Umeå University's logo

This follow‑up study examines how conducted energy weapons (CEWs) have been integrated into Norwegian policing since their nationwide introduction in 2021. Building on earlier recommendations, the study assesses their operational use, impacts on officer and public safety, influence on decision‑making, training needs, and citizen perceptions. It employs a mixed‑methods design, combining surveys of police officers (n≈400) and citizens (n≈1000), CEW-related reports submitted to the National Police Directorate by the police districts (documented police CEW incidents), and qualitative interviews and focus groups with officers. 

CEWs now occupy a clearly defined intermediate position in the Norwegian use‑of‑force continuum, bridging the gap between low‑level options (e.g. verbal communication, physical control, pepper spray, batons) and firearms. Documented police CEW incidents and officer accounts show that CEW discharges remain relatively rare, while aiming, laser‑painting and arcing are more common – and often sufficient to secure compliance. In 2024, officers reported 337 threats and 213 uses of CEWs, with these figures shifting to 278 and 238 in 2025, respectively, and injuries remaining consistently low and generally minor across both years. These findings align with officers’ perceptions that CEWs mitigate the need for physical grappling and may help to prevent some firearm discharges, particularly in violent, intoxication‑related, or acute psychiatric crisis scenarios occurring within confined spaces. 

Officers generally report feeling safer when equipped with CEWs, noting that the devices create tactical opportunities to intervene earlier and with less risk. However, they often emphasise that CEWs do not constitute a fail‑safe measure: thick clothing, limited range, suboptimal probe spread and aiming error can compromise their effectiveness. Thus, CEWs are often paired with firearm cover, especially in knife‑related situations where distance and timing are critical. Experienced officers also warn of potential overreliance among newer recruits who have never worked in unarmed policing environments, stressing the need to maintain strong communication, de‑escalation skills and sound tactical reasoning, despite the availability of CEWs. 

Citizen data reveal generally high trust in the police and strong support for CEWs as a less-lethal alternative to firearms. Respondents in the older age range tend to be more positive overall, while younger respondents exhibit greater scepticism. Prior exposure to information about CEWs boosts acceptance. At the same time, concerns persist regarding disproportionate use-of-force – especially toward ethnic minorities – reflecting broader societal debates. These findings underscore the importance of continued transparency, public communication, and robust oversight. 

Overall, CEWs have become an important part of Norway’s harm‑reduction approach to policing. CEWs broaden the tactical options available to officers, reduce the need for more injurious force and, in some cases, prevent the need for firearm use. However, their effectiveness and legitimacy depend on high‑quality training, strong situational assessments, careful decision‑making and ongoing monitoring. CEWs cannot replace professional judgment or communication skills; rather, they must complement them to ensure proportional, safe and account policing.