Taser Launches Police Surveillance System

In response to numerous incidences of Taser-related police brutality in recent years, Taser International, Inc. has released a police surveillance product called AXON, The Economist reports. AXON is a “tactical on-officer network computer,” which records a video of every incident in which a police officer uses his or her Taser. The computer uploads the footage to a secure, access-restricted website called evidence.com, where it can be viewed by approved personnel.

Taser International says AXON will benefit both police officers and the public at large. Officers would have evidence to vindicate them from false charges of police brutality; and the public would benefit from the greater accountability derived from officers wearing surveillance cameras. Of course, it’s clear that the greatest benefit will go to Taser International itself; AXON is a pricey product which the company expects to help raise revenues to $1 billion annually – ten times what the company currently brings in.

AXON raises important concerns. Clearly developed in the aftermath of Taser-related injuries and numerous incidences of police misconduct, AXON is a product that may give law enforcement agencies a way of justifying their continued use of Tasers. Yet, a product that allows law enforcement to maintain a record of every time a cop tasers someone does not change the fact that Tasers are weapons that have the potential to kill. (A representative of Taser International even referred to Tasers as “less-lethal weapons.”)

Beyond the fact that recording a video does not make the Taser device any less deadly, the use of AXON also does not necessary mean that footage will be available when members of the public want it. Put more bluntly: Can the public trust law enforcement agencies to keep all videos they record? A blogger for AlterNet has insightfully pointed out that, where Taser International and law enforcement maintain control over the video recording and database, there is no way for the public to ensure that videos implicating cops will not be erased.

Tasers are believed to have caused 400 deaths since 2001. The use of Tasers in Canada has caused so many problems that law enforcement officers no longer carry Tasers in that country. Nevertheless, half of police officers in the U.S. carry a Taser in addition to their gun, and the existence of AXON is likely to give U.S. agencies more incentive to expand their Taser programs.

Of course, AXON is a product specific to law enforcement and therefore does nothing to prevent dangerous use of Tasers by civilians. In 42 states, anyone can buy a Taser if they register with Taser International and clear a felony background check. At least a handful of the Taser incidents that regularly appear in the news arise out of civilian use of the device. For example, an Orlando woman was recently arrested after she attacked her ex-boyfriend with her hot pink Taser.

Ninth Circuit Ruling Restricts Use of Taser By Police

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that a California police officer may be held liable for injuries caused to an unarmed motorist who was tasered during a traffic stop. The decision is forcing police agencies throughout California to examine their policies regarding the use of tasers. The court’s opinion defines when the use of a taser is appropriate and limits the use of the taser to situations where the person presents an obvious danger.

The ruling stems from a 2005 incident in which a former Coronado, California police officer stopped a motorist for failing to wear a seatbelt while driving. The driver, Carl Bryan, testified he did not hear the officer order him to remain in the vehicle. He exited and vehicle and stood about 20 feet from the officer. Bryan became visibly agitated and upset with himself, but did not make any verbal threats. The officer claimed he tasered Bryan when Bryan took a step toward the officer-a claim that Bryan has denied. Bryan’s face hit the pavement, resulting in bruises and four shattered front teeth.

The justices did not rule on whether the police officer acted appropriately, but it paves the way for Bryan to pursue a civil lawsuit against the officer and the City of Coronado.

Under the new ruling, tasering a fleeing suspect or a suspect who refuses to comply with an order to lie down during an arrest appears to be prohibited, since the suspect would not pose an obvious danger in these scenarios.

The ruling sets forth clear legal guidelines for when an officer may use a taser, and defines scenarios where the use of a taser would be prohibited. The justices further stated that the use of a taser poses a much more serious use of force than pepper spray-this opinion runs directly contrary to the policies of many law enforcement agencies in California and throughout the nation. Several law enforcement agencies throughout California have announced plans to review their policies regarding the use of tasers in view of this recent appellate court ruling.