcement agencies over the past decade. As for why these results occur, and without speculating, it might help to look at some of the requirements made by the MMRMA, as this might shed facts on the matter instead of conjecture:

• Each department needs to have a use of force protocol 
• Each officer needs to be trained in the use of TASER ECDs
• Protocol must include a supervisory review of each TASER ECD use (the MMRMA actually states that it believes this is a key to success in lowering the number of claims)
• Copy of police report forwarded to MMRMA
• Medical clearance on subjects (first 18 months)
• Adopt the MMRMA model policy/procedure

We too believe these requirments help support our continuing mantra that good policies, training and oversight are the keys to successful TASER ECD programs.

As I said at the outset of this post, facts and science win the day and the findings of a risk management association provide the hard actuarial data that is the proof in the pudding.