Legislative Report | January, 2021
Electronic Control Weapons
in Massachusetts: 2019
Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
Thomas A. Turco, III, Secretary
Office of Grants and Research
Kevin Stanton, Executive Director
Lisa Sampson, Director
Prepared by:
Kelly Goggin, Research Analyst II
Research and Policy Analysis Division
10 Park Plaza, Suite 3720
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
 Table of Contents
Legislative Language .............................................................................................................................................. 1
2019 Report Highlights........................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
ECW Incidents and Police Departments ................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 1. Massachusetts Law Enforcement Agency ECW Growth, 2005 - 2019 ............................................... 2
Figure 2. Number of ECW Incidents by Agency, 2019 .................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Massachusetts ECW Incidents in 2019 ............................................................................................ 3
Current Trends ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4. ECW Incidents and Percent Change, Calendar Years 2014 - 2019 .................................................... 4
Table 1. Characteristics of ECW Reporting Agencies, 2014 - 2019 .................................................................. 4
ECW Contacts......................................................................................................................................................... 5
ECW Warnings and Submissions ............................................................................................................................ 5
Table 2. ECW Warning Types by Submissions, 2019...................................................................................... 6
Contact Characteristics .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 3. Percent of Contacts With a Warning and/or ECW Deployment by Subject Characteristic, 2019 ........ 7
ECW Deployments ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 5. Massachusetts ECW Deployments in 2019 ...................................................................................... 8
Figure 6. ECW Incidents and Deployments Density Chart, 2019 ..................................................................... 9
Table 4. Distribution of ECW Submissions by Deployment Type, 2019 ........................................................... 9
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................. A1
Appendix Table 1. Number of Municipal and Non-municipal ECW Incidents, 2015 - 2019 ............................ A1
Appendix Table 2. Non-municipal ECW Incidents by Agency, 2015 - 2019.................................................... A1
Appendix Table 3. Municipal ECW Incidents by Agency, 2015 - 2019 ........................................................... A1
Appendix Table 4. Distribution of ECW Contacts, Warnings, and Deployments by Subject Sex and Race ...... A7
Appendix Table 5. Distribution of ECW Contacts, Warnings, and Deployments by Subject Age .................... A7
Appendix Table 6. Number of Municipal and Non-municipal ECW Deployments, Calendar Year 2019 .......... A8
Appendix Table 7. Non-municipal ECW Deployments by Agency, Calendar Year 2019.................................. A8
Appendix Table 8. Municipal ECW Deployments by Agency, Calendar Year 2019 ......................................... A8
Terms and Definitions ........................................................................................................................................ A15
About the Research and Policy Analysis Division ............................................................................................... A16
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................... A16
Electronic Control Weapons in Massachusetts: 2019 ii
Legislative Language
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140, § 131J (as amended by St. 2004, c. 170, § 1) requires the secretary of public
safety and security to establish minimum safety and quality standards, safe storage requirements, education and safety
training requirements, and law enforcement training on the appropriate use of electronic control weapons (ECWs), which
shall require that any ECW purchased or used by a law enforcement or public safety official include a mechanism for
tracking the number of times the ECW has been fired. In October 2004, in response to Chapter 170 of the Acts of 2004, the
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) promulgated 501 CMR 8.00 et seq., regulations governing the sale of
ECWs in the Commonwealth and the training of law enforcement personnel on the appropriate use of such weapons.
Chapter 170 of the Acts of 2004, § 2 further requires the secretary of public safety to develop a uniform protocol directing
state police and municipal police officers to collect data pursuant to the number of times the device or weapon has been
fired and the identifying characteristics, including the race and gender, of the individuals who have been fired upon. This
data is reported to EOPSS.
2019 Report Highlights
 At the end of 2019, there were 286 law enforcement and non-municipal agencies in Massachusetts with ECWs; six
agencies acquired ECWs during the year.
 There were a total of 1,386 ECW incidents in which an officer or group of officers issued warnings and/or deployed
ECWs.
 34.6% of agencies reported no ECW incidents (99 agencies); 45.8% (131 agencies) reported no ECW deployments.
 From 2018 to 2019 the number of ECW incidents decreased 8.3%, while the number of ECW agencies, trained officers,
and ECW devices increased by 1.8%, 8.5%, and 6.7%, respectively.
 The ratio of agency-owned ECWs to ECW-trained officers increased each year from .56 in 2013 to .79 in 2018, but
decreased in 2019 to .77.
 Of 1,504 ECW contacts, 99.5% were people. The remainder (n = 8) were animals or fowl. Of the 1,496 human contacts,
92.4% were male, 60.9% were White, non-Hispanic, and the average age was 34.0 years.
 The officer(s) issued at least one ECW warning in 88.8% of the 1,496 human contacts (n = 1,323); 44.3% of contacts
submitted to the warning and no deployment was made.
 An ECW was deployed in about half (48.6%) of the 1,496 human contacts; subjects submitted to deployments 66.6% of
the time (484 submissions to 727 deployments).
Electronic Control Weapons in Massachusetts: 2019.
 Introduction
As required by the legislature, this report summarizes data provided by Massachusetts law enforcement agencies with
electronic control weapons (ECW) for calendar year 2019. Agencies with ECWs are required to complete semi-annual
reports on information related to: 1) the number of sworn officers serving the agency; 2) the number of ECW-trained
officers serving the agency; 3) the number of ECWs owned by the agency; 4) the number of officers carrying ECWs; 5) the
number of total ECW-related incidents that occurred during the reporting period; 6) general details about each incident
(e.g., warnings, deployments, submissions, etc.); and 7) demographic information of the subject involved in the incident.
Terms and definitions referenced in this report are provided on page 24.
ECW Incidents and Police Departments
During 2019, six new police departments began reporting use of electronic control weapons (ECW) 1, raising the cumulative
total to 286 ECW agencies in Massachusetts. Figure 1 illustrates the growth in municipal ECW reporting agencies from 2005
to 2019. The greatest concentration of cities and towns that did not have ECWs in 2019 are in the western region of the
state, particularly Berkshire, Franklin and Hampshire counties. Barnstable and Middlesex counties also have a number of
municipal police departments that do not own ECWs.
Figure 1. Massachusetts Law Enforcement Agency ECW Growth, 2005—2019a
1
a device utilized to immobilize a subject without causing serious injury, typically by administering an electric shock. An ECW is commonly referred to
as stun gun or TASER®.
a
Non-municipal departments reporting ECW use are excluded from Figure 1.
Electronic Control Weapons in Massachusetts: 2019 2
In Massachusetts, there were a total of 1,386 ECW incidents2 reported in 2019. The number of incidents reported by each
department ranged from zero (99 agencies) to 89 incidents (one agency) (Appendix Tables 1 - 3, pgs. A1 - A6). As shown in
Figure 2, over three-quarters (78.7%) of agencies reported five or fewer incidents. Agencies reporting more than five
incidents comprised 21.3% of the total, including 12 agencies reporting 25 or more incidents. Those 12 agencies accounted
for 37.9% (525) of all ECW incidents in 2019.
Figure 2. Number of ECW Incidents by Agency, 2019
n = 286
Figure 3. Massachusetts ECW Incidents in 2019a
2
an event in which an officer (or group of officers) issues a warning and/or deploys an ECW towards a single subject.
a
Non-municipal departments reporting ECW use are excluded from Figure 3.
Electronic Control Weapons in Massachusetts: 2019 3
Current Trends
Figure 4 and Table 1 illustrate the annual percent change in reported ECW incidents from 2014 to 2019. Overall, the number
of ECW incidents has increased by 46% since 2014; however, 2019 reported a decline, breaking a 10-year trend of increasing
annual incidents.
Each year from 2014 to 2017, growth in the number of ECW agencies, officers, and devices frequently outpaced growth in
the number of ECW incidents (Table 1). An opposite pattern emerged in 2018, where growth in incidents outpaced growth
in ECW agencies, officers, and devices. The most recent period from 2018 to 2019 shows minimal growth in ECW agencies
(1.8%), sworn officers (3.5%), ECW trained officers (8.5%), and agency-owned devices (6.7%), and a decline in ECW incidents
(-8.3%).
Figure 4. ECW Incidents and Percent Change, Calendar Years 2014 - 2019
Annual
Percent
Change
During the five-year period between 2014 and 2019, the average growth of agency-owned ECW devices (21.7%) far
surpassed that seen in incidents (7.5%), agencies (8.1%), sworn officers (12%), and ECW trained officers (16.3%). The ratio
of ECW incidents to ECW trained officers decreased over the last five years, from .18 in 2014 to .12 in 2019.
Table 1. Characteristics of ECW Reporting Agencies, 2014 - 2019
a
Sworn officers include all part-time, full-time, reserve and other officers serving in ECW agencies.
Electronic Control Weapons in Massachusetts: 2019 4
ECW Contacts
From January 1 through December 31, 2019, ECW reporting agencies recorded 1,504 ECW contacts.3 Eight contacts involved
animals or fowl, such as dogs or turkeys. The remaining 1,496 ECW contacts involved people.
The majority (92.4%) of the 1,496 human contacts involved male subjects (Appendix Table 4, pg. A7). Almost two-thirds
comprised White, non-Hispanic subjects (60.9%), followed by Black, non-Hispanic subjects (19.7%), Hispanic subjects
(16.8%), and subjects of other races (0.9%).4 The average age of contacts was 34.0 years (SD = 11.3 years), with over three-
quarters of contacts involving subjects between 20 and 44 years of age (75.6%) (Appendix Table 5, pg. A7). Subjects in the
two oldest age groups (60 - 64 years and 65+ years) represented the smallest proportion of ECW contacts (1.5% and 1.1%,
respectively).
ECW Warnings and Submissions
Of the 1,496 ECW contacts with human subjects, 88.8% (1,323) involved the officer(s) issuing at least one ECW warning
(verbal warning, laser warning, or spark warning)5 in an attempt to gain the subject’s compliance. As shown in Table 2 (pg.
6), officers issued one type of ECW warning in 45% of contacts, with verbal warnings being the most common (571 of 596,
95.8%). The rate of compliance for contacts with one warning, however, was the lowest for verbal warnings (34.2%).
Excluding the spark warning (n = 1), laser warnings had the highest rate of compliance (66.7%), though these instances were
rare (n = 24).
Most ECW contacts (55%) involved multiple warnings. Of these, the verbal and laser warning combination comprised the
vast majority (661 of 727, 90.9%) and resulted in a relatively high compliance rate of 53.4%. Laser and spark warning
combinations were recorded in only two contacts, but had a compliance rate of 100%. A combination of verbal and spark
warnings had a compliance rate of 33.3%, followed by a combination of all three ECW warnings with a 27% compliance rate.
3
‘ECW Contact’ refers to an individual officer’s deployment, warning, or display of an ECW towards a single subject. Multiple ECW contacts can occur
during a single ECW incident, (e.g., an incident in which two officers each issue a warning and/or deploy an ECW at a subject is considered two contacts
and one incident). This section details ECW contacts between officers and subjects.
4
Other comprises the race/ethnicity categories of American Indian/Alaska native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, two or more races,
and other (specified).
5
ECW Warnings:
Laser warning— a visual warning whereby an officer employs the laser function of the ECW device to indicate that an ECW will be deployed.
Spark warning— a visual warning whereby an officer employs a spark on a handheld stun device in order to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Verbal warning— any spoken words or display of the ECW that would indicate to a subject that an ECW may be used. This warning can include: 1) Any
direct wording to a subject indicating or implying that an ECW will be used. Example: Displaying ECW and shouting, “Stop!” 2) Any indirect wording that
a subject may overhear indicating or implying that an ECW is about to be deployed. Example: A warning to other officers that an ECW is about to be
Electronic Control Weapons in Massachusetts: 2019 5
A smaller number of contacts (173 or 11.6%) received no warning prior to ECW deployment. Agencies indicated that sudden
actions by the subject (i.e., subjects becoming combative during handcuffing) required immediate ECW deployment (probe
deployment, 5– second cycle, and/or stun deployment)6 and precluded an opportunity for the officer to issue a warning.
Additionally, incidents involving two or more officers may result in one warning but more than one deployment. Thus, both
contacts would indicate a deployment, but only one would show a warning was given.
Table 2. ECW Warning Types by Submissions, 2019
Warnings Submissions Percent
that
Characteristic Number Percent Number Percent Submit
Total 1,496
No Warning 173 11.6%
One Warning 596 45% 212 36.2% 35.6%
Verbal 571 43.2% 195 33.3% 34.2%
Laser 24 1.8% 16 2.7% 66.7%
Spark 1 0.1% 1 0.2% 100%*
Total 1,323 100% 586 100% 44.3%
Multiple Warnings 727 55% 374 63.8% 51.4%
Verbal/laser 661 50% 353 60.2% 53.4%
Verbal/spark 27 2.0% 9 1.5% 33.3%
Laser/spark 2 0.2% 2 0.3% 100%*
Verbal/laser/spark 37 2.8%