An electronic control device, better known as a stun gun – or Taser™, is a dangerous weapon. The Iowa Department of Corrections has introduced a proposed rule that will allow sheriffs or detention facility administrators to use discretion in arming jailers with stun guns. Changing the definition of what a weapon is or is not in an administrative rule does not change the fact that the Iowa Code defines an electronic control device as a dangerous weapon, “capable of inflicting death upon a human being.”
A federal district court in California came to the “conclusion that use of the X26 Taser and similar devices in dart mode constitutes an “intermediate, significant level of force that must be justified by the governmental interest involved,” The court pointed out that its holding “falls well within the national mainstream of the decisions which have examined the nature and quality of the intrusion posed by Tasers.”
Present language in the rule offers a vague description of how these weapons will be used. The rule states that the weapons will have a “primary intended use”. If there is a primary intended use then it must be argued that there will be a secondary intended use. We hope not. This is troublesome language, especially since the Code section in which this rule is designed to implement states that “[a] violation of a rule does not permit any civil action to recover damages against the state of Iowa, its departments, agents, or employees or any county, its agents or employees, or any city, its agents or employees.” But what if it’s the department, an agent, employee or county, etc. that is the one that violates the rule? Unfortunately for the detainee, the enabling statute covers only the possibility that an inmate will violate the rule. The statute lacks protection for an detainee or inmate where a government body or government employee is the violator and is entitled to a qualified immunity defense. “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” If this rule is adopted, the burden of proof shifts to the offender who is quite likely the victim as a result of a rule violation in this instance.
We hope that the Department takes notice that the federal government has joined a suit in Franklin County, Ohio, to stop the misuse of stun guns in that county’s jail. “Franklin County (home of the state’s capital – Columbus) jailers [used] the guns to shock naked and restrained prisoners and to punish inmates for routine rule violations.” If misuse can happen in Ohio, it’s possible for misuse to happen in Iowa. Granting discretion to sheriffs and facility administrators without requiring the need for training, and/or some sort of consequence, will lead to federal suits in Iowa.
In any case, the use of electronic control devices should not be allowed until personnel who intend to use it are trained in several areas. The proposed rule is limited to giving a sheriff (or facility administrator) the discretion to allow staff to use the stun guns. The rule addresses nothing about training or misuse of the weapons. This is a bad idea that should be stricken from an otherwise decent rule.
© Copyright 2011 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan. All rights reserved.