In March, a woman housed in the downtown Denver jail bit her arms and punched herself in the nose until she drew blood. The woman slid to the floor, kicking and biting, as deputies ordered her into a restraint chair. When the woman refused to cooperate, a deputy twice drove his Taser against her thigh and released 26 volts of electricity into her body.

Deputies then strapped the woman into a restraint chair and sedated her. An hour later, someone from the jail called a sign-language interpreter to come explain to the woman what had happened. The inmate was deaf.

Denver Sheriff Department deputies often rely on their Tasers to inflict pain to force inmates, some of whom are mentally ill, to comply with orders, The Denver Post found in a review of the 14 Taser cases so far this year. It’s a practice that goes against federal guidelines for stun guns and can be in violation of the department’s own use-of-force policy. The Post obtained the reports through a public records request.

The Post also found poor record-keeping on Taser use, making it difficult for the department to track who uses the weapons most often and under what circumstances — even as newly hired consultants and the public question its use-of-force practices. In fact, the department on Friday still could not say how many times in 2014 that deputies unholstered their Tasers without firing them as a show of force to intimidate inmates.

Deputies are required to file an official report every time a Taser is displayed, but the reports sit in filing cabinets, rarely to be seen or analyzed again.

The Post’s analysis also found:

• Deputies used their Tasers’ drive-stun mode, designed to inflict direct pain, in at least eight cases, instead of using the probe mode to incapacitate inmates from up to 15 feet.

• In at least six incidents, the inmate who was shocked had been experiencing a mental health episode, including instances of self-mutilation and suicidal behavior.

• No videos of the incidents are available because the sheriff’s department discards video after 30 days unless an internal affairs case has been opened.

The Post’s reporting on the department’s Taser use prompted Independent Monitor Nick Mitchell to open inquiries into several cases last week. Mitchell has been critical of the department’s use of stun guns and its record-keeping.

The sheriff’s department has been slow to adopt federal standards for Tasers, and its stun-gun policy has been a work-in-progress for years, despite public demands that it be changed. In a July memo, then-Sheriff Gary Wilson made it clear that drive-stun mode could not be used as a way to force compliance through pain, which is in line with federal guidelines. And he made it clear that more changes would be coming.

“There will be significant changes forthcoming regarding the use and training of the Taser,” he wrote.

Liability for actions

On Oct. 14, a federal jury awarded Marvin Booker’s family $4.65 million in the death of the inmate. Witnesses in the trial testified that a deputy yelled “Tase his a–!” before shocking the handcuffed and motionless Booker. He died in custody. The city acknowledged in court that the deputies were following department procedures, and it accepted liability for their actions.

In April, a Denver Sheriff Department sergeant was suspended for 10 days after a 2013 incident in which he ordered two deputies to fire their Tasers at a man sitting on a bench while on suicide watch.

Sgt. Ned St. Germain, the deputy who ordered the strike, refused to admit he had violated the department’s policy, saying, “I would have done this exact same thing again,” according to his disciplinary letter.

Mitchell has questioned the department’s use-of-force policy, including Tasers, on multiple occasions. In 2013, he took the then-safety manager to task for failing to discipline a deputy who shocked an inmate who was refusing to go to court.

Tasers, which can inflict serious injury, should be used only when inmates act aggressively or pose an immediate threat, Mitchell said in an interview, citing department policy.

“As I have reported to the public, I have been concerned by a number of cases involving the use of Tasers in Denver’s jails and have been working with the Denver Sheriff Department to ensure that the Taser usage and policy comply with U.S. Department of Justice standards,” he said.

Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said his organization urged the sheriff’s department to revise its Taser policy after Booker’s death. The ACLU of Colorado also recommended the department adopt the 2011 guidelines when they were released.

“We were talking to them about it then, and here we are three years later,” Silverstein said.

The department revised its Taser policy in April, and it clearly states in bold letters that “electronic control devices will not be used as a punishment, under any circumstances, or to effect compliance with verbal commands when there is no physical threat.”

But the updates did not include all of the recommendations set forth in the federal guidelines. This summer, a task force organized to review the department’s policies and procedures decided that the Taser policy was not clear and needed further revision.

Upon the task force’s recommendation, and with the approval of safety manager Stephanie O’Malley, Wilson issued the memo reiterating that Tasers can be used only when an inmate is acting aggressively.

In both probe and drive-stun mode — in which deputies jam the Taser directly onto a person’s body — a cycle is not supposed to last more than five seconds. But five seconds can seem like a long time when the Taser is crackling and a purple glow is dancing across its wires.

“It was the longest five seconds of my life,” said interim Sheriff Elias Diggins, who was once shocked during a training exercise.

Taser use

In July, Wilson’s memo made it clear that deputies can use drive-stun only as a countermeasure to separate themselves from an inmate during an attack or when they need it to complete a circuit with the probes.

In the eight cases in which drive-stun was used this year, no one used it for either of those reasons, according to department records.

Since Wilson’s memo was written, deputies have displayed their Tasers three times but did not fire them. Only one deputy has fired his Taser since mid-July, and that case did not happen inside a jail, city officials said.

Department officials would not comment on the incident because it is under investigation.

Since Wilson issued his memo, deputies have drawn their Tasers less often, but it has caused a rift among deputies, who said the restrictions are making it more difficult to maintain control.

At an October Fraternal Order of Police rally, deputies said inmates have become more aggressive as they try to provoke deputies into violence and that deputies are reluctant to use force for fear of getting in trouble.

Deputy Michael Nester said in an interview at the rally that, in the past, he would unholster his Taser and the sight of it would cause inmates to settle down.

Now, he said, deputies cannot pull a Taser until an inmate is attacking.

“I stopped fights by pulling the Taser,” Nester said. “They would throw up their hands, fall on their knees and apologize. Now, I can’t do that.”

O’Malley said no one is being told they cannot use a Taser.

“What we are telling them is to use them in an appropriate manner and a way that is compliant with these policies and procedures,” O’Malley said. “What this current policy says is ‘Here is what you can’t do and here is what you won’t do. But remember you have been trained on a use-of-force policy.’ “

The department’s use-of-force policy, including Taser use, will be under the microscope in coming months as two outside consulting firms look into those policies as part of an effort to reform the department.

Months of disclosures

The department has been rocked by months of disclosures about excessive-force cases, which helped lead to the resignation of the sheriff and millions of dollars in payments to former inmates.

So far this year, no deputies have been punished for deploying their Tasers. Two of the 14 incidents have been referred to internal affairs and remain under investigation.

The other 12 cases, O’Malley said, did not violate the department’s policy.

But others question whether some of those other incidents did violate the department’s policy, even though they occurred prior to Wilson’s memo.

Mitchell, who reviewed documents upon The Post’s request, found several that he described as “concerning.” And the ACLU of Colorado also reached similar conclusions.

Denver sheriff’s deputies used Tasers this year in at least six cases where inmates were mentally ill and deep into an episode that landed them in restraint chairs and under suicide watch.

Those inmates were hallucinating, self-mutilating and swallowing inedible objects. In one incident, a woman had eaten sticks from disposable toothbrushes and had swallowed a comb.

And in at least two other cases, deputies used their stun guns to force uncooperative inmates to follow orders even though the inmates were not threatening to fight.

In a May case, for example, an inmate refused to return to his cell when his free time was over and clung to a railing rather than walk with deputies.

A deputy thrust the Taser into the inmate’s upper back in drive-stun mode and shocked him. But another deputy was leaning into the Taser operator’s hand, forcing him to fire the Taser for another five-second cycle, according to an incident report.

The Taser left a burn mark on the inmate’s back, and his face was bloodied when he fell to the floor, the report said.

There are instances where a Taser is needed to protect deputies.

For example, a deputy in April fired Taser prongs into an inmate’s back as he tried to punch another inmate during a fight. The second inmate already was being restrained by a deputy and the punch could have hit either man, according to the incident report.

Difficult situations

But it’s the number of cases involving the mentally ill and the Taser’s drive-stun mode that bothers civil rights advocates and those who work on behalf of the mentally ill.

“These are admittedly difficult situations for the deputies,” the ACLU’s Silverstein said. “But there’s got to be a better way to deal with people who the department considers a suicide risk.”

Deputies have different tools to use when trying to de-escalate a crisis, including dealing with mentally ill inmates, Diggins said. There are officers who have been specifically trained on how to talk to those inmates, and there are less severe ways than Tasers to try to gain control.

“We encourage our staff to use other options when dealing with the mental health population,” Diggins said. “But we have to recognize there may be times when we have to use those devices.”

The National Alliance on Mental Illness recommends that law enforcement agencies adopt policies that allow stun guns to be used only when there is an immediate threat of serious injury or death, said Scott Glaser, executive director of NAMI Colorado. They should not be a substitute for other de-escalation techniques.

“I understand their concern for safety,” Glaser said. “But it needs to be tempered with the appropriate use of force. It’s not uncommon for a person in a psychosis to act in a violent manner.”

Denise Maes, public policy director for the ACLU of Colorado, said the department should not depart from the Wilson memo because using Tasers to control people, especially the mentally ill, is counterproductive, she said.

The drive-stun mode, which is often used in those situations, does not disable a person, Maes said. Instead, it delivers pain to an isolated area and allows a person to continue moving.

“I don’t know how much of this is bad training, but it shows an over-reliance on the Taser, particularly the drive-stun mode,” she said. “It’s more problematic than helpful.”

Silverstein added: “What it is doing is causing intense pain. Which will cause an out-of-control, irrational person to become more out of control and irrational.”

At the sheriff’s department, deputies are supposed to file reports every time they unholster their Tasers. One is a handwritten form and the other is an electronic incident report.

However, the sheriff’s department does not keep a database of the reports, and it was difficult for the department to match the handwritten reports with the electronic reports when The Post requested the files.

For example, the department could not provide accurate numbers on how many times Tasers were displayed or deployed in 2012 and 2013. And at least one 2014 handwritten report is missing.

Evidence lost

No videos of the incidents were available, even though security cameras at the Downtown Detention Center captured all of them. The department does not retain video footage after 30 days unless an internal affairs case is opened.

But that means evidence is lost if an inmate decides to file a complaint or a lawsuit after 30 days. Asked by The Post, O’Malley said she was open to reconsidering the video-retention policy, but she said it would require navigating city contracts and internal rules.

The Post also found inconsistencies in the reports, including differences in the number of deputies involved in the incidents and failures to properly complete a diagram of where a Taser strike hit an inmate’s body. Also, some deputies write a few sentences, while others write long, detailed paragraphs about the incidents.

The federal guidelines — written by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum — recommend departments track their stun-gun use to detect trends over time. The reports also would help with public accountability, the guidelines say.

All of these issues surrounding Tasers should be a central part of the ongoing reform effort at the department, Maes said. The Wilson memo, for example, is the prevailing operating procedure but has never been incorporated into the actual use-of-force policy, she said.

“This is still under discussion,” she said. “The sheriffs clearly are balking at this.”

Noelle Phillips: 303-954-1661, nphillips@denverpost.com or twitter.com/Noelle_Phillips

Taser x26

Denver deputies use the Taser X26, which has two modes:

PROBE-STUN (Above)

Deputies pull the Taser’s trigger, launching two harpoon-like darts into an inmate’s body. The probes form an electrical connection that causes a person to lose muscle control.

DRIVE-STUN (left)

Deputies press the Taser directly into a person’s body to deliver an electrical shock into an isolated area.

A synopsis of 12 of the 14 Taser incidents reported this year by the Denver Sheriff Department. The following 12 reports were obtained by The Denver Post through an open-records request. The other two are under investigation. All occurred at the Downtown Detention Center.

Jan. 7

A female inmate became combative after an interview with a police detective. As officers tried to gain control, the woman banged her head on the ground, kicked, pulled and rammed her head into a wall. She was taken to the floor as officers tried to handcuff and shackle her. A deputy fired Taser probes into her torso while she was being held to the floor.

Jan. 26

Two inmates, who had made hooch in a bathroom sink, got into a late-night fight while other inmates cheered them on. Officers deployed pepper spray and handcuffed the inmates. One kept swinging his fists at deputies. Taser probes were fired into his back. The inmate hit his head on a bunk as he fell.

Feb. 8

A team was called to extract an inmate from his cell after he covered its windows and lights. The inmate had a reputation for violence and for throwing feces at officers. While handcuffed and shackled on an elevator, the inmate continued to fight, yelling threats and trying to bite. A deputy used the Taser’s drive-stun mode on the inmate’s left thigh.

March 6

An inmate getting booked refused to wear a wristband and clenched his fists as he became more belligerent. Deputies ordered him to an isolation cell, where the inmate refused to kneel, remove his shoes or sit on a bench. A deputy used the Taser’s drive-stun mode but kept cycling it because the inmate was moving away. The inmate was shocked on about four places on the right side of his body.

March 11

An inmate ate disposable toothbrush sticks and possibly swallowed a comb. She became violent as deputies transferred her to a mental health unit. Inside the cell, she bit her hand and would not let go. A deputy used the Taser’s drive-stun mode to force her to release the bite.

March 11

An inmate with a reputation for violence refused to return to his cell. As two deputies approached, he grabbed one and tried to hit him. Another deputy fired his Taser probes and the inmate fell. Once on the ground, the inmate refused to cooperate with commands, so they used drive-stun mode. Deputies also kneed the inmate and used nunchucks.

March 18

An inmate was biting her wrists and upper arms, causing bleeding. She also refused night medication and refused to sit in a restraint chair. She balled her fists and raised one arm, leading a deputy to fire his Taser’s probes. The probes did not penetrate the woman’s suicide smock. When she tried to kick at deputies, a deputy used drive-stun mode on her right shoulder.

March 22 An inmate bit herself on the arm and punched herself in the nose until she drew blood. The inmate refused to sit in a restraint chair and began kicking and trying to bite. A deputy used a Taser’s drive-stun mode twice on the inmate’s legs.

April 24

Two inmates got into a fistfight in the intake center’s holding area. While a deputy restrained one inmate, the other reared his fist back for a punch. A second deputy fired the Taser’s probes to stop the attack. The inmate suffered a small cut on the back of his head when he fell.

May 2

An inmate refused to return to his cell. Deputies escorted him to the second tier of his pod, but he grabbed a railing and refused to move. As the inmate rocked back and forth, a deputy used his Taser’s drive-stun mode on the inmate’s left shoulder. The Taser went through two cycles because another deputy was leaning on the Taser operator’s hand when he pulled the trigger.

June 1

An inmate was uncooperative in the intake holding area as he slammed a phone receiver and threatened deputies. He was escorted to an isolation cell but resisted going inside. He clenched his fists, and deputies took him to the floor. There, he refused to give up his arms to be handcuffed. A deputy used the Taser’s drive-stun mode on the inmate’s right shoulder. A deputy also used nunchucks.

July 6

A cell extraction team was called to remove an inmate from his cell after he had torn his sheets and mattress to fashion body armor and boxing gloves. The inmate tried to punch one deputy. He was taken to the ground and continued to fight as deputies tried to pin his arms and legs. One deputy broke his nunchucks as he tried to control the inmate. Leg irons were locked, but when deputies could not lock the handcuffs, one deputy fired a Taser’s probes into the inmate’s back.