New Study Sparks Debate Over Tasing, Brain Function, & Miranda

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Does the shock from a conducted energy weapon impair a suspect’s brain function to the point that he or she may not properly respond to a Miranda warning?

A CJ research team raises that question in reporting new findings that a person’s cognition suffers significantly for a short period after a CEW exposure.

Their evidence is not sufficient to “call for a national policy” on post-CEW procedures, the researchers concede, but their report suggests that waiting “60 minutes before interrogating suspects who were exposed to a TASER” may be prudent.

Some TASER experts, however, argue that the new study is far too narrow and flawed and that the authors have greatly overstated the relevance of their conclusions.

The study was conducted by Dr. Robert Kane, professor and department head of criminology and justice studies at Drexel University in Philadelphia, and Dr. Michael White, a CJ professor at Arizona State University and associate director of that school’s Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. Kane and White are co-authors of the book, Jammed Up: Bad Cops, Police Misconduct, and the New York City Police Department.

Their study, funded by the DOJ’s National Institute of Justice and published in the journal Criminology & Public Policy, can be accessed in full without charge. Click Here to download a copy.

Noting that most CEW research has focused on effects of shocks on the heart, Kane and White wanted to explore “whether the device impairs a person’s cognitive functioning and, if so, whether that impairment may be severe enough to threaten the ‘voluntary, knowing, and intelligent’ requirements for a valid Miranda waiver.”


The researchers’ testing involved 142 healthy volunteers “who passed rigorous screening protocols” to assure they were sober, drug-free, and clear of any mental or medical problems. Drawn from a campus population, nearly two-thirds were white and about a quarter were black or Hispanic; over three quarters were male; and 95% were in their late teens or early 20s.

Randomly they were divided among four “experimental conditions”: Control (who experienced no “intervention”), Exertion (who punched a heavy bag “vigorously” for 30 seconds to “mimic resistance against police”), TASER (who received a five-second CEW exposure from certified police instructors, while face down on a mat in a laboratory setting), and TASER+Exertion (who hit the bag first, then were Tased). The CEW exposures were not across the head or near the brain.

Each participant “completed a battery of valid and reliable neurocognitive tests” at five different times: an hour before their experimental event, immediately afterward, and then an hour, a day, and a week later.

These tests, the researchers say, objectively measured “a range of cognitive dimensions, including auditory recall, verbal learning and memory, visual [perception], speed of processing, mental flexibility, and motor function.”

Before and after the experiments, the volunteers were also asked to subjectively rate their personal “difficulties” with memory and concentration.


The objective tests showed that there were “no significant differences in cognitive functioning” between the four groups before their experimental exposures, Kane and White report.

However, the researchers write, the results indicate that “TASER exposure led to significant and substantial reductions in (a) short-term auditory recall and (b) abilities to assimilate new information through auditory processes.” This disruption of memory and the ability to “assimilate and synthesize new information,” which lasted up to one hour before returning to normal, was “considerable,” they write.

In the initial baseline testing, all the volunteer groups averaged “just above the normal range [of cognition] for healthy young adults.” But immediately after being Tased, approximately one-quarter of each of the two TASER-CEW groups showed a decline in cognitive function to a level expected for 79-year-old non-demented adults–that is, “within the range of mild cognitive impairment.”

Only one-fifth of each CEW group performed at or above the pre-exposure average. In some test results, the average score in the CEW groups declined by more than 30%, the researchers note, in stark contrast to the Control and Exercise-only groups, which “did not change significantly.” This is “both statistically significant and clinically important,” Kane and White assert.

In addition, CEW exposure “caused significant negative change” in the volunteers’ subjective self-assessment. Immediately post-shock, they reported higher levels of difficulty with concentration, anxiety, and feeling overwhelmed, although these reactions began to dissipate quickly.

So, too, did the objective measurements of decline. By the follow-up testing an hour later, scores for learning and memory had returned to baseline levels, “suggesting that the deficits in cognitive functioning [caused by CEW exposure] are short-term.”


Kane and White did not test the volunteers with any reading of the Miranda caution to see specifically what impact a temporary cognitive decline might have on comprehending or waiving the warning. Instead, they evaluated participants’ memory and learning based on the ability to recall strings of unrelated spoken words and numbers. In the researchers’ opinion, this represented “a favorable alternative” to Miranda-specific tests, “at least in an initial study.”

Nonetheless, they claim their findings suggest that “not only might our participants be more likely to waive their Miranda rights directly after TASER exposure, but also they would be more likely to give inaccurate information to investigators.

“Thus, part of our findings implicates a suspect’s ability to issue a valid waiver, whereas another part implicates the accuracy of information he or she might give investigators during a custodial interrogation (e.g., false confessions or statements).”

The researchers raise the specter of innocent parties unable “to process adequately the consequences of waiving their Miranda rights” and thus becoming “susceptible to suggestibility or memory lapses” and making incriminating, inaccurate, or untrustworthy statements “based on short-term memory impairment,” without benefit of counsel.

In one online news story (from Science Daily), Kane was quoted: “There are plenty of people in prison who were Tased and then immediately questioned. Were they intellectually capable of giving ‘knowing’ and ‘valid’ waivers of their Miranda rights before being subjected to a police interrogation?” The study report poses the question: “What would it cost the police under routine circumstances to wait 60 minutes after a successful TASER deployment before administering Miranda warnings and trying to obtain a waiver from suspects?”


In a statement given to Force Science News, TASER International, Inc., manufacturer of the CEW used in the study, charged that Kane and White “make a giant leap by generalizing [their] findings to the broader question of a suspect understanding a Miranda warning. It is very difficult to take a small word-recall score difference (a change of four words out of a series of 36) and generalize that to the understanding of the Miranda warning.”

The company alleges that the study:

  • “over-emphasizes a few measures of those tested and ignores others,” including the fact that “the TASER group showed statistically significant improvements in some of the measures immediately after exposure”
  • “unfairly de-emphasized the fact that the [Exertion-only] group also had decrements in [cognitive] performance,” and that the decline would likely have been even greater had the simulated resistance to police been more realistic than college students punching a bag
  • “over-relies on non-objective self-reporting”
  • “uses a small statistical difference on essentially one of the cognitive batteries to generalize to a statement about understanding consequences.”

Two TASER consultants, Drs. Donald Dawes and Jeffrey Ho, recognized as among the world’s most prolific and prominent researchers of CEW effects, have previously published findings in 2013 related to the impact of CEW exposure on brain function. They agree that shocks from a control device “will cause transient decrements in neurocognitive functioning in the immediate post-exposure period.”

But, they say, their study shows that this is as true of other stressful force encounters, including realistic fighting, running from police, receiving a pepper spraying with an eye shield, and a K-9 bite in a bite suit, as it is of CEW exposure.

Dawes has written: “It is clear that all use-of-force encounters, possibly as well as other arrest stressors separate from force (fear of incarceration, etc.), can affect some areas of neurocognition as part of a generalized stress response. But that stress is not specific to one force option and does not necessarily extrapolate to an inability to understand consequences and the Miranda warning.”

“It is very important to put all this into perspective,” says Atty. Michael Brave, National/International litigation counsel for TASER International Inc. “Imagine the ramifications if officers were required to wait 60 minutes after every encounter involving a stressed person (exertion, emotional distress, agitation, alcohol, drugs, mental impairment, in crisis, etc.) to attempt to acquire any form of consent or waiver (including, but not limited to: Miranda rights, performance of field sobriety tests, giving of statements, consent to search, or other action requiring voluntary, knowing, and intelligent wavier or consent).


In their report, Kane and White clearly state that more research is needed to “assess more accurately the link” between CEW exposure and the informed exercise of Miranda rights. “We recommend a line of research that treats cognitive functioning with the same importance as physical and physiological health with respect to TASER exposure,” they write.

In future testing, they also suggest using an experimental population that more closely mirrors the “typical” suspects likely to be Tased in the field rather than the “healthy, well-educated, sober, and drug-free” subjects recruited for the current study. Suspects who are “drunk, high, or mentally ill and in crisis at the time of [CEW] exposure” will likely experience “even greater impairment to cognitive functioning,” Kane and White speculate.

One “logical next step” is to use actual Miranda warnings–there are nearly 50 different versions in existence–in assessing post-CEW comprehension, says Dr. Michael Smith, director of the Center for Law and Human Behavior at the University of Texas-El Paso.

Meanwhile, Kane and White express the hope that their findings will “initiate a public dialogue” regarding CEWs and cognitive competence during custodial interrogation.

Our thanks to Lt. Glen Mills of the Burlington (MA) PD for first bringing this study to our attention.

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.