Electronic Control Weapons in
Massachusetts, 2021
Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
November 2023
Maura T. Healey, Governor
Terrence M. Reidy, Secretary of Public Safety and Security
Office of Grants and Research
Kevin Stanton, Executive Director
Lisa Lundquist, Division Director
 Prepared by:
Kelly Goggin, Senior Research Analyst
Research and Policy Analysis Division
35 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 302
Braintree, Massachusetts 02184
2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
About the Office of Grants and Research ................................................................... 4
Legislative Language .................................................................................................... 5
2021 Report Highlights ................................................................................................. 6
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 7
ECW Incidents and Law Enforcement Agencies ........................................................ 7
Figure 1. Massachusetts Municipal Law Enforcement Agency ECW Growth,
2005 - 2021 ................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2. Number of ECW Incidents by Agency, 2021 .................................................... 9
Figure 3. Massachusetts Municipal Law Enforcement ECW Incidents, 2021 .................. 9
Current Trends ............................................................................................................ 10
Figure 4. ECW Incidents and Percent Change, Calendar Years 2017 - 2021 ............... 10
Table 1. Characteristics of ECW Reporting Agencies, 2017 - 2021 .............................. 11
ECW Contacts ............................................................................................................. 11
ECW Warnings and Submissions .............................................................................. 12
Table 2. ECW Warning Types by Submissions, 2021 .................................................. 14
Contact Characteristics .............................................................................................. 14
Table 3. Percent of Contacts with a Warning and/or ECW Deployment
by Subject Characteristics, 2021 ......................................................................... 15
ECW Deployments ...................................................................................................... 16
Figure 5. Massachusetts Municipal Law Enforcement ECW
Deployments, 2021 ............................................................................................. 16
Figure 6. ECW Incidents and Deployments Density Chart, 2021 .................................. 17
Table 4. Distribution of ECW Submissions by Deployment Type, 2021 ........................ 18
Appendix ..................................................................................................................... A1
Appendix Table 1. Municipal and Non-municipal ECW Incidents, 2017 - 2021 ............. A1
Appendix Table 2. Non-municipal ECW Incidents by Agency, 2017 - 2021 .................. A1
Appendix Table 3. Municipal ECW Incidents by Agency, 2017 - 2021 .......................... A1
Appendix Table 4. Distribution of ECW Contacts, Warnings, and
3
 Deployments by Subject Gender and Race/Ethnicity, 2021 ..................................... A9
Appendix Table 5. Distribution of ECW Contacts, Warnings, and Deployments by
Subject Age, 2021 .................................................................................................... A9
Appendix Table 6. Number of Municipal and Non-municipal ECW Deployments,
2021 ....................................................................................................................... A10
Appendix Table 7. Non-municipal ECW Deployments by Agency, 2021 ..................... A10
Appendix Table 8. Municipal ECW Deployments by Agency, 2021 ............................ A10
Terms and Definitions............................................................................................... A19
About the Research and Policy Analysis Division ................................................ A20
Acknowledgements................................................................................................... A20
4
About the Office of Grants and Research
The Office of Grants and Research (OGR) is a state agency that is part of the
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS). The agency promotes public
safety and security in Massachusetts communities through the management of grant
funds and research programs focused on crime prevention and intervention, traffic safety,
law enforcement and homeland security initiatives. OGR manages more than $150 million
in state and federal grants that are distributed to state, municipal, education, and nonprofit
agencies across the Commonwealth. It is also home to the Massachusetts Statistical
Analysis Center.
LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE
Section 131J of Chapter 140 of Massachusetts General Laws (as amended by St.
2004, c. 170, §1 and St. 2018, c. 123, §13) 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. The regulation was updated on January 6, 2023, to reflect changes to
Section 131J of Chapter 140 of the General Laws and Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020,
5
An Act Relative to Criminal Justice, Equity, and Accountability in Law Enforcement in the
Commonwealth, the “police reform” law.
Section 2 of Chapter 170 of the Acts of 2004, further requires the Secretary of
Public Safety to develop a uniform protocol directing state and municipal law enforcement
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. The data are reported to EOPSS to be analyzed and included
in an annual report.
2021 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
• At the end of 2021, there were 284 municipal and 12 non-municipal law enforcement
agencies in Massachusetts with ECWs, totaling 296 ECW agencies. Seven agencies
acquired ECWs during the year, representing a 2.4% increase in the total number of
ECW agencies from 2020.
• There were 1,090 ECW incidents, which is defined as any instance in which an officer
or group of officers issued an ECW warning and/or deployed ECWs. In 2021, 194
agencies (65.5%) reported an ECW incident.
• 34.5% of agencies reported no ECW incidents (102 agencies); 56.1% (166 agencies)
reported no ECW deployments.
• From 2020 to 2021, the number of ECW incidents decreased 13.1%. The number of
ECW agencies, trained officers, and ECW devices increased by 2.4%, 1.8%, and
3.2%, respectively.
• The ratio of agency-owned ECWs to ECW-trained officers in 2021 was 0.09.
6
• Of 1,098 ECW contacts, 99.2% were people. The remainder (n = 9) were animals.
Of the 1,089 human contacts, 90.3% were male, 51.9% were White, non-Hispanic,
and the average age was 34.4 years. The term ECW contact refers to an individual
officer’s deployment, warning, or display of an ECW towards a single subject.
• Officer(s) issued at least one ECW warning in 90.4% of the 1,089 human contacts;
of these contacts with warnings (984), 58.3% of contacts submitted to the warning
and no deployment was made.
• An ECW was deployed in under half (40.8%) of the 1,089 human contacts; subjects
submitted to deployments 74.8% of the time (332 submissions to 444 deployments).
7
INTRODUCTION
As required by the Legislature, this report summarizes data provided by
Massachusetts law enforcement agencies with electronic control weapons (ECWs) for
calendar year 2021. Agencies with ECWs are required to complete 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 in the appendix on page A19.
ECW INCIDENTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
During 2021, seven new law enforcement agencies began reporting use of ECWs1,
raising the cumulative total to 296 ECW agencies in Massachusetts. Figure 1 (pg. 7)
illustrates the growth in municipal ECW reporting agencies from 2005 to 2021. The
greatest concentration of cities and towns that did not have ECWs in 2021 are in the
western region of the state, particularly Berkshire and Franklin counties. Four of the seven
new ECW agencies were located in Hampshire county.
In Massachusetts, there was a total of 1,090 ECW incidents2 reported in 2021.
1a 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®.
2 an event in which an officer (or group of officers) issues a warning and/or deploys an ECW
towards a single subject. 7
194 agencies (65.5%) reported at least one ECW incident. The number of incidents
reported by each department ranged from zero (102 agencies) to 55 incidents (one
agency) (Appendix Tables 1-3, pgs. A1-A8). As shown in Figure 2, over three-quarters
(79.1%) of agencies reported five or fewer incidents. 20.9% of agencies reported more
than five incidents, including four agencies reporting 25 or more incidents. Those four
agencies accounted for 16.9% (184) of all ECW incidents in 2021.
Figure 1. MA Municipal Law Enforcement Agency ECW Growth, 2005 - 2021
8
 Figure 2. Number of ECW Incidents by Agency, 2021
n = 296 4
1.4%
58
19.6%
102
34.5%
46
15.5%
86
29.1%
Figure 3. Massachusetts Municipal Law Enforcement ECW Incidents, 2021
9
CURRENT TRENDS
Figure 4 and Table 1 illustrate the annual percentage change in reported ECW
incidents from 2017 to 2021. Overall, the number of ECW incidents has decreased by
18.6% since 2017. There has been a decline in annual incidents for the third year in a
row, a sharp contrast from the decade-long trend of increasing annual incidents from 2008
to 20183.
As shown in Table 1 (pg. 10), the growth in the number of ECW agencies, ECW
trained officers, and agency-owned devices has slowed over the five-year period. The
number of sworn officers from ECW agencies declined for the second year in a row. For
2021, growth in the number of ECW agencies, ECW trained officers, and agency-owned
devices was 2.4%, 1.8%, and 3.2%, respectively. The number of sworn officers
decreased by 0.8%.
Figure 4. ECW Incidents and Percent Change, Calendar Years 2017 – 2021
+ 12.9 %
- 8.3 %
- 9.5 %
- 13.1 %
3Earlier Electronic Control Weapon Reports are archived on
https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/handle/2452/47826.
10
 During the five-year period between 2017 and 2021, the growth of agency-owned
ECW devices (27.6%) far surpassed that seen in ECW incidents (-18.6%), ECW agencies
(7.6%), sworn officers (5.3%), and ECW trained officers (18.9%). The ratio of ECW
incidents to ECW trained officers decreased over the last five years, from 0.14 in 2017 to
0.09 in 2021.
Table 1. Characteristics of ECW Reporting Agencies, 2017 - 2021
Number Annual Percent Change
2017 2018 2019 2020
Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
- 2018 - 2019 - 2020 - 2021
ECW Incidents 1,339 1,512 1,386 1,255 1,090 12.9% -8.3% -9.5% -13.1%
ECW Agencies 275 281 286 289 296 2.2% 1.8% 1.0% 2.4%
Sworn Officersa 15,106 15,574 16,126 16,034 15,909 3.1% 3.5% -0.6% -0.8%
ECW Trained Officers 9,691 10,425 11,313 11,319 11,525 7.6% 8.5% 0.1% 1.8%
ECW Agency-Owned Devices 7,481 8,219 8,766 9,247 9,543 9.9% 6.7% 5.5% 3.2%
a
Sworn officers include all part-time, full-time, reserve and other officers serving in
ECW agencies. ECW agencies report the number of officers as of the end of the
calendar year.
ECW CONTACTS
From January 1 through December 31, 2021, ECW reporting agencies recorded
1,098 ECW contacts.4 Nine contacts involved animals or fowl, such as dogs or turkeys.
The remaining 1,089 ECW contacts involved people. The vast majority (90.3%) of the
1,089 human contacts involved male subjects (Appendix Table 4, pg. A9). Over three-
quarters of contacts were with White subjects: Non-Hispanic (51.9%), Hispanic Ethnicity
(14%), Unknown Ethnicity (9.1%). Black subjects accounted for 19.6% of total human
4 ‘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.
11
contacts: Non-Hispanic (16.2%), Hispanic Ethnicity (0.7%), Unknown Ethnicity (2.7%).
Subjects with unknown race and ethnicity accounted for 1.7% of contacts and subjects of
Other Races5 made up 2.8% of contacts. Of all human contacts, 16.7% involved subjects
of Hispanic Ethnicity.
The average age of contacts was 34.4 years, with over three-quarters of contacts
involving subjects between 20 and 44 years of age (75.5%). Subjects in the two oldest
age groups (60 - 64 years and 65+ years) represented the smallest proportion of ECW
contacts (1.7% and 1.6%, respectively).
ECW WARNINGS AND SUBMISSIONS
Of the 1,089 ECW contacts with human subjects, 984 or 90.4% involved the
officer(s) issuing at least one ECW warning (verbal warning, laser warning, and/or
spark warning)6 in an attempt to gain the subject’s compliance. In contacts that involved
an ECW warning, officers issued a single type of warning in 41.9% of contacts, with a
verbal warning being the most common (388 of 412, 94.2%) (Table 2, pg. 13). The rate
of compliance for contacts with one warning, however, was the lowest for
5‘Other’ comprises the race categories of American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Two or More Races, and Other (specified).
6 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 deployed by saying “Taser, Taser, Taser!”
12
verbal warnings (37.1%). Excluding spark warnings (n = 1), laser warnings had the
highest rate of compliance (52.2%), though the use of laser warnings only was rare (n =
23).
Over half of ECW contacts involved multiple warnings (58.1%). Of these, the verbal
and laser warning comprised the vast majority (510 of 572, 89.2%)