Tasers in the Jail

Today’s post discusses two recent federal cases involving the use of Tasers in North Carolina jails. (The post draws from an article I originally prepared for the North Carolina Jail Administrators’ Association newsletter.) Many view Tasers and other similar electronic control devices as a helpful way for detention officers to apply non-lethal force to maintain security and good order in the jail. Used properly, they give officers a way to avoid hands-on engagement that could further escalate an incident and cause more serious injury to officer and inmate alike. The mere presence of a device can deescalate a situation and provide a deterrent to disorderly conduct. The devices are not, however, without controversy. First, not everyone agrees that they are truly non-lethal, as there have been deaths associated with Taser use—nationally and in North Carolina. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892 (4th Cir. 2016). Some view them as excessively painful to point that they violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Others view them as incompatible with a custodial setting, where other means exist to control inmate behavior. As with any use of force against an inmate, electronic control devices are governed by constitutional limitations. The exact nature of those limits depends on the type of inmate in question—pretrial or sentenced. If the inmate is a pretrial detainee, the force is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment under a standard recently spelled out by the Supreme Court in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015). [...]