Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to help inform the ongoing policy and training debates over use of the Taser and its proper role in the use of force continuum. Design/methodology/approach - This paper qualitatively analyzes all reported court decisions (n = 53 as of January 31, 2007) in which a Taser was used by a law enforcement officer. Findings - The majority of reported cases have resulted in the dismissal of claims against officers and municipalities for alleged Taser-related excessive force violations. In most cases, plaintiffs were unable to show the existence of an unconstitutional policy or custom to support municipal liability. As for the liability of individual officers, most cases were decided in the officer's favor on summary judgment, particularly when the suspect was exhibiting physical resistance. In a few cases, summary judgment was denied to officers when the plaintiff alleged that he or she was fully compliant when the Tasering occurred. Research limitations/implications - This analysis was confined to reported court decisions, which do not necessarily represent a random sample of all Taser-related lawsuits filed in the courts. Likewise, Taser-related lawsuits appear to be increasing as the use of the Taser proliferates among law-enforcement agencies. Thus, the trends and patterns in Taser liability identified in the analysis may change and evolve with newly decided cases. Practical implications - The analysis suggests that agencies should review their policy and training guidelines on Taser usage to remain compliant with emerging legal standards. Officers should be trained to articulate a physical threat or potential threat before using a Taser against a verbally resistant subject. Originality/value - Civil liability is always of concern to law enforcement officials, particularly of when an emerging technology is involved. At the time of this writing, there were no published analyses of Taser-related excessive force claims.
