Skip navigation
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct - Header

Taser Risk Management Perspectives League of Minn Cities 2005

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Risk Management Perspectives on
CEDs
l

.

•

serving
Minnesota
cities

Presentation to TASER® Use of Force, Risk
Management and Legal Strategies Conference
by Bill Everett, Associate Administrator
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
Scottsdale, AZ
December 13th, 2005

Professional Qualifications
•“Recovering” peace officer
•Trial lawyer defending cities/officers (and
medical products)
•Consultant/trainer
•Risk Manager
•Force Science Research Center

Goals
1. Share our reasoning, as one govt risk
management and insurance provider, for
supporting use of the Taser.
2. Share information about officer injuries and
officer safety – scope of the problems.

The Interesting World a While Back
A Time of Controversy
No bad experiences in MN, but:
•ACLU “death” claims
•Sensational headlines, use on young/old
•Noise in risk management community
•Scientific resume
Some tough questions

Considerations “back then”
•CEDs seemingly very helpful and popular
•Interplay: Fear/analogs/lack of understanding
•Worst case: Baby with the bathwater
•At the legislature
•At the city council

Our Stakeholders and Audiences
•Police agencies
•City administrators and managers
•Mayors and council members
•Litigation defense attorneys
•Loss control staff

Our Charge
To meet the risk management needs of
Minnesota Cities.
•Examine effectiveness
•Examine safety
•Provide scientifically based and defensible
guidelines to minimize risks of use
•Accessible to cops, mayors, council members

Our Strategy

•Research
•Analyze
•Wait

Our Conclusion
“Used properly, CEDs provide police officers with
a safe and effective tool for controlling dangerous behavior and overcoming resistance….
CED use has resulted in a considerable
reduction in arrest-related injuries to both officers
and subjects.”
Police Use of Conductive Energy Devices,
LMCIT Risk Management Memo (Oct. 2005)

Basis for Conclusions
•Available pilot studies
•Consistent declines in injuries to suspects &
officers
•Averting deadly force in some cases
•Available published scientific and medical
evidence
•Debunking myths and urban legends
•Attesting to safety
Report available at www.lmnc.org

The Sweet Spot
Seeking to find the right balance (the “sweet
spot”) where we are:
•Spreading out the reduction in injuries – to
both officers and subjects – to as broad a
class of events as possible.
•Anecdotal experience – officers are more
willing to use CEDs than OC
•Our message – use it instead of OC, but
explain why
•Not using the devices in cases where we will

Risk Management
“Used properly, CEDs provide police officers with
a safe and effective tool….
What does “used properly” mean?
•Used lawfully (MN=reas necessary)
•Used in accordance with the lessons
taught by responsible science.
•If feasible, mitigate scientifically

Risk Management
“Used properly, CEDs provide police officers with
a safe and effective tool….

Changing Gears
Pilot studies categorically report reductions in
officer injuries
•Columbus, down 23.4%
•Cincinnati, down 70%
•Orange County, w/c claims down 50%
How often do we get hurt by the bad guys?
How does it compare with other injury risks?

Figure 2. Distribution of Incurred Loss
Costs by Job Class, 2003 to 2005
All Other
20%

Public Works
26%

Clerical office
employees
5%
Parks
6%

Firefighters

Police
26%

Figure 4. Comparison of Incurred Loss
Costs for Police Liability and Workers’
Compensation, 2000 to 2005
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

(6 Months)

Liability

Workers' Compensation

Injury Analysis:

9 Analysis of claims by:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Job Class
Body Part
Nature of Injury
Cause of Injury
Type of Injury

Figure 6. Distribution of Incurred Loss
Costs by Body Part for Police, 2003 to
2005
26.1

All Other

Backs

Arms

Legs

20.8

23.1

30.0

Figure 7. Distribution of Incurred Loss
Costs by Nature of Injury for Police, 2003
to 2005
All Other
Contusion,
crushing, bruised

3.9
6.3

Heart attack,
myocardial infrct

7.6

Dislocation,
fracture

7.4

Laceration, cut,
puncture, scratc
Sprains, strains

10.0
64.7

Figure 8. Distribution of Incurred Loss
Costs by Cause of Injury for Police, 2003
to 2005
13.4

All Other

6.7

Presumption

11.8

Motor vehicle collision

19.9

Fall or slip injury
Person in the act of a
crime

23.5
24.6

Lifting/pushing/pulling

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All of that is great, BUT…
ƒ It’s not very useful for loss control purposes
in it’s current form.
ƒ Response to problem Æ more research!
ƒ In-depth analysis of injuries by
ACTIVITY police officer was engaged in
at the time of injury.

On-going research at LMCIT…
ƒ In-depth analysis of 330 lost-time claims
(census) and 291 medical-only claims
(sample).
ƒ Research question: “What activity was the
police officer engaged in at the time of
injury?”
ƒ Grouped claims according to a predetermined list of 15 activities which
police officers typically engage in.

Figure 11. Distribution of Incurred Loss Costs
by Claim Classification, 2002 to 2004 (N=1,548)
Med-Only
Claims
(n=1,218)
10%

Lost-Time
Claims
(n=330)
90%

Figure 12. Distribution of Incurred Loss Costs by
Activity for Lost-Time Injuries, 2002 to 2004 (N=330)

Everything Else
23%

Medical Assist
9%

Foot Pursuit
17%

Use of Force
Confrontation
16%

Other
11%
Motor Vehicle -Non-

Training
Activities

1. Profile of Foot Pursuit Claims:
2002 to 2004
Number of Claims: 41
Percent of Total Claims: 12.4%
Incurred Loss Costs: $1,366,810
Percent of Incurred Loss Costs: 17.2%
Median: $6,609

2. Profile of Use of Force
Confrontation Claims: 2002 to 2004
Number of Claims: 67
Percent of Total Claims: 20.3%
Incurred Loss Costs: $1,241,000
Percent of Incurred Loss Costs: 15.6%
Median: $6,373

3. Profile of Training Activities
Claims: 2002 to 2004
Number of Claims: 43
Percent of Total Claims: 13.0%
Incurred Loss Costs: $943,314
Percent of Incurred Loss Costs: 11.8%
Median: $12,981

4. Profile of Motor Vehicle Accidents
(Non-Emergency) Claims: 2002 to 2004
Number of Claims: 23
Percent of Total Claims: 7.0%
Incurred Loss Costs: $917,507
Percent of Incurred Loss Costs: 11.5%
Median: $18,688

5. Profile of Medical Assist Claims:
2002 to 2004
Number of Claims: 22
Percent of Total Claims: 6.7%
Incurred Loss Costs: $723,999
Percent of Incurred Loss Costs: 9.1%
Median: $25,855

What does all of this mean?
„ Top 5 activities: Foot pursuit, Use of force

confrontation, Training activities, Motor vehicle
accidents (non-emergency), and Medical assist
„ These injuries will cost LMCIT $5.2 million
in incurred loss costs
„ This figure does not include SCF at 26%
„ Focusing on these 5 activitiesÆ65% of incurred
loss costs.

Bill Everett, Associate Administrator
l

.

•

serving
Minnesota
cities

League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
www.lmnc.org

Contact Information:
beverett@lmnc.org
651-281-1216

 

 

Prison Phone Justice Campaign
CLN Subscribe Now Ad
The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side