Gannett papers shocked by taser’s claims

December 5, 2008
By Shahien Nasiripour, Centre for Investigative Reporting

Taser International Inc., the world’s largest stun-gun manufacturer, allegedly made false statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning an agreement with two of the nation’s largest newspapers, according to the newspapers’ representatives and documents obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

The statements stem from the 2006 settlement of Taser’s libel suit against Gannett Co., Inc, the parent corporation of the two newspapers—USA Today and the Arizona Republic. Taser claimed in two SEC filings that the newspapers “would review articles regarding the Taser device with us prior to publication”—an extraordinary breach of journalistic standards. Taser’s general counsel initially stated the claim to Wall Street analysts in an earnings conference call, adding that it was “in order to ensure accuracy.”

The newspapers, which were unaware of Taser's claim until their lawyer was contacted recently by CIR, deny ever making such an agreement, and have demanded that Taser formally correct the record. Initially, Taser was reluctant to amend its statements and the newspapers were considering further action, according to interviews with parties on both sides. Representatives of Taser and Gannett are currently in discussions to settle the dispute. The SEC declined to comment on the allegations.

The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based stun-gun maker and its hometown paper have had a contentious history, resulting from the Republic’s detailed reporting, from 2004-2006, about the company and the safety concerns of its flagship product, which is used by more than 13,000 law enforcement, correctional, and military agencies around the world.

Its sister Gannett paper, USA Today, has also angered Taser, particularly after publishing a June 2005 story and graphic that significantly overstated the electrical output of Taser’s X26-model stun gun. Taser contacted the newspaper and the story was corrected the next day of publication.

But a few weeks later Taser sued, claiming that the Republic and USA Today “engaged in the ongoing publication of misleading articles related to the safety of Taser products, resulting in substantial economic damages to us, our customers and our shareholders.” Taser claimed the newspapers’ stories cost company shareholders more than one billion dollars in lost value.

Maricopa County (Ariz.) Superior Court Judge Paul J. McMurdie rejected Taser’s claims in granting Gannett’s motion for summary judgment. In his Jan. 25, 2006 ruling, he awarded McLean, Va.-based Gannett attorneys’ fees after finding one of the claims “clearly unjustified.” About three weeks later, the two sides asked the court to formally dismiss Taser’s claims—and with it Taser’s right to an appeal—while Gannett withdrew its claim to attorneys’ fees, court records show.

“It was a total victory,” said David Bodney, Gannett’s attorney in the case. But that’s not how Taser reported it to the SEC, or to Wall Street analysts who covered the company.

In a Feb. 22, 2006 conference call with financial analysts, Douglas Klint, Taser’s general counsel and executive vice president, said: “Our lawsuit against Gannett Company Incorporated was dismissed with the understanding that, in the future, the USA Today and the Arizona Republic newspapers would review their Taser stories with the company prior to publishing in order to ensure accuracy,” according to a transcript of the call.

The next month, in its Form 10-K filing, Taser wrote: “the parties entered into a stipulation for dismissal with the understanding that the USA Today and the Arizona Republic would review articles regarding the Taser device with us prior to publication.” That statement was repeated in the company’s May 18, 2006 quarterly report to the SEC.

Only one Wall Street analyst who was a participant in the February conference call, Matthew McKay, formerly of Jefferies & Co., responded to an interview request. McKay said the statement in question influenced his coverage. He concluded that the settlement terms appeared to benefit Taser and represented “a big-time opportunity” for investors.

Current San Francisco Chronicle editor Ward Bushee, the Republic’s editor at the time of the settlement, and Randy Lovely, the Republic’s current editor, said they were unaware of Taser’s statements until asked about them recently by CIR, and denied that any such agreement ever existed.

“Taser's assertion in the SEC filing is completely false,” Lovely said. “The Arizona Republic would never allow a source to review a story prior to publication. To do so would completely violate our journalist principles and standards of independence. The Republic has aggressively reported on Taser during the past few years, and we stand behind the full scope and accuracy of our stories.”

Taser counsel Klint initially defended the statements in an interview with CIR, pointing to a letter about the settlement from Bodney which states that the newspapers and Taser agreed to “endeavor to communicate and interact with one another in a professional manner…In turn, Taser will make its executives or public relations personnel available for comment.”

Klint said the word “comment” implies that the company would review stories prior to publication. “How in the world can we comment on a story without them reviewing the story with us?” he reasons. “We can’t comment on something we can’t review.”

“That’s preposterous,” countered Bodney:

His interpretation of that statement is inaccurate. There’s a vast difference between a reporter calling the subject of an allegation for comment … and giving the subject of the allegation a right to review the story prior to publication. Unfortunately, Taser’s statement to the SEC gives the impression that USA Today and the Arizona Republic gave Taser the right to review stories about them prior to publication. It’s inaccurate and misleading…. What [Taser] promised to investors and the SEC—that’s the last thing we would have promised them, especially since we settled the lawsuit with the expectation that we’d hear nothing further from them about it.

Bodney said he pushed for a quick dismissal of the case in part to stop Taser’s attempt to get access to “all documents referring or relating to Taser” used by Republic reporters during the newspaper’s investigation of the company.

Klint said Taser has not been pre-reviewing the newspapers’ articles prior to publication. But he defended Taser’s interpretation of the settlement, saying the company accurately paraphrased the language spelling out the settlement terms:

[For the newspapers] to characterize it as a total fabrication is really a misstatement… We probably should have said we were going to have the opportunity to review [the stories] and provide comment … Could we have gone into more detail? Absolutely. Did we have to? No, we didn’t.

Taser had been the subject of numerous articles published from 2004 to 2006 in newspapers around the country that questioned the company's safety claims about its stun guns and the independence and thoroughness of its medical and scientific testing. Taser claimed its weapons were nonlethal, but newspapers—particularly the Republic—were reporting that medical examiners were increasingly linking police in-custody deaths with shocks from Taser stun guns. Taser denounced the news media coverage.

In July 2004 the Republic published an article that reported medical examiners had linked Tasers with at least five deaths. In March 2005 the newspaper reported that a forensic engineer was warning police departments that Tasers could kill, and that several law enforcement agencies had halted Taser deployments, citing safety concerns.

Taser denounced the news media coverage.

In a September 2005 news release challenging an impending Republic report that Taser gave stock options to police officers who then promoted Taser stun guns, Taser CEO Rick Smith referred to a "history of biased and misleading reporting" by the newspaper. He said, "I am personally incensed that the Arizona Republic plans to target Taser International with yet another biased report, alleging misconduct where none exists."

In announcing the lawsuit against the newspapers, Taser CEO Rick Smith said in a news release: "Over the course of this biased campaign, more than one billion dollars of shareholder value has been erased. Further, we have reason to believe that some law enforcement agencies delayed deploying Taser devices based on this false and misleading information. These delays or cancelled deployments may have resulted in officers resorting to other, potentially more dangerous force options, thereby causing unnecessary injuries or even loss of life due to these irresponsible reports."

Indeed, Taser's stock price nosedived during the period of the Republic's most critical reports. From July 16, 2004—the Friday before the paper's first critical investigative feature—to July 1, 2005—the day the lawsuit was announced—Taser's stock price dropped 50 percent. By comparison, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was up more than seven percent during the same period, and the Nasdaq—the market Taser shares trade on—was up nearly six percent.

Taser’s statements to the SEC have been called into question in the past. In January 2005, the SEC began an informal inquiry into Taser’s safety claims; that same week, the Arizona Attorney General’s office said it, too, was looking into those claims. The SEC inquiry expanded into an official investigation, but no action was taken. The attorney general’s inquiry ended after Taser agreed to modify its marketing language.

In January 2005, Taser shareholders, citing numerous news reports from around the country, launched a class-action suit against the company, alleging they had been misled about the safety of Taser’s products. The suit eventually was settled for nearly $22 million, of which Taser’s portion was about $18 million, with the company’s insurance carrier covering the rest.

In August 2007, Bloomberg News reported that the company had settled at least ten product-liability lawsuits alleging personal injury—lawsuits that Taser had claimed, in news releases and in its SEC filings, to have won through a court dismissal or judgment in its favor. The company now acknowledges these settlements clearly in its filings.

False statements to the SEC about material facts which are likely to influence investors could result in sanctions, civil lawsuits by shareholders who suffered losses due to the alleged misrepresentation, or criminal action if regulators determine that the misstatements were intended to mislead investors, according to Jesse M. Fried, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy.

“When you’re dealing with SEC issues, the standard is material misstatement,” Klint notes. “There’s absolutely no way this is a material misstatement.”

Fried says it’s unlikely any formal action by regulators would result in this instance. He said a reasonable investor wouldn’t base his decision to buy or sell Taser stock on the company’s right to review newspaper articles prior to publication, and, in any case, reviewing articles doesn’t necessarily guarantee the right to veto publication.

But former Jeffries & Co. analyst McKay, whose coverage of Taser from 2005 until earlier this year helped investors decide whether to buy or sell Taser International stock, said news of the purported settlement presented an “opportunity” for investors.

McKay, who participated in the 2006 conference call with Klint, acknowledged that the critical news media coverage of Taser and its products had hurt company sales and its stock price, and that with news of the settlement, the critical coverage “…was an issue that was going to come off the table. One less negative thing you'd have to deal with regarding the company.”

“I thought, all right, you’ve got some bad news out there that has impacted the share price in a negative way,” McKay said in a recent interview. “As a stock analyst, here was an opportunity to jump in and make my clients money. [USA Today and the Republic] didn’t have the facts right, and as a result the valuation of the company was off,” he said. “To me, it was a big-time opportunity.”

McKay, who believed “there was good being done by Taser” in saving lives, said Taser felt “that USA Today and the Arizona Republic just wanted to write negative stories about Taser, that they wanted to make it as sensational as they possibly could. It’s why they were so defensive with the media,” he said.

Bob Steele, a journalism values scholar at the Poynter Institute and journalism ethics professor at DePauw University, explained why pre-publication review of stories could violate the trust readers have that coverage is credible:

If a news organization were to have such a formal legal agreement with a company it’s covering, then that news organization’s past, present and future coverage of that company would be suspect. The readers would have every right to wonder if the newspaper had pulled punches when it came to reporting truthful, meaningful information. There would be questions of whether the newspaper bowed to the wishes or pressures of the subject of the story to back off a certain element or change the tone. One could easily wonder if the story could be tainted.

McKay applied the concept to his work as an analyst covering Taser, noting, “For me, I knew there was no way in hell they'd review anything I wrote prior to it being published. I really don’t want [USA Today and the Republic] reviewing articles with the company because the news gets tainted. It becomes biased. I don’t want that either. I just want the media reviewing with Taser how the device works and making sure they get those facts correct.”

A version of this story initially ran at cjr.org, the Web site of the Columbia Journalism Review. Shahien Nasiripour is a reporting fellow at the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Taser CEO grilled by public safety committee

January 31, 2008
OMAR EL AKKAD, Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — With his company under intense scrutiny following a high-profile death, and with a potentially lucrative Canadian business deal on the horizon, the CEO of Taser International vigorously defended his company's signature stun gun on Parliament Hill yesterday.

Appearing for nearly two hours before the House Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Tom Smith, chairman and CEO of Arizona-based Taser, maintained that his company's product saves lives and that there is "no other device with as much accountability."

The committee's study of tasers, and in turn Mr. Smith's appearance, were in large part prompted by the case of Robert Dziekanski, the Polish immigrant who died last October after RCMP officers tasered him at Vancouver International Airport.

While Mr. Smith said he couldn't comment on the specifics of the Dziekanski incident because of the many separate investigations into the matter, he faced tough questions from MPs about everything from Taser's legal bills to the potential lethality of its devices. However, none of the MPs called for an outright ban on the devices, and some said they believe the stun gun can be a useful tool for police officers.

Some of the most difficult questions came from Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, who was attorney-general of British Columbia around the time that Victoria police became the first force in the country to try tasers.

Mr. Dosanjh asked Mr. Smith whether he was suggesting that tasers played absolutely no role in the 300 or so North American deaths that occurred after the device's use in the past few years. Mr. Smith said the use of tasers was deemed a contributing factor in only about 30 of the cases.

It was during subsequent questioning about Taser International's financial relationship with Canadian police officers that Mr. Smith revealed the company had paid two Canadian officers for services.

One of those officers, Darren Laur of the Victoria police, was compensated with Taser stock after designing a holster for the device. However, it was not publicly known that a second officer was paid until yesterday's hearing. After the session, Mr. Smith said he believes the second officer was from a Montreal police force and was paid to provide taser training in Europe because he could speak French.

Yesterday marked Mr. Smith's second Canadian public appearance this month. Two weeks ago, the Taser CEO was in Toronto, fielding questions at police headquarters. The Toronto Police Services Board is considering a request by Chief Bill Blair to spend about $8.6-million to equip and train every front-line officer with a taser.

A research analyst covering Taser International said a resulting purchase may be worth more than $3-million in revenue for the company. However, it is unclear when, or if, the deal will go ahead.

Outside yesterday's meeting, Mr. Dosanjh said he'd like to see government funding for an independent study to look at the risks to those hit by tasers.

When he was B.C. attorney-general in the late 1990s, Mr. Dosanjh said, he was under the impression that, when the device first came to the province, it would be used only as the second-last option before firearms and used only sparingly.

Asked whether, knowing what he knows about the devices today, he would have had a different reaction to the introduction of tasers in B.C., Mr. Dosanjh said he's not inclined to take the weapons away from police officers outright. Still, he said, his reaction to their introduction may have been very different.

"There's definitely a question mark," he said.

Taser president denies weapons cause death

January 30, 2008
Meagan Fitzpatrick, Canwest News

OTTAWA - The president of Taser International Inc., fiercely defended his products on Parliament Hill on Wednesday, saying the devices reduce injury and save the lives of police officers and suspects around the world.

Tom Smith was on the hot seat at the House of Commons public safety committee, taking questions from MPs and making a case for Tasers, the brandname for conducted energy devices used by police forces across the country and the RCMP.

"My brother and I started our company with the mission of protecting life. That remains our mission today," said Smith.

Taser International Inc. president Tom Smith says there are less than 30 cases where Tasers have been listed as a contributing factor in a death. He referred to a binder beside him containing more than 120 studies that he says prove Tasers do not cause death and that his company has its own medical advisory board to help answer questions about safety.

"We have world class experts helping us conduct the studies and the research so that we can answer those questions so that we know, and take corporate responsibility, for knowing what we're going to introduce before it hits into the marketplace," Smith said.

He outlined how the Taser works and said the voltage that actually enters the body is very low. "I think some people are surprised to learn that the energy source for the Taser, the batteries that power it are the same batteries that are in most digital cameras," he said.

Smith said there are less than 30 cases where Tasers have been listed as a contributing factor in a death, meaning it was listed along with other devices. "But that is completely different than saying that a Taser caused a certain outcome," he said.

He said Tasers are used by more than 12,000 law enforcement agencies worldwide and that everywhere they've been used they've helped reduce the number of injuries to officers and suspects.

The company president acknowledged that his company has twice paid Canadian police officers - once to conduct Taser training on his own time in Europe and the other was paid to design a holster for the device.

The safety and use of Tasers by police dominated headlines in the fall after a Polish immigrant died at the Vancouver airport following an encounter with the RCMP in which a Taser was used. The incident was caught on video and viewed online around the world. Several investigations are underway into the death, which set off a national debate about the devices.

The RCMP later promised to curb the use of Tasers following an interim report by Paul Kennedy, the head of the watchdog Commission for Complaints Against the RCMP. The RCMP appeared to agree with Kennedy's recommendation to restrict Tasers to situations where suspects are combative or risk seriously injuring themselves or others. The force policy now dictates Tasers may be used only on people who show "active resistant behaviour and higher categories of behaviour, e.g. combative or death, grievous bodily harm." The RCMP has 2,840 conducted-energy weapons in its arsenal.

Doubts linger over business ties of taser's champion in Canada - Victoria police officer Darren Laur

December 11, 2007
OMAR EL-AKKAD and JESSICA LEEDER AND CAROLINE ALPHONSO, The Globe and Mail

B.C. sergeant who shaped police views about weapon had stock options in its U.S. maker

Perhaps no one is more responsible for tasers coming to Canada than Darren Laur. The veteran Victoria police officer played a pivotal role in a 1998 pilot program that led to his force adopting the weapons permanently. A subsequent research paper he wrote - which concluded that tasers were safe and effective - laid the groundwork for the devices' spread to police departments across the country.

But questions linger about his motivations. Sgt. Laur has received several payments from Taser International since 1999, documents show, including expenses to travel to its training courses and to train two U.S. police forces to use tasers. In 2001, a private company that Sgt. Laur co-owns with his wife designed a holstering system for Taser, which paid the couple by issuing them 775 stock options days after Taser International went public.

The Globe and Mail's investigation reveals Sgt. Laur's financial dealings with Taser International recently caused his own police department to recommend that officers be prohibited from business relationships with outside weapons manufacturers. The British Columbia police complaint commissioner also concluded that Sgt. Laur should not have been selected to conduct a high-profile 2004 review of tasers, one that advocates use of the weapon and that the company itself often cites.

Despite this, there has never been a comprehensive review of Sgt. Laur's early influence on the myriad of Canadian pro-taser studies, including a highly lauded review from the Canadian Police Research Centre.

In December, 1998, the Victoria police became the first in Canada to launch a six-month pilot program to test stun-gun technology on patrol. This caught the attention of police departments across Canada. At the time, Sgt. Laur was the department's top use-of-force expert, and he was the first Canadian officer to travel on Taser's expense to its Arizona headquarters to be trained as what the company calls a "master instructor."

After the pilot program ended in the summer of 1999, Victoria police decided to add tasers to their toolkit, and a report by Sgt. Laur was circulated to police departments nationwide.

"I have been inundated with phone calls from Canadian police departments and correctional agencies wanting information on the TASER and the results of our study," Sgt. Laur wrote in the report. "As I predicted, the floodgates in Canada for the use of TASER technology have opened up."

Victoria's self-described success with the weapon seemed to prompt other departments to launch pilot projects. At the end of 2000, forces in Edmonton, Ottawa and Toronto were all testing tasers.

By then, Sgt. Laur was also being paid to train some U.S. police forces on behalf of Taser International.

Neither Sgt. Laur nor Taser International responded to requests for comment yesterday.

Victoria police documents show that in April, 2000, the Laurs' private company was retained by the Jackson County sheriff's department "to provide training in TASER's weapons system." Taser paid for Sgt. Laur to make the trip. In 2001, Sgt. Laur's company designed a "holstering system" for the M26 Taser. In exchange for the design rights, the company issued 775 stock options, worth about $5,000. Sgt. Laur sold the shares on Nov. 7, 2003, when the stock traded at between $5.04 and $5.39.

The public wouldn't learn of Sgt. Laur's investment until 2005, when the officer was asked to conduct an impartial review of tasers after a Vancouver man, Robert Bagnell, was shot a year earlier with the weapon and soon died. Four days before his 45th birthday, police found Mr. Bagnell behaving erratically at a Vancouver residential hotel. He was high on cocaine and had barricaded himself in a bathroom on the fifth floor. They tasered the struggling man. His heart stopped.

After Mr. Bagnell's death, the B.C. office of the police complaint commissioner ordered two investigations. One was an examination of taser use in B.C. The investigating team - which included Sgt. Laur - issued two reports, both of which advocated the future use of stun guns.

The first report in September, 2004, made no mention of Sgt. Laur's financial dealings with Taser International. However, in the ensuing months, Bagnell family lawyer Cameron Ward learned about Sgt. Laur's investments and raised the issue with the Vancouver police and the police complaint commissioner.

When the final report was issued four months later, it included a disclaimer on its final page: "Darren Laur held stock in TASER International and provided training to two external agencies at the request of those agencies."

In an interview yesterday, B.C. police complaint commissioner Dirk Ryneveld said he didn't know about Sgt. Laur's stock options when he was assigned to the review. "I probably would have preferred that no one who had any relationship with Taser [be involved]," Mr. Ryneveld said. He added that any conflict of interest was "perceived" and not actual, and didn't undermine the validity of the report.

U.S. court documents show Sgt. Laur and five other U.S. police officers - most of whom promoted Taser's products or urged their cities to buy them - got stock options between 2001 and 2003.

The revelations in 2005 about Sgt. Laur's financial relationship with Taser led Mr. Bagnell's sister, Patti Gillman, to log a formal complaint with the police complaints commissioner. That sparked Victoria police to launch an internal investigation into whether Sgt. Laur had violated the force's conflict-of-interest policy.

"I do consider Sgt. Laur to have been in an apparent and perceived conflict of interest by reason of having held a financial interest in TASER through his stock options," the investigator, Inspector Cory Bond, wrote in her report. Insp. Bond concluded that Sgt. Laur did not specifically violate the conflict-of-interest policy at the time, because the force had no procedure for conflict-of-interest disclosure.

Insp. Bond recommended that the force review its policy and develop specific restrictions on relationships with weapons manufacturers. "Such an interest might be seen to influence or impair police officers in the exercise of their duties," she wrote.

Victoria police officer Darren Laur's "apparent or perceived" conflict of interest

In August 2005, I lodged a complaint with the British Columbia Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC) to iterate my concern that, while engaged in permanent full-time employment as a peace officer with the Victoria Police Department, Sgt. Darren Laur was also employed by, and accepted financial benefits from, Taser International and that his acceptance of financial benefits from that company placed him in a conflict of interest. It was my belief that this conflict of interest compromised Sgt. Laur's participation in the "Taser Technology Review" and an external investigation into the circumstances of my brother's death, both commissioned by the OPCC.

On September 24, 2005, Robert Anglen - a reporter for The Arizona Republic - published an article entitled "Taser defends giving stock options to police." Mr. Anglen wrote: "Another officer who received Taser stock options is Darren Laur of the Victoria, British Columbia, Police Department. Laur has been a staunch advocate for Taser for years and helped write a report in 1999 that helped usher Tasers into Canada. According to court documents, Laur was given 750 stock options in 2001 for helping to design a holster for the Taser. Taser said he sold the options in 2003. In his deposition, Taser President Tom Smith said he did not believe any of the options granted to police officers represented a conflict."

On October 5, 2005, Victoria Chief Constable Paul Battershill clearly identified this issue as a public trust issue in a presentation to the Canadian Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement National Conference. During his presentation, Chief Battershill noted that "Conflict of interest is now arising with police use of force people who privately contract. Ethics combined with declaration of conflicts. (Kerek [sic], Laur, etc.) This is going to get problematic unless very clear conflict guidelines are followed."

On October 6, 2005, Chief Constable Battershill wrote to advise me that my complaint did not disclose a recognized Public Trust; Service and Policy; or Internal Discipline default. To which I and lawyer Cameron Ward responded that Sgt. Laur committed a Public Trust default, and possibly a Service and Policy default, by placing himself in such a conflict of interest, and that Chief Battershill was obligated to characterize this complaint. We requested that the investigation proceed without further delay. Another letter from the Victoria Police Department confirmed that their position remained unchanged and my complaint was referred back to the OPCC for consideration and decision.

On January 9, 2006, the OPCC formally characterized my complaint as a "compound complaint" with both Public Trust and Service and Policy components and advised all parties, including Darren Laur, Chief Constable Paul Battershill and Mayor Alan Lowe (Chair of the Victoria Police Board). An investigation began.

Because Chief Constable Battershill was considered a "witness" in the investigation, Chief Constable Paul Shrive of the Port Moody Policy Department was named Discipline Authority for the complaint, with a mandate to review the final report and determine a course of action to follow.

On June 12, 2007, almost two years after the complaint was lodged, I received a letter from Alan Lowe, Chair of the Victoria Police Board, who said that the Board reviewed my complaint pertaining to the Service and Policy component and determined that the current policy did not adequately address current conflict of interest issues, nor did it meet public expectations of conflict of interest guidelines and disclosure processes. As a result, "significant recommendations to the Victoria Police Department Conflict of Interest policy were made that reflect the serious manner with which we consider the issue."

On July 3, 2007, I received a letter from Chief Constable Paul Shrive who found that no Public Trust complaint against Sgt. Laur was substantiated. He did, however, say that there was an apparent or perceived, but not an "actual" (what the hell's the difference?) conflict of interest given Sgt. Laur's past association with Taser International and he agreed that, in the circumstances, Sgt. Laur ought not to have been selected to participate in the Taser Technology Review.

He further expressed his view that, while it was beyond the ambit of his delegation, this matter was of great significance and should be addressed promptly. And while the inspector in charge of the investigation recommended that the Victoria Police Department or Chief Constable Battershill acknowledge to me and the public that Sgt. Laur was in a position of apparent or perceived conflict of interest and ought not to have been selected to participate in the Taser Technology Review, he found that this also fell outside the ambit of his delegation and said he must leave that matter to the discretion of the Victoria Police Department and Chief Constable Battershill. (To the best of my knowledge, neither Chief Constable Battershill nor his department has ever acknowledged this publicly. You read it here first.)

On July 6, 2007, Chief Constable Battershill sent copies of the Executive Summaries of the complaint investigation to me. In his covering letter, he agreed with the determination that Sgt. Laur was in a position of apparent or perceived, but not an "actual" (again, I fail to see the difference) conflict of interest and that in retrospect Sgt. Laur ought not to have participated in the Taser Technology Review. However, he felt it was "evident" that the perceived or apparent conflict of interest posed by Sgt Laur's previous dealings or associations with Taser International did not compromise the Taser Technology Review or the investigation into my brother's death. He noted current standards of public expectation with conflict of interest issues associated to public bodies, and where it is a reasonable expectation to not have had Sgt. Laur's participation.

Finally, he said that the implementation of policy change based on the recommendations from the Victoria Police Board would bring forward a consistency with public expectations on the issue of conflict of interest which police in general have not adequately addressed.

In a final letter from the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, the Deputy Police Complaint Commissioner wrote that one of the recommendations from the investigation was that the OPCC recommend that consideration be given to amending the BC Police Act to include a section dealing with conflicts of interest. He noted that the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Public Safety is currently undertaking a review of the Police Act and that separate correspondence would be forwarded to them with respect to this issue.

He noted that it was his view that the issues involving police officers and conflict of interest have not been previously or adequately dealt with and the types of policy changes seen as a result of this investigation are worthy of other police departments to take note of. He concluded by saying that this topic was placed on the agenda of the Canadian Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement National Conference.

As I noted earlier, Taser President Tom Smith did not believe any of the options granted to police officers represented a conflict. It would seem that not everyone agrees.

ANATOMY OF A DEATH PROXIMAL TO TASERS

After the Vancouver police department disclosed to the media, a full month after my brother died, that Tasers had been used on him, the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered an investigation into the use of tasers by police. The reason for this was the "delay in disclosure of the use of the taser to both the family and the public which created an adverse perception by the public of the ability of the Vancouver police department to conduct an impartial investigation."

The Chief of Police of the Victoria Police Department, the police department responsible for quietly bringing tasers into Canada in the first place, was mandated with thoroughly investigating the circumstances surrounding my brother's death. He was also asked to undertake a review of use of force protocols in place at that time and make such interim recommendations as he deemed appropriate for the use of tasers by police officers in British Columbia.

To be continued ...

A Shocking Defense

October 31, 2005
Elizabeth MacDonald, Forbes

New court documents contain awkward disclosures for the president of stun gun maker Taser International.

Taser International, The Under-siege stun gun maker whose stock soared sixtyfold in three years only to plunge 80% amid short-seller raids, shareholder class actions and wrongful- death lawsuits, has had another shock to the system.

Newly unsealed court documents in a personal injury case against Taser have President Thomas Smith detailing which current and former cops got stock options in Taser in exchange for essentially endorsing its line of guns, which temporarily paralyze suspects with a blast of electrical currents.

The options controversy first erupted in 2004, when President George W. Bush picked Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, to run the Homeland Security Department. It then emerged that Taser had paid Kerik 85,000 options to join its board. Kerik says he promoted the gun to law enforcement and made more than $6 million on the options. Taser had repeatedly refused to disclose which other cops got the stock incentives.

But in September an Arizona state court judge unsealed records in a lawsuit filed by SECInsight, a research firm in Plymouth, Minn., And the Arizona Republicnewspaper. The records show Taser handed out almost 30,000 stock options to 11 people from 2001 to 2003, when Taser shares ranged from a low of 31 cents to a high of $8. The options, valued at $210,000 when they were issued, would have risen in value as Taser shares climbed as high as $33 by December 2004.

Seven of the 11 recipients are current and former police officers: All were in cities that bought stun guns.In Seattle, Wash. and Chandler and Glendale, Ariz. police departments bought Tasers during the options handouts. In Sacramento, Calif., New York City and Austin, Tex. departments had bought the stun guns before the cops got involved. The officers could not be reached for comment. Victoria, B.C. also bought Tasers.

Five of the cops served on a Taser advisory board on training police departments nationwide to use the stun gun, resulting in some sales. One officer in Chandler was accused by his superiors of a conflict of interest; the complaint was dropped. Still, "How can it not be a conflict of interest for Taser to use options as payola to police officers or medical experts, who then plug the company's product?" says John Gavin, president of SEC Insight.

The disclosures are another annoyance for Taser, of Scottsdale, Ariz., which also contends with an accounting investigation by the Securities & Exchange Commission, two class actions and 32 personal-injury torts, 13 of which allege wrongful deaths.

The latest court filings also show Taser gave 775 stock options to Darren Laur, a Victoria law enforcement official, for designing a gun holster. Laur co-wrote two medical reports praising the safety of the stun gun. Taser touts both reports on its Web site without revealing that Laur held options. Laur, who exercised and sold his options in 2003, says he made his superiors aware of his holdings and made the disclosure in a separate study.

Smith defends the options payments, saying Taser "didn't have the cash flow needed to pay these officers to do free training work." He also admitted in court that he didn't know whether Taser has a code of ethics or what it says. For that he need only read the Taser Web site:It says all employees are expected to read, understand and uphold the ethics policy and "avoid situations where a conflict of interest might occur."

Taser defends giving stock options to police

September 24, 2005
Robert Anglen, The Arizona Republic

Taser International gave potentially lucrative stock options to six police officers from 2001 to 2003, most of whom promoted Taser's stun guns and, in some cases, urged their cities to buy them.

Court documents released this week show that officers in Arizona, California, Washington, Texas, and Canada received thousands of company stock options, some only weeks after urging police commanders or city officials to purchase Tasers.

Four of the six officers are now employed by Scottsdale-based Taser International, which is facing state and federal inquiries over the safety of its stun gun and the weapon's involvement in deaths across the country. advertisement

The stock options, as well as payments to other officers for Taser training, have sparked concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Critics say Taser paid officers to influence cities to get them to purchase the stun guns.

"We've raised concerns about Taser's options-granting practices since this past January," stock analyst John Gavin of SEC Insight wrote in a report to investors this week.

Other critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say payments to police officers have created a conflict of interest, with officers promoting the stun gun and repeating Taser's assurances of safety while minimizing risks.

Taser officials issued a news release Thursday defending the police officers and denying any conflict.

"The officers on our (training) board were involved in training operations at their respective departments - not the purchasing departments," Taser Chief Executive Officer Rick Smith said in the news release. "They followed all relevant conflict-of-interest regulations at their departments, and the grant of stock options did not violate Taser's code of ethics nor industry norms."

The information concerning the stock options was released this week after Taser lost a legal challenge to seal documents from a lawsuit against Taser filed in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Taser asked the court to keep confidential the deposition of company President Tom Smith, arguing that his answers about who received stock options was proprietary. The Arizona Republic and SEC Insight both filed motions to keep the records open, arguing that information about Taser is vital to the public's interest.

The court agreed, and Taser did not appeal.

According to Republic research, medical examiners in 18 cases have said Tasers were a cause, a contributing factor or could not be ruled out in someone's death.

The newly released documents for the first time reveal who outside the company received stock options.

The six active-duty officers who received options were from police departments in Chandler and Glendale, Seattle, Sacramento, Austin and Victoria, British Columbia. Records show all but the Austin officer promoted the effectiveness of the weapons and some urged their cities to purchase them.

Five other individuals also were issued stock options: a retired New York police officer; a former United Airlines employee; Taser's current medical director; a lawyer who did patent work for Taser, and his assistant. New York, Austin and United Airlines purchased Tasers, but it's unclear if the employees played a role in the decision.

The options could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on when they were exercised and sold.

The 11 individuals received a total of 27,671 options. It is not known when each person exercised and sold his options.

In its news release, Taser defends giving options to officers. Rick Smith says the officers were not being rewarded but being compensated for serving on Taser's Master Instructor Training Board, which advises Taser on law enforcement training programs.

"It should be noted that none of the board members were in a position to approve product purchases," Smith said. "Every one of their agencies had already purchased and deployed Taser devices prior to their joining our advisory training board."

Public records show that one of the officers, former Chandler police Officer Jim Halsted, received 500 stock options a year before he urged the City Council to spend $193,000 on Tasers. Halsted, now a regional sales manager for Taser, was later investigated by the city for conflict-of-interest violations and cleared of any wrongdoing.

On March 27, 2003, Halsted made a presentation to the Chandler City Council in which he stressed the importance of buying Tasers and encouraged officials to act that night. Contacted at his office Friday, Halsted declined to comment.

Former Seattle police Officer Steve Ward, who now works for Taser, was issued stock options on Jan. 1, 2001, almost a year before Taser created its training board. In September 2000, Ward co-authored a report that advocated arming officers with Tasers.

Another officer who received Taser stock options is Darren Laur of the Victoria, British Columbia, Police Department. Laur has been a staunch advocate for Taser for years and helped write a report in 1999 that helped usher Tasers into Canada.

According to court documents, Laur was given 750 stock options in 2001 for helping to design a holster for the Taser. Taser said he sold the options in 2003.

"In my view there is an appearance of a conflict of interest, or at least the perception of a conflict," Canadian lawyer Cameron Ward said. Ward represents the family of Robert Bagnell, who died in June 2004 after officers shocked him with a Taser.

In his deposition, Taser President Tom Smith said he did not believe any of the options granted to police officers represented a conflict.

Taser International discusses role of Master Instructor Training Board

September 22, 2005
Taser International via PRNewswire

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Sept 22, 2005 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq: TASR), a market leader in advanced electronic control devices released the following statement relating to the compensation of consultants to the Company including its Master Instructor Training Board:

The company was advised that the Arizona Republic, a Gannet Newspaper, intends to run a negative story regarding the fact that during the period from 2000 through 2003, the Company granted stock options to 11 persons who were not employees or directors of TASER International. The 11 persons included our medical director, a non-employee salesperson, two individuals who provided legal services to the Company, a police officer who designed a holster for the Company's product, and six members of our Master Instructor Training Board. In total, the 11 individuals received stock options on 27,671 shares of TASER International stock. The stock options had a strike price equal to the Company's share price on the date of issue and as such did not have any "in the money value" at the time of grant.

The Master Instructor Training Board was created to oversee and advise the Company in relation to law enforcement training programs and included four active duty police officers, one retired police officer and a representative from the aviation industry.

The participants were chosen as respected experts in police and security training. It should be noted that none of the board members were in a position to approve product purchases AND every one of their agencies had already purchased and deployed TASER devices prior to their joining our advisory training board.

The company addressed the issue of these stock options on CNBC's Kudlow and Cramer and released generic information to the New York Times and other media in the first quarter of 2005. The company did not release individual names at that time out of respect for the privacy of the consultants involved. However, the Arizona Republic was able to gain access to previously private court records and intends to release the information regardless of individuals' privacy rights. Accordingly, TASER International has elected to issue this clarifying information to help ensure a more accurate representation of the facts.

According to an industry survey from advisory consulting experts at BoardSeat.com -- a consulting group in the area of creating and compensating advisory boards, TASER International followed an industry standard that over 70% of start up ventures use to compensate advisors -- stock options. Stock options have been and continue to be important compensation tools for start up ventures that have limited cash resources -- a description that certainly fit TASER International during the time period in question. The following information is from BoardSeat.com:

Regarding the purpose of advisory boards: "An advisory board is a group
of industry executives and professionals that is appointed by a company
for the purpose of offering advice and support on a wide range of issues
that are relevant to the organization."

Regarding Compensation: "Advisors should be paid for their time. The
optimum method of payment in many cases is with stock options or
warrants."

Regarding Amount of Compensation: "As companies mature and become larger
they tend to pay a smaller percentage of equity to their advisory board
members. Companies that had raised less than $10 million pay their
advisors, on average, 0.043% per annum... Companies that had raised more
than $50 million pay their advisors, on average, 0.013% per annum."

Regarding the compensation of the TASER Training Board, the members received stock options on an aggregate total of 5,500 shares. This equates to an average of options on 917 shares of TASER stock per member of the training board. The fully diluted share count of TASER International at the end of 2002 was over 4.7 million shares. Hence, the average total of 306 shares per year represented 0.0065% of company equity. This is far below the per annum averages reported for similar venture capital backed companies in the boardSeat.com report.

As you can see from above, we strongly believe our Training Board is consistent with industry standards for similar advisory boards created by the majority of surveyed venture backed companies, albeit our compensation was far lower.

Regarding the officer who received stock options in lieu of cash for the purchase of a holster design, an officer in Victoria Canada received options on 775 shares of stock in May, 2001. Because the options were granted at the market price, the options had no value to the officer at the time of grant. He sold his options in 2003.

"I am personally incensed that the Arizona Republic plans to target TASER International with yet another biased report, alleging misconduct where none exists," said Rick Smith, CEO of TASER International. "Advisory boards are a prevalent and valuable resource in the business world, and their compensation predominantly includes stock options as is well documented in the area of startup ventures. The officers on our board were involved in training operations at their respective departments -- not the purchasing departments. They followed all relevant conflict-of-interest regulations at their departments and the grant of stock options did not violate TASER's Code of Ethics nor industry norms. The advisory board was established specifically to provide un-biased industry guidance in developing our training programs. It is an insult to these individuals and the law enforcement sector in general to insinuate these officers sold-out their ethics by helping us to develop better training and better equipment. It is especially insulting when the amounts in question amount to options on average of a few hundred shares of stock per year."

"I look forward with great interest to the Arizona Republic's story on this topic, especially in light of the history of biased and misleading reporting that have become the topic of litigation between TASER International and Gannet," concluded Mr. Smith.

About TASER International, Inc.

TASER International, Inc. provides advanced electronic control devices for use in the law enforcement, military, private security and personal defense markets. TASER devices use proprietary technology to safely incapacitate dangerous, combative or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves. TASER technology saves lives every day, and the use of TASER devices dramatically reduces injury rates for officers and suspects. For more information on TASER life-saving technology, please call TASER International at (800) 978-2737 or visit our website at www.TASER.com.

Note to Investors

This press release contains forward-looking information within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of the 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and is subject to the safe harbor created by those sections. The forward-looking information is based upon current information and expectations regarding TASER International. These estimates and statements speak only as of the date on which they are made, are not guarantees of future performance, and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results could materially differ from what is expressed, implied, or forecasted in such forward-looking statements.

TASER International assumes no obligation to update the information contained in this press release. TASER International's future results may be impacted by risks associated with rapid technological change, new product introductions, new technological developments and implementations, execution issues associated with new technology, ramping manufacturing production to meet demand, litigation including lawsuits resulting from alleged product related injuries, media publicity concerning allegations of deaths occurring after use of the TASER device and the negative impact this could have on sales, product quality, implementation of manufacturing automation, potential fluctuations in quarterly operating results, adjustments to these amounts which may be reflected in our 10Q filing, competition, financial and budgetary constraints of prospects and customers, international order delays, dependence upon sole and limited source suppliers, negative reports concerning TASER device uses, governmental inquiries and investigations, medical and safety studies, fluctuations in component pricing, government regulations, variation among law enforcement agencies with their TASER product experience, TASER device tests and reports, dependence upon key employees, and our ability to retain employees. TASER International's future results may also be impacted by other risk factors listed from time to time in its SEC filings, including, but not limited to, the Company's Form 10-QSBs and its Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

The statements made herein are independent statements of TASER International. The inclusion of any third parties does not represent an endorsement of any TASER International products or services by any such third parties.

Visit the company's web-site at www.TASER.com for facts and video.

SOURCE TASER International, Inc.

Steve Tuttle, Vice President of Communications of TASER International, Inc.,
Media ONLY Hotline, +1-480-444-4000

Special Report: stun gun fallacy - how the lack of taser regulation endangers lives

September 2005
ACLU of Northern California

Stun Gun Maker Gave Stock Options to Active-Duty Cops Moonlighting As Master Trainers

March 18, 2005
Beth DeFalco, Associated Press

By Beth DeFalco, AP

CHANDLER, Ariz. - Taser International Inc. openly credits its use of active-duty police officers as trainers as a major ingredient in the company's meteoric rise to become the No. 1 seller of stun guns.

And like a lot of other cash-strapped startups, early on Taser offered some of those officers stock options as an incentive.

But with the Scottsdale-based company now under state and federal investigation over safety claims and accounting issues, questions have arisen about whether the officers' moonlighting represented a conflict of interest, particularly when their own departments were buying stun guns.

Jim Halsted is one example.

Halsted was a police sergeant in this town southeast of Phoenix when the police chief tapped him to make a presentation to the city council on March 27, 2003.

During the meeting, and as Taser's president looked on, Halsted touted the benefits of arming Chandler's entire patrol squad with Taser stun guns.

"No deaths are attributed to the (Taser model) M26 at all. That's absolutely incredible," Halsted is seen saying in a video of the presentation. "We put a Band-Aid on that person. There is no injury."

The council approved the $193,000 purchase of an additional 300 Taser guns and related equipment that same day, adding to a small number of stun guns it had already bought.

At the time, Halsted was one of four active-duty police officers granted stock options for serving on Taser's Master Instructor Board, which oversees Taser training programs.

In May, after 17 1/2 years with the Chandler police, Halsted quit to become Taser's Southwest regional sales manager.

A city councilwoman who set in motion a conflict-of-interest investigation the day after Halsted's sales pitch said it wasn't clear to her from the presentation that he got a paycheck from the company. And Halsted never mentioned the stock options to the acting police chief or when he went before the council.

The inquiry ultimately found that Halsted hadn't violated any conflict of interest laws. But just because no laws were broken doesn't mean Halsted acted ethically, said Marianne Jennings, a business ethics professor at Arizona State University.

Chandler's City Council should have known about the stock options, she said. "They might have made the same decision anyway, but they deserved to know."

Halsted told The Associated Press that he wasn't trying to hide anything: "They knew I was compensated as a trainer," he said of the City Council. "I clearly stated it (during the meeting) because I didn't want there to be any controversy or question. The extent of the compensation was irrelevant."

The investigation looked into Halsted's holdings and found that at the time of the presentation, his wife and children owned 462 shares of Taser stock. After three stock splits, those shares are now worth more than $70,000.

Halsted had also personally been granted options for 750 shares of Taser stock. After the splits, that stock would have been worth about $300,000 when Taser shares were trading at their 52-week high of $33.45 on Dec. 30. The stock now trades around $13 a share.

Taser had also given Halsted a five-day trip for two to Hawaii valued at $3,770 as a reward for training more officers to become Taser instructors than anyone else in 2001.

Taser defends the use of off-duty police officers as trainers, noting that police are allowed to moonlight for security companies and other private corporations as long as they follow their department's disclosure rules.

"Utilizing off-duty law enforcement officers to train other officers is standard industry practice," said Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle. He mentioned Armor Holdings _ which makes police batons and body armor _ as a company that also uses off-duty police as trainers.

But Taser is unique in that it pretty much has a lock on the stun gun market.

Since Taser began marketing police stun guns in 1998 as a way to subdue combative people in high-risk situations, more than 7,000 law enforcement agencies worldwide as well as the U.S. military have bought them.

But the safety of the weapons, which shoot darts 25 feet that deliver 50,000-volt jolts for about 5 seconds, has increasingly been questioned. According to Amnesty International, some 93 people have died after being shocked with the weapons, which can also be used like cattle prods.

In recent weeks, after several deaths that followed Taser shocks, some police departments have suspended Taser use to re-examine guidelines on their handling and/or await better data on health risks.

Tuttle says the company has roughly 300 "Master Instructors" worldwide who train other officers to become instructors and who conduct demonstrations at interested police departments. He said Taser pays about 35 of them on a per-session basis.

Tuttle said the company has not granted stock options to training board members since 2003. Citing privacy concerns, Taser declined to identify the other active-duty officers who were granted stock options.

Halsted isn't the only master instructor to leave his department and join Taser after accusations of a possible conflict of interest.

Sgt. Ron Bellendier quit the Minneapolis police department _ he's now Midwest regional sales manager for Taser _ in December after questions surfaced about his relationship to Taser.

Bellendier was the point man on Tasers for his department, which said he was involved in stun gun purchasing decisions even as he worked for Taser as a master instructor.

Bellendier told the AP that his decision to leave the department had nothing to do with the Taser flap, and that he submitted retirement paperwork before the controversy.

"I was only being paid when I instructed other officers," Bellendier told The AP. "It wouldn't have mattered if the department bought 5,000 Tasers, I wouldn't have gotten anything out of it."

Other master instructors, including several who served on the training board, have gone on to work for Taser in officer training and sales positions.

Taser has said that a total of 11 "consultants," which include master instructors and members of the training board, were granted stock options as part of their compensation package.

In addition to Halsted and Bellendier, former Sacramento police SWAT team member Sgt. Rick Guilbault went to work as Taser's director of training.

Guilbault served on the master instructor board with Halsted, although it is unclear whether he also received stock options. He did not return calls seeking comment and Taser would not disclose whether he was offered the options.

Louie Marquez, a retired Austin, Texas, police officer is a master instructor. Marquez said he still serves on the board but declined to answer questions about stock options.

Stun-gun maker hires police to tout weapon

February 21, 2005
Alan Gathright, San Francisco Chronicle

The maker of a police stun gun associated with the deaths of 93 people, including several in Northern California, has hired hundreds of officers to peddle the electroshock device to law enforcement agencies in the Bay Area and across the nation.

Critics question whether Taser International's 263 police consultants, dubbed "master instructors,'' are making it clear to law enforcement agencies that they are working for the stun-gun maker or giving the impression that they represent their departments. Two months ago, a Minnesota officer quit after superiors found he had been moonlighting for Taser without their approval.

"When a police department contacts one of these master instructors for information or a demonstration, do they identify themselves as someone who's been paid by Taser International?" asked John Crew, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. "The potential conflict of interest is huge.''

The Arizona-based stun-gun maker has been promoting Taser as a lifesaving device despite a growing concern among law enforcement officials and calls from human rights groups for a stun-gun moratorium. The International Association of Chiefs of Police plans to call for a review of Taser-related deaths and to advise its members to examine how stun guns are used. Tasers fire metal barbs that emit a five-second, 50,000-volt charge into the suspect.

Taser acknowledges using active-duty officers to promote its stun guns, a practice it says has helped drive sales.

The company noted in its latest annual report that the master instructors' "training sessions have led directly to the sale of Tasers to a number of police departments.''

Taser also has signed up about 1,000 police officers to provide a one- hour in-home training course to people who purchase a civilian stun-gun model, which the firm began marketing last fall.

Since it began marketing the police stun gun in 1999, Taser has sold the devices to more than 6,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, including about 80 percent of California's 636 agencies.

More than a dozen Bay Area law enforcement agencies use Tasers, including those in San Jose, Fremont and Vallejo, and others are weighing purchases.

The San Francisco, Newark and Palo Alto agencies are holding off on their use until independent research resolves safety concerns.

Since August, six people have died in Northern California after being jolted by police stun guns. The victims include an emotionally disturbed Pacifica man whose family said he was shocked repeatedly and an unarmed Vallejo car-theft suspect zapped as he climbed a fence.

Taser and law enforcement officials say businesses often hire officers with special training skills to give demonstrations for everything from pepper spray to riot shields. But most police departments require officers to gain approval for outside jobs and consult on their own time, out of uniform, and without claiming that their agency endorses a product.

Controversy erupted in late December when the Minneapolis Police Department's top Taser trainer quit while being investigated for his work for Taser without the required departmental approval.

Sgt. Ron Bellendier, who had touted Taser's safety while demonstrating the weapon on national television a month earlier, quickly had a new job: Midwest regional manager for Taser International, which called the ex-officer a man of high integrity and "a real straight shooter,'' according to Minneapolis TV station WCCO.

In the Bay Area, Sacramento police SWAT team member Sgt. Rick Guilbault began moonlighting for Taser in 2002 after developing his department's stun- gun training program. Guilbault said he did off-duty training for the San Francisco Sheriff's Department and Rohnert Park Police Department, among others, and taught regional seminars to training officers from Bay Area departments.

Guilbault, who said his department approved of his work for Taser, also served on Taser's police training board for a year before leaving the Sacramento agency last April to become the firm's full-time director of training.

The training board drew headlines last month when Taser President Tom Smith disclosed that four active-duty police officers on the panel received lucrative stock options.

Taser refuses to identify paid police consultants or the agencies where they work, citing their privacy rights.

"We do require that our consultant instructors notify their respective agencies and ensure that they comply with any department policies regarding off-duty work,'' said Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for Taser.

Guilbault declined to say if he obtained Taser stock options.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, recently sent a letter to Taser Chief Executive Officer Rick Smith demanding that the firm identify police consultants and disclose whether they are working for California law enforcement agencies or marketing stun guns to departments here.

"I believe that any and all potential conflicts of interest that might impact consideration of Taser International's weapons in California should be fully and immediately disclosed, not withheld,'' wrote Leno, chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Taser officials maintain that their stun gun lives up to the company motto -- "Saving Lives Every Day" -- by preventing attacks on police officers and incapacitating dangerous suspects without the need to use deadly force.

Although Amnesty International and other groups point to at least a dozen deaths in which coroners cited the Taser as a contributing cause, the company maintains that drug intoxication, heart disease or psychosis often kills suspects involved in altercations with police.

Many police officers and chiefs across the country credit the Taser with quickly subduing violent individuals while reducing injuries to officers, suspects and bystanders.

"I get a lot of calls from cops every day saying how this thing saved them or saved someone else from being hurt on the street," said Guilbault, now Taser's training chief.

Guilbault said he always disclosed to other police agencies that he was working for the company and wore a shirt emblazoned with Taser International, "because I'm there as a representative of Taser International, not my department.''

Robert Castelli, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said moonlighting police consultants have benefits and drawbacks.

"There is an upside to having an active police trainer doing this, because you want the best people to train other police officers to do what they have to do to save their lives,'' said Castelli, a former New York State Police training supervisor who now teaches police use of force. "Where I kind of cringe is the idea that the officers are operating on a contract basis for a private company.''

Newark Police Chief Ray Samuels said he didn't care that a Portland police training officer was working for Taser when he gave a stun-gun demonstration to the Newark agency in September. "I presumed that there was a financial relationship" between the officer and Taser, Samuels said.

"I appreciated that he was a working police officer who could answer questions, not as a salesman but as someone who has practical experience in the deployment of the device,'' Samuels said.

Yet Samuels said he decided not to buy Tasers, because there is not enough independent research to ease his concerns about whether stun guns can accidentally kill.

"I'm not willing to run the risk of an unintended death under any circumstances," he said.

"At this point, I don't feel we have enough impartial and scientific information.''


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHOCKING FORCE
Taser International Inc. has sold its Taser stun guns to more than 6,000 police agencies amid growing concern about the safety of the weapon and whether it is proper for the company to hire officers to promote the device to other law enforcement agencies..

A Taser’s electrical current overrides the target’s central nervous system for five seconds, temporarily paralyzing him

- Probes hook wires to target’s skin or clothing

- Dataport stores date and time of Taser firing

- ID tags ejected like confetti when fired; printed with the serial number

- Insulated wires transmit 50,000 volts of electricity through up to two inches of clothing

- Disposable cartridge uses compressed nitrogen to launch probes up to 21 feet.

- Batteries – older models use eight AA batteries, newer models are rechargeable Sources: Amnesty International; Taser International Associated Press

Excited Delirium and its Correlation to Sudden and Unexpected Death Proximal to Restraint

September 2004
Sgt. Darren Laur, former Taser Shareholder
Victoria Police Department

In an Arizona Republic article dated September 24, 2005, Robert Anglen wrote: "Another officer who received Taser stock options is Darren Laur of the Victoria, British Columbia, Police Department. Laur has been a staunch advocate for Taser for years and helped write a report in 1999 that helped usher Tasers into Canada.According to court documents, Laur was given 750 stock options in 2001 for helping to design a holster for the Taser. Taser said he sold the options in 2003."In my view there is an appearance of a conflict of interest, or at least the perception of a conflict," Canadian lawyer Cameron Ward said. Ward represents the family of Robert Bagnell, who died in June 2004 after officers shocked him with a Taser."