Umeå University's logo

BACKGROUND: From an international perspective, recent years have seen an increase in the use of conducted energy weapons (CEWs), which are used to control potentially dangerous and uncooperative people. In 2019 the Norwegian National Police Directorate launched a two-year trial of CEWs in daily police work.

AIM: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the National Police Directorate’s CEW trial and to explore the public’s perceptions of police use of CEWs.

METHODS: The evaluation was designed as a cohort study with a participant and a control group. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Measurements before, during, and towards the end of the trial activity were carried out. Two groups of police officers answered the survey: those who were part of the trial activities with CEWs and those who were not part of the trial activities. To deepen our understanding, we conducted in-depth interviews with police officers who had experience with CEWs. To examine legitimacy aspects from a citizen perspective, we conducted a survey with citizens on three occasions. We also conducted individual interviews with citizens and representatives of interest groups to deepen and complement the survey results.

RESULTS: The current study found that CEWs are mainly used against individuals who are mentally unstable and exhibit aggressive and dangerous behaviour. The findings showed that CEWs fill the gap between pepper spray or batons and firearms and complement other forcible means. The findings from the interviews showed that the officers could resolve the situations before the introduction of CEWs, but with CEWs they could do so with less intrusive force and a lower risk of injury. According to the interviews, the officers felt safer mostly because CEWs gave them the opportunity to intervene without discharging their firearms. The survey revealed no significant differences between the study and control groups or between different timepoints regarding threats to the police or injuries for the police or the counterpart, while the findings from the interviews showed that the police officers perceived a CEW-related decrease in the risk of injuries for both the police and their counterparts. Informants were unanimous that CEWs were effective, but that there were factors to be aware of when using CEWs, such as thick clothes and a moving target. More than 90% of CEW situations during the two-year trial involved male officers, and among subjects exposed to CEWs from the police, fewer than 10% were women. The citizen survey results indicate that citizens believe police officers can be trusted with decisions related to the use of force. The survey also showed that citizens who had received some information on CEWs were significantly more positive towards CEWs than those who had no information. Further, the group with information on CEWs also stated that they would feel more secure if police in their vicinity were equipped with CEWs. 

CONCLUSIONS: CEWs do not seem to affect the Norwegian police’s total use of force. However, CEWs can decrease the use of other forcible means, especially pepper spray. The findings indicate that CEWs can replace the use of firearms under certain circumstances, although they do not replace firearms as a means of force. CEWs do not seem to affect injuries among police officers and counterparts, although findings from the police interviews indicate a lower risk of major injuries and lethal force. The introduction of CEWs does not seem to have a substantial effect on public perceptions of the police and public confidence in the police. Members of the public trust that the police are well-trained and competent in making decisions regarding the use of CEWs.