{"id":505,"date":"2011-04-26T09:37:32","date_gmt":"2011-04-26T14:37:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/?p=505"},"modified":"2011-04-26T09:38:20","modified_gmt":"2011-04-26T14:38:20","slug":"a-stunning-development","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/?p=505","title":{"rendered":"A Stunning Development"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>An electronic control device, better known as a stun gun \u2013 or Taser\u2122, is a dangerous weapon.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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, \u201ccapable of inflicting death upon a human being.\u201d<\/p>\n

A federal district court in California came to the \u201cconclusion that use of the X26 Taser and similar devices in dart mode constitutes an \u201cintermediate, significant level of force that must be justified by the governmental interest involved,\u201d <\/em>The court pointed out that its holding \u201cfalls well within the national mainstream of the decisions which have examined the nature and quality of the intrusion posed by Tasers.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n

Present language in the rule offers a vague description of how these weapons will be used.\u00a0 The rule states that the weapons will have a \u201cprimary intended use\u201d.\u00a0 If there is a primary intended use then it must be argued that there will be a secondary intended use.\u00a0 We hope not.\u00a0 This is troublesome language, especially since the Code section in which this rule is designed to implement states that \u201c[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.\u201d\u00a0 But what if it\u2019s the department, an agent, employee or county, etc. that is the one that violates the rule?\u00a0 Unfortunately for the detainee, the enabling statute covers only the possibility that an inmate will violate the rule.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 \u201cThe 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.<\/p>\n

We hope that the Department takes notice that the federal government has joined a suit<\/a> in Franklin County, Ohio, to stop the misuse of stun guns in that county\u2019s jail.\u00a0 \u201cFranklin County (home of the state\u2019s capital \u2013 Columbus) jailers [used] the guns to shock naked and restrained prisoners and to punish inmates for routine rule violations.\u201d\u00a0 If misuse can happen in Ohio, it\u2019s possible for misuse to happen in Iowa.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 The proposed rule is limited to giving a sheriff (or facility administrator) the discretion to allow staff to use the stun guns.\u00a0 The rule addresses nothing about training or misuse of the weapons.\u00a0 This is a bad idea that should be stricken from an otherwise decent rule.<\/p>\n

\u00a9 Copyright 2011 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.\u00a0 All rights reserved.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

. . . the Iowa Code defines an electronic control device as a dangerous weapon, \u201ccapable of inflicting death upon a human being.\u201d Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42,17],"tags":[103,212,210,211],"class_list":["post-505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-issues","tag-iowa-department-of-corrections","tag-qualified-immunity","tag-stun-guns","tag-x26-taser"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/505","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=505"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/505\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":509,"href":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/505\/revisions\/509"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iowappa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}