Does Tasing Cause “Mental Impairment” With Legal Ramifications?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When a suspect tried to rabbit on foot from a drug interdiction stop in Louisiana and then refused to follow commands after officers caught him, he was zapped with a TASER three times before being successfully handcuffed–once via a probe to the arm and twice in drive-stun mode to the leg, for a total of 16 seconds.

Soon after, he twice confessed to knowingly transporting “a significant quantity of cocaine” from Texas, intending to package and sell it in New Orleans.

In federal court, however, the suspect argued that his admissions should be thrown out on grounds that the Tasing had “mentally impaired” him to the point that he was “unable to understand” his Miranda warning and the “ramifications of waiving” his right to remain silent.

The judge ruled against him, noting, among other things, that the suspect did not buttress his argument with any scientific data showing that a Tasing produces incompetence “for any amount of time.”

Still, other defendants have made the same impairment claim and others may do so in the future. So prosecutors and police attorneys may find a new study useful in countering the assertion that a TASER “ride” messes with the mind to a unique and significant degree.

In truth, the researchers report:

  • The overall cognitive impact of a TASER exposure is so slight and so brief that it’s of “questionable clinical significance”;
  • Subjects who’ve been Tased have no trouble understanding and following instructions;
  • Indeed, subjects recovering from a TASER exposure tend to score better on one important cognitive measurement–a test of accuracy–than subjects who have experienced some other types of force or arrest-related stressors.

A 10-person team authored the study, headed by Dr. Donald Dawes, an emergency medicine physician, reserve officer/SWAT tac doc with the Santa Barbara (CA) PD, and a well-known expert on conducted electrical weapons (CEWs). The group’s report, titled “The neurocognitive effects of simulated use-of-force scenarios,” was recently published online by the journal Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. To read an abstract free of charge and to gain access of the full study for a fee click here.


“While the physiologic effects of modern conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) have been the subject of numerous studies, their effects on neurocognitive functioning…are less well understood,” the researchers write. “This void…has been exploited in civil and criminal actions with claims that [include] an inability to follow an officer’s commands, perform a field sobriety test, or understand Miranda warnings post-exposure due to…neurocognitive impairment,” either short- or long-term.

Hopeful of filling the void, the researchers set out to determine not only the mental impact of TASER deployment but also how that effect, if any, compares with the results of “other use-of-force options [and] arrest-related stressors.” This effort became the first time such a comparison has been made.


At a police and fire training facility in Arizona, the researchers assigned a pool of 56 LEO and CO volunteers, ranging in age from 19 to 55 and mostly males, to experience one of five test exercises. In roughly equal numbers, the volunteers underwent:

  • a five-second probe-shot to the back from an “off-the-shelf” TASER X26 at a distance of 7-10 ft.;
  • a 100-yard, “maximal effort” sprint through an obstacle course, simulating a foot chase, with a 15-ft. crawl at the end;
  • a 45-second simulated fight, consisting of “maximal” punches and kicks against a heavily padded instructor;
  • a K-9 search-and-bite exercise while wearing a full-body, protective bite suit, with the dog maintaining an arm bite for 20 seconds as the targeted subject tries to shake him off; or
  • a spray of 10% OC to the face and neck with eyes shielded by swim goggles (to preserve vision for the cognitive testing that followed).

Baseline neurocognitive measurements were taken before these stress/force exercises and were repeated immediately afterward and again at intervals of 15 minutes and one hour.

For this testing, the volunteers completed three portions of an extensive computer-based program used for evaluating cognitive impairment after combat-related traumatic brain injuries. Specifically, the testing measured visual scanning, processing speed, attention, learning, spatial discrimination, reaction time, accuracy, and memory.

Pre- and post-exercise vital signs were also taken.


Other research has shown that cognitive performance may decline immediately after exposure to major stress and then “tend[s] to recover rapidly.” Generally, that proved true in the Dawes study as well.

One exception was reaction time. On average it slowed slightly (by about 150 milliseconds) among participants in all the test exercises and did not return to baseline within an hour.

The largest negative cognitive impact, though, was on memory. Again, the deficit persisted past the last measurement, administered an hour after the stress exposure. This suggests that “working memory may be the most sensitive to use-of-force stress,” with deficits deepening as stress rises during an arrest situation, the researchers write.

In terms of impact on vital signs (blood pressure, heart rate, etc.), the most stressful exercises proved to be the simulated fight and the simulated flight.

Overall, the study team found that cognitive skills held up well across all the various stressful exercises, including the TASER exposure. The subjects, they report, “could follow directions quite well immediately after the…scenarios, moving to the various stations…as directed, keeping track of their time…without difficulty, and were able to sit and take the…battery [of cognitive tests].

What mental impact occurred was overall “transient, of questionable clinical significance, and similar” across all the stressors, the team writes. In general, “We did not find a significant difference between the various used-of-force scenarios in terms of neurocognitive functioning.”

For one cognitive factor–accuracy–subjects who had been Tased actually performed better than most others, maintaining their baseline levels even after CEW exposure. (The same was true of officers in the dog-bite exercise, although the team acknowledges that without the protective padding the K-9 attack would have been considerably more stressful!)


The researchers believe this study “is legally significant in that it establishes that the use of CEWs causes no greater decline in neurocognitive performance than any of the alternative means of subject resistance or control evaluated” and common to the street.

“Our data…could be useful in legal cases in which [attorneys] attempt to argue that a specific use of force caused a [persistent] neurocognitive deficit.”

The legal arena being what it is, though, the researchers realistically predict that “more study and debate” will ensue over the use of force and cognitive impairment related to “Miranda rights, performance of field sobriety tests, giving of statements, consent to search, or other action requiring voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver or consent.”

Meanwhile, the researchers suggest that in theory “it could be optimal to wait” at least 15 minutes after a significant use of force before presenting a suspect with “complex neurocognitive tasks.” But in the real world, given the team’s findings, that may be “an unnecessarily conservative recommendation.”

Finally, the study group acknowledges that on the street, confrontations are often “confounded” by multiple uses of force, the influence of drugs and alcohol, and “the stress of the consequences of being arrested.”

Consequently, “This limits the ability to generalize our findings to these more complex scenarios. However, we feel that our [work] offers some baseline data that can help with the understanding of these complex encounters.”

[For more information, Dr. Dawes, a consultant to TASER International, Inc., can be reached at: donalddawes@gmail.com. Two other members of his team, Dr. Jeffrey Ho and Atty. Michael Brave, also have TASER affiliations. The study was peer-reviewed by scientists without TASER connections.]

Leave a Reply


  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.


We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.