A retrospective analysis of less lethal tools at a municipal agency to determine if the baton should still be carried

A retrospective analysis of less lethal tools at a municipal agency to determine if the baton should still be carried | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article A retrospective analysis of less lethal tools at a municipal agency to determine if the baton should still be carried Aaron Leisinger This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7238719/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract As police use of force is constantly under scrutiny, it is important to analyze the impact of less lethal tools on law enforcement. There is still no general agreement on the efficacy of the use of less lethal tools (LLT). Some law enforcement agencies have, for example, questioned the efficacy of the use of the baton and have reportedly removed it from the equipment officers carry. To better understand the impact of the use of LLT on law enforcement, this retrospective analysis sought to determine if implementation of the TASER controlled electronic device (CED) affected the number of times officers used the baton. The number of incidents in which the use of LLT was employed was collected from records from a mid-sized municipal police department. The proportion of the number of LLT uses according to its type, baton or and oleoresin capsicum (OC), for five years prior to and five years after the implementation of the CED was compared using a Chi-square analysis. There was no significant difference observed in baton usage after CED implementation. However, the use of chemical spray (OC) was significantly affected showing a decrease of 83% (p < .001). Though the frequency of baton use did not change after implementation of CED, it was used much less frequently than any other tool, averaging only two a year. Therefore, implementation of the TASER CED did not render the baton obsolete as a tool for officers in this department. The reason for such low incidence of usage should be investigated further to determine if the baton is still relevant. baton pepper spray TASER use of force less lethal police Introduction To achieve their goals when responding to an incident, law enforcement must often use physical force to detain and arrest. It has been observed that every person taken into custody has been invariably subjected to some degree of force from a police officer. For reasons beyond their control, police officers occasionally lose some control over the freedom of movement by those who object law enforcement response. Although freedom is a central tenet of the constitution, police officers, entrusted with authority, find themselves in situations that they must intervene to enforce law and order. This action may be perceived as an invasion of individual freedom, and it should be taken very seriously. The mere presence of a police officer conveys a certain level of authority, or in other words, when police are present, there is a threat of force (Evans, 2019 ). Use of force policies and procedures vary from department to department. In American style civilian law enforcement, as is typical of developed countries, police officers are authorized to use (or threaten to use) physical force to make arrests, overcome resistance, and defuse volatile situations (Sousa et. al, 2010 ). Police using physical force is a necessary though rare part of their job. The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows police use some type of force in 1% of all encounters (Sousa et. al, 2010 ). There is, however, a paucity of information regarding police encounters that involve the use of force in the United States (Garner et. al, 2018 ). Though use of force policies and application vary, one of the most common layouts is the Use-of-Force Continuum (Evans, 2019 ). It is a list, generally structured from least forceful to more forceful. Presence and dialogue are universally considered the lowest level of force. Some continuums separate these, considering the expectation that the mere presence of an officer may keep order in a situation (Evans, 2019 ). Empty hand control is generally the next level of force, which may be divided into soft and hard empty hand techniques (Evans, 2019 ). This level may be referred to as passive countermeasures or escort and compliance holds. The next level is characterized by methods involving a device that are not intended to be lethal, also referred to as less-lethal, such as projectile munitions, conducted energy devices, chemicals, and batons (Evans, 2019 ). The final and highest level is any force that creates substantial risk of causing serious injury or death. Deadly weapons are primarily, though not limited to, firearms. People have historically used various objects to strike police officers when resisting their intervention. Some of the first objects ever used were rocks or sticks. A police expandable baton is simply a refined version of a stick. The police baton seems to have always been a part of policing as far back as the 1800s. A baton may be made from a variety of materials including wood, metal, plastic, fiberglass, and composites. Different versions of the police baton exist such as straight, side handle, and expandable. Probably the most common baton in policing today, certainly in the United States, is the metal expandable baton. The expandable baton can be worn on an officer’s belt in a holster and is designed to be unobtrusive when stowed. It has been shown to have approximately twice the contact pressure than its wooden counterpart (Roberts et. al, 1994 ). So, the expandable baton is not only more convenient and less obtrusive to carry but it is more effective at delivering shock. The baton’s primary purpose is striking a person, and even when the strikes are reasonable and necessary, it may be perceived as unfair or unjustified. The use of the baton as a force option has been criticized for being, at times, an example of misuse and poor training (Standen, 2005 ). In the modern age, incidents are increasingly acquiring digital identities as cellphone cameras, surveillance systems, and other appurtenances of surveillance increase policing’s visibility (Oriola et. al, 2016). Now there is a camera in almost everyone’s pocket and a near instantaneous ability to upload sans context. The optics of a police officer striking a person with a baton, even when justified and necessary, is simply a brutal image. The other most common less-lethal tools at most officer's disposal are chemical spray and a conducted electrical device (CED). In general, injuries to suspects from use-of-force incidents are infrequent relative to the overall number of police-citizen contacts (Smith et. al, 2003 ). A study conducted at the University of South Carolina focusing on the impact of CEDs and other types of force on officer and suspect injuries showed an increased risk to officer and suspect injuries from use of the baton (Smith et. al, 2003 ). A study analyzing the impact of the use of CED showed a 65% reduction in the odds of civilian injuries compared to other options not including a firearm (MacDonald et. al, 2009 ). The purpose of an impact weapon such as the baton is to encourage compliance through pain. The striking will stop when compliance begins. The TASER CED uses electrical impulses to cause muscle contraction or neuromuscular incapacitation. The intent of a CED is to temporarily incapacitate the individual by stopping movement. When using a baton, if the pain of a strike does not gain compliance, continued use will probably result in higher levels of injury to muscle, bone, or internal organs. Research found that CEDs and chemical spray were associated with injury reduction to officers, suspects, and bystanders (Smith et. al, 2003 ). A study conducted in 2009 involving 12 police departments found that in 2 departments, when officers utilized CEDs, the odds of monthly injury to both civilians and officers decreased significantly, by as much as 62%. (MacDonald et. al, 2009 ). Chemical spray has a slightly higher incidence of officer injury than CED usage (MacDonald et. al, 2009 ). A study published in 2014 found that a total of 67% of people supported CED usage (Oriola et. al, 2016). It also cited that departments that had adopted CEDs had lower rates of officer injuries than agencies without CEDs (Oriola et. al, 2016). CED usage has a low overall major complication rate of 13.1 per one million applications (Kroll et. al, 2019 ). As such, CEDs seem to be more acceptable than batons and are associated with lower risk of injury; so, the question is: why keep the baton around? CEDs are electrical, and electrical systems are far from foolproof. Policing occurs in unstable environments, in the elements. Water can damage electronic devices. Also, each force option does not have consistent results when used on different people. Mental health along with substances like drugs and alcohol are examples of factors that affect a person’s response. Some just have the will to resist being subjugated. When it comes to an impact weapon like a baton, striking damages the body, thus decreasing the ability to resist. It is exceptionally rare for a baton to break and become ineffective. Electricity and chemical agents run out eventually. The use of a baton is only limited by the number of swings that can be made by the person wielding it. One failure is the tool breaking. The tool can also function properly and still not successfully subdue an opponent. There have been few studies done regarding the use of CEDs. Most were carried out in the early 2000s when the most popular CED, the TASER, had its popularity rising. A study at the Law Enforcement Institute of Texas in 2006 found that the TASER CED had the lowest failure rate of less-lethal options and ranked highest in user confidence (Kester). Some departments when adding a tool to the officer’s tool belt, also eliminate another (Standen, 2005 ). Some trainers argue that having it is desirable to have all options readily available. In an article for the Law and Order periodical, law enforcement trainer David Standen explains, “Certain situations call for the officer to use OC while others require the officer to grab onto the subject to gain control. Sometimes the only thing that will stop a subject is a decisive strike with a baton while other situations deem the CED as the most appropriate tool” (Standen, 2005 ). While intuitively appealing, having more options may not consistently translate into tangible advantages. Proctor and Schneider ( 2018 ) reviewed the theoretical analyses set forth by Dr. W. E. Hick on an article titled “On the rate of gain of information (Hicks, 1952). Hick’s article was the first of three articles demonstrating the value of information theory for the study of human performance (Proctor and Schneider, 2018 ). In what came to be known as “Hick’s law”, a widely acknowledged law in psychology relating choice reaction time to the number of stimulus-response alternatives (Proctor and Schneider, 2018 ). This could explain why in a Canadian study the likelihood of officer’s injuries increased when CEDs are used alongside other types of force (Oriola et. al, 2016). A wide range of options may change or delay the decision-making process for line officers at the onset of an incident before any force has been applied (Sousa et. al, 2010 ). When lives are at stake, having too many options may not be beneficial if valuable time is lost during the decision-making process. Research and Data In the United States there is a serious lack of consistency in both data measurement and tracking as well as definition when it comes to use of force from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (Garner et. al, 2018 ). Other countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom have better data collection and tracking. Information from other countries may be somewhat useful for decision making on policies, procedures, and best practices. However, these cultures and policing styles are different and may not render a one-to-one comparison. In the United States, estimates are created from surveys of the public and enforcement agencies (Garner et. al, 2018 ). It is difficult to alter policies and procedures from surveys and estimates. One alternative would be to scrutinize every police report to determine whether if any force was used. Agencies that do track use of force may be unwilling to share their police reports. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) received 571 responses to a survey on use-of-force sent out to 832 agencies in the United States (Garner et. al, 2018 ). PERF supports law enforcement and make recommendations for its improvement. This relatively low compliance may be because agencies either do not document the use of force or are reluctant to share their police reports and possibly expose themselves to criticism. The municipal agency in this study does document the use of force in each police encounter with civilians. Up to two types of force per incident are recorded; if more than two levels of force are used, the two highest levels are recorded. A 2010 study on the impact of TASER CEDs on police use of force decisions found that when a suspect was overly aggressive, the CED was utilized more often than any other method in the group armed with them (Sousa et. al, 2010 ). These findings showed officers were using the CEDs when they would have otherwise used a chemical agent or a baton (Sousa et. al, 2010 ). A study was also conducted in England and Wales that examined the trends in police use of force during a five-year period, 2007–2011 (Payne-James et. al, 2013 ). It found that the less-lethal options increased in use over the years. The authors of that study encountered the same issues with inconsistency in data collection and release that the United States seems to have. Out of the 50 agencies that data was requested from only 10 provided the information requested and some did not even respond. Only 2 agencies provided complete information regarding medical consequences following the use of various methods of force. It remains a challenge in the United States and in the United Kingdom to gather and analyze substantial information regarding the trends in use of force. In the United States, some agencies have stopped carrying and training the baton altogether, whereas some agencies are phasing it out. These decisions seem to be based on anecdotal evidence and public image more that discrete data. To the author’s knowledge there is currently no studies evaluating historical data to see whether baton or chemical agent usage changed due to the implementation of a CED. The agency in this study continues to carry a metal expandable baton along with OC and a CED. As a result, the present study was designed to evaluate whether the implementation of the TASER CED affected the number of times officers used the expandable baton. Materials and Methods The municipal agency in the present study implemented the TASER model X26. All officers who volunteered to be certified had completed their training by the end of a two-year implementation period. Subsequently, all new officers trained in the academy are required to carry a CED. Officers hired before implementation were offered the option of not getting certified to carry a CED. The exact number of officers who declined to carry a CED is unknown, though the number is low especially among street officers who encompass the bulk of encounters involving resistant, fleeing, or violent subjects. The goal of this research is to elucidate if implementing a CED significantly lowered the number of times a baton was used by officers. A keyword search of all reports was conducted for the five years before and five years after the implementation period. The key words searched for are baton, ASP, and ASP baton. ASP is the brand name of the baton utilized by the agency. Other key words were OC and its common name pepper spray. The agency has exclusively used the TASER brand CED, so the keywords searched for were TASER, Tased, and Tasered. Any uses not consistent with an officer’s application of a less lethal tool to a person to subdue them were not counted. Display of a tool was not counted. Effectiveness was not considered. If more than one of the three less-lethal tools were used during an event each was counted. Multiple applications of the same tool is counted as one. If more than one officer utilized the same tool on an individual this was only counted once. This study did not differentiate between a drive stun or probe deployment; both were counted as a use. This is also true for the other items as well. If a baton was used for leverage and not striking it was still counted. The frequency of baton and OC uses will be analyzed for those years when the CED was not available. The same analysis was calculated for the frequency of CED, baton, and OC use for the five years after implementation. A chi-square was utilized to evaluate if there was any effect implementation of the TASER CED had on OC or baton usage. Significance was set at p < .05, and p = .05 to .10 indicate a trend to significance. Statistical software utilized: Sigma Plot V14.0, Systat Software, San Jose, CA Results A total of 1,176 reports were analyzed. A baton was used 7 times from for the five years prior to implementation of the TASER CED, an average of 1.4 times per year (Table 1 ). The five years following implementation of the CED the baton was used 10 times, an average use of 2 times per year (Table 1 ) this difference was not statically significant. OC was used 189 times prior to implementation and 45 times post implementation, with a yearly average of 37.8 and 9, respectively (Table 1 ). The five-year duration after implementation, a CED was used 224 times at an average of 44.8 times per year (Table 1 ). There was a statistical difference between the amount each item was used as noted across the rows (Table 1 ). There was only a statistical difference between the amount OC was used between periods this difference was not present in the other columns (Table 1 ). Table 1 Proportion of use of less than lethal options Baton N ( %) OC N ( %) CED N ( %) Five years prior (Period 1) 7 (3.6%) a (p < .001) 189 (96.4%) b (p < .001) –– Five years after 10 (3.6%) a (p < .001) 45 (16.1%) c (p < .001) 224 (80.3%) d (p < .001) (Period 2) Different letters within rows or columns denote statistical difference; p < .001 Table 2 shows where significant (p < .001) and some of the most pronounced changes can be seen. Between Period 1and Period 2 the use of OC declined by ~ 83% (Table 2 ). An officer was 12 to 41 times more likely to employ the use of a taser than ASP during Period 2, within a 95% confidence interval (Table 2 ). Also, in period 2, an officer was 3.8 to 6.5 times more likely to employ the use of a taser than OC also at a 95% confidence interval (Table 2 ). Table 2 Risk ratios and confidence intervals regarding the choice of uses of different less-lethal options between Period 1 (five years prior) and Period 2 (five years after) or within each one. Risk Ratio 95% Confidence Interval P value OC Period 1 vs Period 2 0.17 0.13–0.22 0.001 OC vs baton Period 1 27 13–55.9 0.001 CED vs baton Period 2 22.4 12.15–41.3 0.001 CED vs OC Period 2 4.98 3.78–6.55 0.001 OC = oleoresin capsicum; CED = conducted electrical device A total of twenty-three reports were not accessible for various reasons and those reports were excluded from analysis. Of the reports not reviewed, four mentioned ASP, ASP baton, or baton. Eight mentioned OC or pepper spray. Eleven mentioned TASER, Tased, or Tasered. Discussion Considering the absence of data tracking and definitions with respect to police citizen encounters where force is utilized in the United States, the present study provides key information regarding the tools routinely carried by police officers. Before implementation of the TASER CED, officers used OC instead of the baton over 96% of the time. Implementation of the TASER did not affect the number of times the baton was utilized. The number of baton uses was numerically higher on Period 2; however, the difference of baton uses between Period 1 and Period 2 was not significant (p = .808). CED implementation did significantly impact the number of times officers reached for OC with an 83% reduction. The CED was used over 80% of the time during the five years after implementation. Studies have shown a CED does have higher officer confidence rating than other less-lethal options (Kester, 2006 ). This may be that electricity is seen as more intimidating than other tools. It is possible this could be because it is a new and unique tool that people were eager to use. Interestingly the baton was used to break windows thirteen times prior to implementation of the CED, and seven times post implementation with an average of 2.6 and 1.4, respectively. Documented use for this secondary purpose nearly equaled or exceeded the times the baton was used for its primary intended purpose. This along with other reasons already discussed may be an argument for maintaining the baton. Another option carried during many shifts is a flashlight, essentially a small baton. It makes sense to use a flashlight to strike instead of discarding it and deploying a baton. These uses are not tracked and may add to the number of baton uses overall. After implementation, an officer was 3.8 to 6.5 times more likely to use a CED than OC. An officer was just over 22 times more likely to employ the use of a CED than the baton. The TASER CED is being utilized far more frequently than the other less-lethal force options carried. The present study does not consider empty hand techniques. Most of the encounters where an officer faces resistance is handled with empty hand control techniques. If the number of baton usages were compared to the overall total use of force encounters the discrepancy may be even more pronounced. The cost of equipping an officer with a baton is low, but another cost to consider is training time. If employees carry the tool, they must be trained. Any amount of time spent on one activity carries with it the inherent neglect of another activity. Training in one skill means not training in another skill and/or not deployed on the street. Due to its use in disorder control baton instructors for most agencies will likely always be necessary so the time and money spent certifying instructors may not be a factor. Should agencies eliminate the baton or provide more training on its use? On one hand, more training may raise confidence in the baton and possibly increase usage. However, any instructor will iterate that there is not enough time spent on training therefore, providing additional training time for the baton may be at the exclusion of other training, or simply not be possible. There is no evidence that if more time were spent on training the baton its usage would increase. Even if the number of uses doubled it would remain a tiny fraction out of the total use of less than lethal tools. There was a decline in OC use of around 83% after implementation of the TASER CED. With little doubt implementation affected the amount officers used OC. The results are consistent with other research indicating that users have more confidence in the TASER (Kester 2006 ). Therefore, his may indicate some loss of confidence in OC. It may also be an indication of less training time devoted to OC when the CED was added although there was no drop in baton use for the same reason. Additional studies would be necessary to determine why baton use is very low and the nuances of why OC decreased as it did. Conclusion In general, CED usage is viewed more favorably than strikes, especially strikes with a baton. There did not end up being a significant difference in baton usage due to implementation of the CED. So, the theory that the CED rendered the baton obsolete was disproven. However, baton usage was extraordinarily low compared to the other options and that is not considering the more common responses to resistance and aggression such as empty hand control techniques and active countermeasures. It also does not factor in the rare use of firearms or other methods of deadly force. In agencies utilizing CEDs if the number of baton uses continue to decrease it may be worth agencies considering allowing officers to remove the baton from their belt and not train or equip new officers with it, phasing out the expandable baton. This research did not consider if the force was appropriate. That could potentially be a factor when considering if a force option is a good choice for a department. If the CED was over utilized improperly, the baton may still be a beneficial tool to maintain. Or, if the baton were utilized improperly, even a few times, that would add more credit to the idea of eliminating it. Moving Forward As discussed above the United States has a serious lack of data tracking. When it is tracked it is not consistent among agencies and reports are generally not easily accessible. This is commonly extrapolated as a lack of transparency. Even if the opaqueness is unintentional, many in the public are likely to draw that conclusion. There should be an effort to more accurately track and openly disseminate law enforcement’s response to resistance and aggression. There are two predominant opinions with regards to police use of force. One being that law enforcement uses too much force too often. The other, that law enforcement uses force infrequently and the issue is unfair optics. To get to the truth, quality research and analysis is needed. This cannot be accomplished with the hodgepodge of data collection and near zero dissemination that is the current status quo. Agencies should continue to improve data tracking. This information along with policies and procedures should be maintained online and accessible to the public. Data should constantly be tracked to maintain transparency and follow best practices cultivating positive relationships and sustaining high integrity. If a third party creates a definitive definition and a central use of force database materializes, adjustments then can be easily made to an already functioning system. This will be especially beneficial if a mandate to record, compile and analyze the data is created. There are new tools constantly being introduced to law enforcement. Specialized devices to launch powdered OC (PepperBall®) or Kevlar cord (BolaWrap®150) deployed to wrap a person’s arms or legs are two examples. There is interesting technology being investigated that uses sound and light for subject control. Agencies should not stop looking at new alternatives and their efficacy should be considered with supported data before any changes are made to replace conventional less-lethal tools for law enforcement. Declarations The author declares there are no financial or non-financial interests directly related to this work. No funding, grants, or other support was received for this work. There are no competing interests to disclose. This manuscript preparation, writing, data collection, and analysis was performed by the author. Author Contribution The author declares there are no financial or non-financial interests directly related to this work. No funding, grants, or other support was received for this work. There are no competing interests to disclose. This manuscript preparation, writing, data collection, and analysis was performed by Aaron Leisinger, MPA. References Evans, K. (2019). The Alert Collector: Police Use of Force. References and User Quarterly , 59 , 103–106. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26952286 Garner, J., Hickman, M., Malega, R., & Maxwell, C. (2018). Progress toward national estimates of police use of force. Plos One , 13 , 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192932 Kester, M. (2006). The Effectiveness of TASERs When Compared to Other Non Lethal Weapons and Where They Belong on the Use of Force Continuum, The Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas. Kroll, M., Brave, M., Pratt, H., Witte, K., Kunz, S., & Luceri, R. (2019). Benefits, Risks, and Myths of TASER Handheld Electrical Weapons. Human Factors and Mechanical Engineering for Defense and Safety , 3 , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41314-019-0021-9 MacDonald, J., Kaminski, R., & Smith, M. (2009). The Effects of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of Force Events. American Journal of Public Health , 99 , 2268–2274. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.159616 Oriola, T., Rollwagen, H., Neverson, N., & Adeyanju, C. (October 2016). Public Support for Conducted Energy Weapons: Evidence from the 2014 Alberta Study. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice , 58 , 530–564. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2015022 Payne-James, P., Rivers, E., Green, P., & Johnston, A. (2013). 7 September Trends in less-lethal use of force techniques by police services within England and Wales: 2007–2011, Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology , Vol 10, pp. 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-013-9492-9 Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing , President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, & Washington, D. C. (2015). Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf Proctor, R., & Schneider, D. (2018). Hick’s law for choice reaction time: A review. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 71 , 1281–1299. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1322622 Roberts, A., Nokes, L., Leadbeatter, S., & Pike, H. (1994). Impact characteristics of two types of police baton. Forensic Science International , 67 , 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-0738(94)90411-1 Smith, M., Kaminski, R., Rojek, G., Alpert, G., & Mathis, J. (2003). The impact of conducted energy devices and other typed of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management , 30 , 423–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510710778822 Sousa, W., Ready, J., & Ault, M. (2010). The impact of TASERs on police use-of-force decisions: Findings from a randomized field-training experiment. Jornal of Experimental Criminology , 6 , 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9089-1 Standen, D. (2005). Use of Force Options. Law and Order , pp. 88–92. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7238719","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":503709617,"identity":"517f180a-d1f5-49ed-992c-4380bb6ebd1a","order_by":0,"name":"Aaron Leisinger","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aaron","middleName":"","lastName":"Leisinger","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-29 04:08:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7238719/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7238719/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90039843,"identity":"66fe1566-7e1f-4674-ab18-c6627c864444","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-27 16:38:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":361542,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7238719/v1/50f8b073-28b2-42b4-bb4a-c45b01c6a285.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"A retrospective analysis of less lethal tools at a municipal agency to determine if the baton should still be carried","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo achieve their goals when responding to an incident, law enforcement must often use physical force to detain and arrest. It has been observed that every person taken into custody has been invariably subjected to some degree of force from a police officer. For reasons beyond their control, police officers occasionally lose some control over the freedom of movement by those who object law enforcement response. Although freedom is a central tenet of the constitution, police officers, entrusted with authority, find themselves in situations that they must intervene to enforce law and order. This action may be perceived as an invasion of individual freedom, and it should be taken very seriously.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe mere presence of a police officer conveys a certain level of authority, or in other words, when police are present, there is a threat of force (Evans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Use of force policies and procedures vary from department to department. In American style civilian law enforcement, as is typical of developed countries, police officers are authorized to use (or threaten to use) physical force to make arrests, overcome resistance, and defuse volatile situations (Sousa et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Police using physical force is a necessary though rare part of their job. The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows police use some type of force in 1% of all encounters (Sousa et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). There is, however, a paucity of information regarding police encounters that involve the use of force in the United States (Garner et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThough use of force policies and application vary, one of the most common layouts is the Use-of-Force Continuum (Evans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It is a list, generally structured from least forceful to more forceful. Presence and dialogue are universally considered the lowest level of force. Some continuums separate these, considering the expectation that the mere presence of an officer may keep order in a situation (Evans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Empty hand control is generally the next level of force, which may be divided into soft and hard empty hand techniques (Evans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This level may be referred to as passive countermeasures or escort and compliance holds. The next level is characterized by methods involving a device that are not intended to be lethal, also referred to as less-lethal, such as projectile munitions, conducted energy devices, chemicals, and batons (Evans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The final and highest level is any force that creates substantial risk of causing serious injury or death. Deadly weapons are primarily, though not limited to, firearms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeople have historically used various objects to strike police officers when resisting their intervention. Some of the first objects ever used were rocks or sticks. A police expandable baton is simply a refined version of a stick. The police baton seems to have always been a part of policing as far back as the 1800s. A baton may be made from a variety of materials including wood, metal, plastic, fiberglass, and composites. Different versions of the police baton exist such as straight, side handle, and expandable. Probably the most common baton in policing today, certainly in the United States, is the metal expandable baton. The expandable baton can be worn on an officer\u0026rsquo;s belt in a holster and is designed to be unobtrusive when stowed. It has been shown to have approximately twice the contact pressure than its wooden counterpart (Roberts et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). So, the expandable baton is not only more convenient and less obtrusive to carry but it is more effective at delivering shock. The baton\u0026rsquo;s primary purpose is striking a person, and even when the strikes are reasonable and necessary, it may be perceived as unfair or unjustified. The use of the baton as a force option has been criticized for being, at times, an example of misuse and poor training (Standen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). In the modern age, incidents are increasingly acquiring digital identities as cellphone cameras, surveillance systems, and other appurtenances of surveillance increase policing\u0026rsquo;s visibility (Oriola et. al, 2016). Now there is a camera in almost everyone\u0026rsquo;s pocket and a near instantaneous ability to upload sans context. The optics of a police officer striking a person with a baton, even when justified and necessary, is simply a brutal image.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe other most common less-lethal tools at most officer's disposal are chemical spray and a conducted electrical device (CED). In general, injuries to suspects from use-of-force incidents are infrequent relative to the overall number of police-citizen contacts (Smith et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). A study conducted at the University of South Carolina focusing on the impact of CEDs and other types of force on officer and suspect injuries showed an increased risk to officer and suspect injuries from use of the baton (Smith et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). A study analyzing the impact of the use of CED showed a 65% reduction in the odds of civilian injuries compared to other options not including a firearm (MacDonald et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of an impact weapon such as the baton is to encourage compliance through pain. The striking will stop when compliance begins. The TASER CED uses electrical impulses to cause muscle contraction or neuromuscular incapacitation. The intent of a CED is to temporarily incapacitate the individual by stopping movement. When using a baton, if the pain of a strike does not gain compliance, continued use will probably result in higher levels of injury to muscle, bone, or internal organs. Research found that CEDs and chemical spray were associated with injury reduction to officers, suspects, and bystanders (Smith et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). A study conducted in 2009 involving 12 police departments found that in 2 departments, when officers utilized CEDs, the odds of monthly injury to both civilians and officers decreased significantly, by as much as 62%. (MacDonald et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Chemical spray has a slightly higher incidence of officer injury than CED usage (MacDonald et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA study published in 2014 found that a total of 67% of people supported CED usage (Oriola et. al, 2016). It also cited that departments that had adopted CEDs had lower rates of officer injuries than agencies without CEDs (Oriola et. al, 2016). CED usage has a low overall major complication rate of 13.1 per one million applications (Kroll et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). As such, CEDs seem to be more acceptable than batons and are associated with lower risk of injury; so, the question is: why keep the baton around? CEDs are electrical, and electrical systems are far from foolproof. Policing occurs in unstable environments, in the elements. Water can damage electronic devices. Also, each force option does not have consistent results when used on different people. Mental health along with substances like drugs and alcohol are examples of factors that affect a person\u0026rsquo;s response. Some just have the will to resist being subjugated. When it comes to an impact weapon like a baton, striking damages the body, thus decreasing the ability to resist. It is exceptionally rare for a baton to break and become ineffective. Electricity and chemical agents run out eventually. The use of a baton is only limited by the number of swings that can be made by the person wielding it. One failure is the tool breaking. The tool can also function properly and still not successfully subdue an opponent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere have been few studies done regarding the use of CEDs. Most were carried out in the early 2000s when the most popular CED, the TASER, had its popularity rising. A study at the Law Enforcement Institute of Texas in 2006 found that the TASER CED had the lowest failure rate of less-lethal options and ranked highest in user confidence (Kester).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome departments when adding a tool to the officer\u0026rsquo;s tool belt, also eliminate another (Standen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Some trainers argue that having it is desirable to have all options readily available. In an article for the Law and Order periodical, law enforcement trainer David Standen explains, \u0026ldquo;Certain situations call for the officer to use OC while others require the officer to grab onto the subject to gain control. Sometimes the only thing that will stop a subject is a decisive strike with a baton while other situations deem the CED as the most appropriate tool\u0026rdquo; (Standen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile intuitively appealing, having more options may not consistently translate into tangible advantages. Proctor and Schneider (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) reviewed the theoretical analyses set forth by Dr. W. E. Hick on an article titled \u0026ldquo;On the rate of gain of information (Hicks, 1952). Hick\u0026rsquo;s article was the first of three articles demonstrating the value of information theory for the study of human performance (Proctor and Schneider, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In what came to be known as \u0026ldquo;Hick\u0026rsquo;s law\u0026rdquo;, a widely acknowledged law in psychology relating choice reaction time to the number of stimulus-response alternatives (Proctor and Schneider, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This could explain why in a Canadian study the likelihood of officer\u0026rsquo;s injuries increased when CEDs are used alongside other types of force (Oriola et. al, 2016). A wide range of options may change or delay the decision-making process for line officers at the onset of an incident before any force has been applied (Sousa et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). When lives are at stake, having too many options may not be beneficial if valuable time is lost during the decision-making process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch and Data\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the United States there is a serious lack of consistency in both data measurement and tracking as well as definition when it comes to use of force from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (Garner et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Other countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom have better data collection and tracking. Information from other countries may be somewhat useful for decision making on policies, procedures, and best practices. However, these cultures and policing styles are different and may not render a one-to-one comparison.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the United States, estimates are created from surveys of the public and enforcement agencies (Garner et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). It is difficult to alter policies and procedures from surveys and estimates. One alternative would be to scrutinize every police report to determine whether if any force was used. Agencies that do track use of force may be unwilling to share their police reports. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) received 571 responses to a survey on use-of-force sent out to 832 agencies in the United States (Garner et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). PERF supports law enforcement and make recommendations for its improvement. This relatively low compliance may be because agencies either do not document the use of force or are reluctant to share their police reports and possibly expose themselves to criticism. The municipal agency in this study does document the use of force in each police encounter with civilians. Up to two types of force per incident are recorded; if more than two levels of force are used, the two highest levels are recorded.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA 2010 study on the impact of TASER CEDs on police use of force decisions found that when a suspect was overly aggressive, the CED was utilized more often than any other method in the group armed with them (Sousa et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). These findings showed officers were using the CEDs when they would have otherwise used a chemical agent or a baton (Sousa et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). A study was also conducted in England and Wales that examined the trends in police use of force during a five-year period, 2007\u0026ndash;2011 (Payne-James et. al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). It found that the less-lethal options increased in use over the years. The authors of that study encountered the same issues with inconsistency in data collection and release that the United States seems to have. Out of the 50 agencies that data was requested from only 10 provided the information requested and some did not even respond. Only 2 agencies provided complete information regarding medical consequences following the use of various methods of force. It remains a challenge in the United States and in the United Kingdom to gather and analyze substantial information regarding the trends in use of force.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the United States, some agencies have stopped carrying and training the baton altogether, whereas some agencies are phasing it out. These decisions seem to be based on anecdotal evidence and public image more that discrete data. To the author\u0026rsquo;s knowledge there is currently no studies evaluating historical data to see whether baton or chemical agent usage changed due to the implementation of a CED. The agency in this study continues to carry a metal expandable baton along with OC and a CED. As a result, the present study was designed to evaluate whether the implementation of the TASER CED affected the number of times officers used the expandable baton.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe municipal agency in the present study implemented the TASER model X26. All officers who volunteered to be certified had completed their training by the end of a two-year implementation period. Subsequently, all new officers trained in the academy are required to carry a CED. Officers hired before implementation were offered the option of not getting certified to carry a CED. The exact number of officers who declined to carry a CED is unknown, though the number is low especially among street officers who encompass the bulk of encounters involving resistant, fleeing, or violent subjects. The goal of this research is to elucidate if implementing a CED significantly lowered the number of times a baton was used by officers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA keyword search of all reports was conducted for the five years before and five years after the implementation period. The key words searched for are baton, ASP, and ASP baton. ASP is the brand name of the baton utilized by the agency. Other key words were OC and its common name pepper spray. The agency has exclusively used the TASER brand CED, so the keywords searched for were TASER, Tased, and Tasered. Any uses not consistent with an officer\u0026rsquo;s application of a less lethal tool to a person to subdue them were not counted. Display of a tool was not counted. Effectiveness was not considered. If more than one of the three less-lethal tools were used during an event each was counted. Multiple applications of the same tool is counted as one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf more than one officer utilized the same tool on an individual this was only counted once. This study did not differentiate between a drive stun or probe deployment; both were counted as a use. This is also true for the other items as well. If a baton was used for leverage and not striking it was still counted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe frequency of baton and OC uses will be analyzed for those years when the CED was not available. The same analysis was calculated for the frequency of CED, baton, and OC use for the five years after implementation. A chi-square was utilized to evaluate if there was any effect implementation of the TASER CED had on OC or baton usage. Significance was set at p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, and p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05 to .10 indicate a trend to significance. Statistical software utilized: Sigma Plot V14.0, Systat Software, San Jose, CA\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eA total of 1,176 reports were analyzed. A baton was used 7 times from for the five years prior to implementation of the TASER CED, an average of 1.4 times per year (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The five years following implementation of the CED the baton was used 10 times, an average use of 2 times per year (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) this difference was not statically significant. OC was used 189 times prior to implementation and 45 times post implementation, with a yearly average of 37.8 and 9, respectively (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The five-year duration after implementation, a CED was used 224 times at an average of 44.8 times per year (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). There was a statistical difference between the amount each item was used as noted across the rows (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). There was only a statistical difference between the amount OC was used between periods this difference was not present in the other columns (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProportion of use of less than lethal options\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBaton\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eN (\u003cem\u003e%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOC\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eN (\u003cem\u003e%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCED\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eN (\u003cem\u003e%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFive years prior\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Period 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7 (3.6%)\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e189 (96.4%)\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFive years after\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10 (3.6%)\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45 (16.1%)\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e224 (80.3%)\u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Period 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDifferent letters within rows or columns denote statistical difference; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows where significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and some of the most pronounced changes can be seen. Between Period 1and Period 2 the use of OC declined by ~\u0026thinsp;83% (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). An officer was 12 to 41 times more likely to employ the use of a taser than ASP during Period 2, within a 95% confidence interval (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Also, in period 2, an officer was 3.8 to 6.5 times more likely to employ the use of a taser than OC also at a 95% confidence interval (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRisk ratios and confidence intervals regarding the choice of uses of different less-lethal options between Period 1 (five years prior) and Period 2 (five years after) or within each one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRisk Ratio\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% Confidence Interval\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOC\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod 1 vs Period 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.13\u0026ndash;0.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOC vs baton\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u0026ndash;55.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCED vs baton\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.15\u0026ndash;41.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCED vs OC\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.98\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.78\u0026ndash;6.55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eOC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;oleoresin capsicum; CED\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;conducted electrical device\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of twenty-three reports were not accessible for various reasons and those reports were excluded from analysis. Of the reports not reviewed, four mentioned ASP, ASP baton, or baton. Eight mentioned OC or pepper spray. Eleven mentioned TASER, Tased, or Tasered.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eConsidering the absence of data tracking and definitions with respect to police citizen encounters where force is utilized in the United States, the present study provides key information regarding the tools routinely carried by police officers. Before implementation of the TASER CED, officers used OC instead of the baton over 96% of the time. Implementation of the TASER did not affect the number of times the baton was utilized. The number of baton uses was numerically higher on Period 2; however, the difference of baton uses between Period 1 and Period 2 was not significant (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.808).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCED implementation did significantly impact the number of times officers reached for OC with an 83% reduction. The CED was used over 80% of the time during the five years after implementation. Studies have shown a CED does have higher officer confidence rating than other less-lethal options (Kester, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). This may be that electricity is seen as more intimidating than other tools. It is possible this could be because it is a new and unique tool that people were eager to use.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterestingly the baton was used to break windows thirteen times prior to implementation of the CED, and seven times post implementation with an average of 2.6 and 1.4, respectively. Documented use for this secondary purpose nearly equaled or exceeded the times the baton was used for its primary intended purpose. This along with other reasons already discussed may be an argument for maintaining the baton. Another option carried during many shifts is a flashlight, essentially a small baton. It makes sense to use a flashlight to strike instead of discarding it and deploying a baton. These uses are not tracked and may add to the number of baton uses overall.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter implementation, an officer was 3.8 to 6.5 times more likely to use a CED than OC. An officer was just over 22 times more likely to employ the use of a CED than the baton. The TASER CED is being utilized far more frequently than the other less-lethal force options carried. The present study does not consider empty hand techniques. Most of the encounters where an officer faces resistance is handled with empty hand control techniques. If the number of baton usages were compared to the overall total use of force encounters the discrepancy may be even more pronounced.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cost of equipping an officer with a baton is low, but another cost to consider is training time. If employees carry the tool, they must be trained. Any amount of time spent on one activity carries with it the inherent neglect of another activity. Training in one skill means not training in another skill and/or not deployed on the street. Due to its use in disorder control baton instructors for most agencies will likely always be necessary so the time and money spent certifying instructors may not be a factor.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eShould agencies eliminate the baton or provide more training on its use? On one hand, more training may raise confidence in the baton and possibly increase usage. However, any instructor will iterate that there is not enough time spent on training therefore, providing additional training time for the baton may be at the exclusion of other training, or simply not be possible. There is no evidence that if more time were spent on training the baton its usage would increase. Even if the number of uses doubled it would remain a tiny fraction out of the total use of less than lethal tools.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere was a decline in OC use of around 83% after implementation of the TASER CED. With little doubt implementation affected the amount officers used OC. The results are consistent with other research indicating that users have more confidence in the TASER (Kester \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, his may indicate some loss of confidence in OC. It may also be an indication of less training time devoted to OC when the CED was added although there was no drop in baton use for the same reason. Additional studies would be necessary to determine why baton use is very low and the nuances of why OC decreased as it did.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn general, CED usage is viewed more favorably than strikes, especially strikes with a baton. There did not end up being a significant difference in baton usage due to implementation of the CED. So, the theory that the CED rendered the baton obsolete was disproven. However, baton usage was extraordinarily low compared to the other options and that is not considering the more common responses to resistance and aggression such as empty hand control techniques and active countermeasures. It also does not factor in the rare use of firearms or other methods of deadly force. In agencies utilizing CEDs if the number of baton uses continue to decrease it may be worth agencies considering allowing officers to remove the baton from their belt and not train or equip new officers with it, phasing out the expandable baton.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research did not consider if the force was appropriate. That could potentially be a factor when considering if a force option is a good choice for a department. If the CED was over utilized improperly, the baton may still be a beneficial tool to maintain. Or, if the baton were utilized improperly, even a few times, that would add more credit to the idea of eliminating it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMoving Forward\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs discussed above the United States has a serious lack of data tracking. When it is tracked it is not consistent among agencies and reports are generally not easily accessible. This is commonly extrapolated as a lack of transparency. Even if the opaqueness is unintentional, many in the public are likely to draw that conclusion. There should be an effort to more accurately track and openly disseminate law enforcement\u0026rsquo;s response to resistance and aggression. There are two predominant opinions with regards to police use of force. One being that law enforcement uses too much force too often. The other, that law enforcement uses force infrequently and the issue is unfair optics. To get to the truth, quality research and analysis is needed. This cannot be accomplished with the hodgepodge of data collection and near zero dissemination that is the current status quo.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgencies should continue to improve data tracking. This information along with policies and procedures should be maintained online and accessible to the public. Data should constantly be tracked to maintain transparency and follow best practices cultivating positive relationships and sustaining high integrity. If a third party creates a definitive definition and a central use of force database materializes, adjustments then can be easily made to an already functioning system. This will be especially beneficial if a mandate to record, compile and analyze the data is created.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are new tools constantly being introduced to law enforcement. Specialized devices to launch powdered OC (PepperBall\u0026reg;) or Kevlar cord (BolaWrap\u0026reg;150) deployed to wrap a person\u0026rsquo;s arms or legs are two examples. There is interesting technology being investigated that uses sound and light for subject control. Agencies should not stop looking at new alternatives and their efficacy should be considered with supported data before any changes are made to replace conventional less-lethal tools for law enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe author declares there are no financial or non-financial interests directly related to this work. No funding, grants, or other support was received for this work. There are no competing interests to disclose. This manuscript preparation, writing, data collection, and analysis was performed by the author.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author declares there are no financial or non-financial interests directly related to this work. No funding, grants, or other support was received for this work. There are no competing interests to disclose. This manuscript preparation, writing, data collection, and analysis was performed by Aaron Leisinger, MPA.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvans, K. (2019). The Alert Collector: Police Use of Force. \u003cem\u003eReferences and User Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e, 103\u0026ndash;106. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26952286\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.jstor.org/stable/26952286\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarner, J., Hickman, M., Malega, R., \u0026amp; Maxwell, C. (2018). Progress toward national estimates of police use of force. \u003cem\u003ePlos One\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192932\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0192932\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKester, M. (2006). The Effectiveness of TASERs When Compared to Other Non Lethal Weapons and Where They Belong on the Use of Force Continuum, \u003cem\u003eThe Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKroll, M., Brave, M., Pratt, H., Witte, K., Kunz, S., \u0026amp; Luceri, R. (2019). Benefits, Risks, and Myths of TASER Handheld Electrical Weapons. \u003cem\u003eHuman Factors and Mechanical Engineering for Defense and Safety\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s41314-019-0021-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s41314-019-0021-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacDonald, J., Kaminski, R., \u0026amp; Smith, M. (2009). The Effects of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of Force Events. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e, 2268\u0026ndash;2274. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.159616\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2105/AJPH.2009.159616\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOriola, T., Rollwagen, H., Neverson, N., \u0026amp; Adeyanju, C. (October 2016). Public Support for Conducted Energy Weapons: Evidence from the 2014 Alberta Study. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e, 530\u0026ndash;564. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2015022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3138/cjccj.2015022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePayne-James, P., Rivers, E., Green, P., \u0026amp; Johnston, A. (2013). 7 September Trends in less-lethal use of force techniques by police services within England and Wales: 2007\u0026ndash;2011, \u003cem\u003eForensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology\u003c/em\u003e, Vol 10, pp. 50\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-013-9492-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12024-013-9492-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinal Report of the President\u0026rsquo;s Task Force on 21st Century Policing\u003c/em\u003e, President\u0026rsquo;s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, \u0026amp; Washington, D. C. (2015). Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eProctor, R., \u0026amp; Schneider, D. (2018). Hick\u0026rsquo;s law for choice reaction time: A review. \u003cem\u003eQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e71\u003c/em\u003e, 1281\u0026ndash;1299. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1322622\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17470218.2017.1322622\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoberts, A., Nokes, L., Leadbeatter, S., \u0026amp; Pike, H. (1994). Impact characteristics of two types of police baton. \u003cem\u003eForensic Science International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e, 49\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0379-0738(94)90411-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0379-0738(94)90411-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith, M., Kaminski, R., Rojek, G., Alpert, G., \u0026amp; Mathis, J. (2003). The impact of conducted energy devices and other typed of force and resistance on officer and suspect injuries. \u003cem\u003ePolicing: An International Journal of Police Strategies \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e, 423\u0026ndash;446. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/13639510710778822\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/13639510710778822\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSousa, W., Ready, J., \u0026amp; Ault, M. (2010). The impact of TASERs on police use-of-force decisions: Findings from a randomized field-training experiment. \u003cem\u003eJornal of Experimental Criminology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e, 35\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9089-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11292-010-9089-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStanden, D. (2005). Use of Force Options. \u003cem\u003eLaw and Order\u003c/em\u003e, pp. 88\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"baton, pepper spray, TASER, use of force, less lethal, police","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7238719/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7238719/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAs police use of force is constantly under scrutiny, it is important to analyze the impact of less lethal tools on law enforcement. There is still no general agreement on the efficacy of the use of less lethal tools (LLT). Some law enforcement agencies have, for example, questioned the efficacy of the use of the baton and have reportedly removed it from the equipment officers carry. To better understand the impact of the use of LLT on law enforcement, this retrospective analysis sought to determine if implementation of the TASER controlled electronic device (CED) affected the number of times officers used the baton. The number of incidents in which the use of LLT was employed was collected from records from a mid-sized municipal police department. The proportion of the number of LLT uses according to its type, baton or and oleoresin capsicum (OC), for five years prior to and five years after the implementation of the CED was compared using a Chi-square analysis. There was no significant difference observed in baton usage after CED implementation. However, the use of chemical spray (OC) was significantly affected showing a decrease of 83% (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Though the frequency of baton use did not change after implementation of CED, it was used much less frequently than any other tool, averaging only two a year. Therefore, implementation of the TASER CED did not render the baton obsolete as a tool for officers in this department. The reason for such low incidence of usage should be investigated further to determine if the baton is still relevant.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A retrospective analysis of less lethal tools at a municipal agency to determine if the baton should still be carried","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-26 12:36:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7238719/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"abfc6465-e51a-453a-8b2d-cd85baadce24","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 26th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-27T16:38:11+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-26 12:36:15","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7238719","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7238719","identity":"rs-7238719","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}