Expert: ARDs Rare But Demand High-Priority Attention

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In a snapshot preview of a book he’ll publish this summer, prominent researcher Dr. Darrell Ross recently offered law enforcement trainers a provocative update on one of the rarest events in policing, yet one of the most vexing: arrest-related death.

In a presentation running nearly four hours at the annual training conference of the International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Assn., Ross explored new findings from an analysis of nearly 5,000 ARDs in the US that he conducted—likely the most extensive investigation of the subject yet undertaken.

“This is serious stuff,” he said. “Like officer-involved shootings, ARDs are contentious, controversial, and highly charged. They often involve racial issues that provoke media coverage and community outrage. Medical examiners and the courts often fail to understand them correctly. And officers in some cases are being unfairly criminally prosecuted and sentenced to unusually long terms in connection with them.”

At ILEETA, Ross, a CJ professor and director of the Center of Applied Social Sciences at Valdosta State U. in Georgia, focused predominately on the relationship between ARDs and conducted electrical weapons. That subject and more are elaborated on in his forthcoming book, Guidelines for Investigating Officer-Involved Shootings, Arrest-Related Deaths, and Deaths in Custody, coauthored with Dr. Gary Vilke. The book is expected in July or August.

Highlights from Ross’s ILEETA appearance include:


Statistically, ARDs occur “very, very infrequently,” Ross said, “but the liability, implications, and political fallout from them are extremely high, so they command a high priority.”

Excluding officer-involved shootings, pursuit accidents, and suicides, he tabulated that 4,813 people died during a six-year study period while struggling during an arrest, while under restraint, during transport, while in custody, or at a hospital. That’s roughly 800 a year on average, and the trend is not increasing, Ross said.

Given that some 13,000,000 arrests occur in this country in an average year, control- and restraint-related fatalities result in only about 0.00006%, Ross calculates. In contrast, medical errors annually cause more than 250,000 deaths among the general US population. OISs result in about 900 deaths in a typical year.

About 75% of ARDs occur on the street, 25% in jails, and 5% in medical facilities. Two-thirds involve misdemeanor calls, predominately disorderly conduct/suspicious behavior, disturbances, domestic violence, and traffic stops/altercations.

Most decedents are males in the 20-45 age range, under the influence of intoxicants, mental illness, or both, Ross found. Typically, three to six officers are involved in the incident, and multiple uses of less-lethal force, including empty-hand control techniques, OC, and CEWs, have been employed. Commonly, the subject has become “tranquil” after having been “agitated” and “combative,” then “suddenly and unexpectedly” he is “unresponsive”—and dead.


“For most officers, an ARD is a once-in-a-career event,” Ross said. “And the same is true for most medical examiners whose job it is to establish the cause of death.”

These fatalities can be medically mysterious, with a specific cause not readily apparent or easily determined at autopsy. “Classifying the manner of death can be problematic and requires caution,” Ross said. But with “little pathological evidence” to go on, he claimed, a time-pressured medical examiner may speculate without a solid medical foundation that arrest-related tools, such as a CEW or physical control/restraint techniques, were a causal or “contributing” factor.

In such cases, “temporal is conflated to causal,” Ross said. But because something like the use of a CEW occurred at about the same time as an ARD “does not necessarily make it a direct, causal link to the death,” he explained. Yet a medical examiner may draw that link “without explaining the exact mechanism” of causation or citing any “reliable , supportive scientific research.”

“Well-designed, peer-reviewed, controlled studies have discredited alleged causal diagnoses,” Ross declared, “yet they still appear on death certificates and autopsy reports.”

Likewise, courts in reviewing ARDs in civil or criminal cases often “misunderstand, misapply, or ignore” current scientific research, Ross charged, putting officers whose actions are at issue at a significant disadvantage.


Ross zeroed in on the speculative allegation that CEWs can be decisive factors in ARDs.

“Without question, the Taser is the most researched piece of equipment on a police officer’s belt,” he stated. More than 750 academic studies of CEWs have been published and in the process many alarming and persistent myths have, in fact, been scientifically refuted.

Well over 3,000,000 field applications and more than 2,000,000 training and other voluntary exposures, plus a bevy of research experiments, have clearly established these CEW realities, among others, according to Ross:

  • CEW use presents “no substantial increased risk of cardiac dysrhythmia or ventricular fibrillation or induced cardiac arrhythmia”;
  • “Studies have not found a physiological basis for respiratory compromise”; indeed, subjects tend to “breathe faster and deeper” when Tased;
  • There is a “theoretical possibility” of electrocution, but a dart would have to penetrate to within 4mm of the heart, a near impossibility given the organ’s protective shield of flesh and bone;
  • There may be a slight metabolic change, “but significantly less than that caused by fighting with an arrestee”;
  • Researchers have “not found a clinically important effect from CEWs on the body’s electrolytes”;
  • “Induced pain is not a valid contributing mechanism” to death;
  • There is “no published data supporting” the risk of a CEW triggering a seizure or loss of consciousness;
  • “There are no clinically significant biochemical or physiological changes from [continuous] CEW discharges up to 45 seconds”;
  •  “Multiple applications do not pose a substantial risk of death”; electricity does not build up in the body like poison.

Bottom line: “Research shows that the CEW is the safest force option available to law enforcement, with a lower risk of injury than other force measures,” Ross declared. There are only two known ways in which CEWs can contribute to ARDs: by causing uncontrolled falls that induce fatal traumatic brain injury and by igniting flammable fumes that then kill the arrestee.

“The majority of ARDs do not involve CEW use,” Ross found. But when plaintiffs or prosecutors attempt to blame these devices for a subject’s death, “you need an attorney who thoroughly understands use of force, the equipment involved, and the science of human performance,” he said.


Ross, who has testified as an expert witness in some 300 law enforcement cases, has looked extensively into how the courts have treated ARDs. He analyzed 1,250 state and federal cases that were decided or settled between 1991 and 2016, and identified some useful trends.

Claims against officers primarily centered on allegations of excessive force, failure to follow training or manufacturers’ guidelines, false arrest (no PC), or failure to provide timely or competent medical assistance to an injured party.

Challenges of administrators tended to concentrate on allegedly unconstitutional or deficient policies that didn’t meet contemporary police standards, as well as failure to train, supervise, discipline, properly hire, or meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Where courts have ruled that officers used unreasonable force, they’ve cited factors such as these, Ross pointed out:

  • “No serious crime was at issue”;
  • “The subject’s behavior or resistance was less than ‘active’”; (generally, for instance, use of a CEW is considered excessive if used on a ‘passive’ resister);
  • “The decedent did not present an immediate threat”;
  • Multiple officers were on the scene, so there was “no need” to use a CEW;
  • Once the decedent was controlled and restrained and resistance ceased, the need for force ended.

Increasingly, Ross said, courts “like to consider the possible ‘diminished capacity’ of the decedent’s mental state” in assessing whether the level of force was proper in ARD incidents.

They’ll want to know if the suspect was “confused or disoriented, naked and unarmed, a flight risk, able to understand and comply with instructions and given time to do so,” Ross said. “Mental health and diminished capacity are definitely relevant factors these days. An agitated and emotionally disturbed person does not necessarily equal an immediate threat” in the courts’ view.

As part of his presentation, Ross analyzed significant ARD cases from each of the US appellate circuits, including Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst, which we covered in detail in Force Science News #308 (4/17/16).


In a call to action, Ross urged trainers and administrators to begin preparing defensively for an ARD in their jurisdictions by tending to a couple of basics:

  1. Check your “Response to Resistance” policy. Do officers understand it? Are they competent on it? Does it help them make decisions under stress in the field?
  2. Review your annual UOF training. Does it include policy testing and an update on legal issues? Is it scenario-based and competency-based on all duty-belt equipment, as well as restraints and empty-hand control techniques? Is it decision-making oriented? Does it include multiple-officer responses? Does it cover CEW applications as related to diminished-capacity individuals? Does it include medical issues and responses to injured arrestees? Does it prepare officers and supervisors to respond to an ARD investigation and lawsuit?

Covering so much for such a relatively rare event may seem like a lot—until it happens, and you need it.

Dr. Ross can be reached at: dross@valdosta.edu.

[Dr. Ross will be presenting at a special use-of-force conference sponsored by the Miami-Dade (FL) PD June 26-27. For more information on the program, email Lt. Alvaro Ortiz at: aortiz@mdpd.com or call: (305) 715-5000.]

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.