A shock glove is a wearable device designed to deliver a localized electrical pulse upon contact with a subject, intended to induce compliance through neuro-muscular disruption. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced plans to procure these devices, known as the Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter (G.L.O.V.E.), for use by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, according to reports from the Associated Press.
The G.L.O.V.E., or Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter, is a conductive distraction device manufactured by Compliant Technologies that functions by delivering electrical pulses directly to a subject's skin. Marketed as a tool for de-escalation, the device is designed to interrupt a subject's nervous system signals, causing an involuntary physical reaction that forces the individual to retreat or concede to an officer’s commands.
The manufacturer claims that the device achieves what it calls "Neuro Peripheral Interference" (NPI). By overstimulating the nervous system, the device disrupts normal cognitive processes, effectively forcing a physical surrender. According to the manufacturer’s documentation, the goal is to provide a non-lethal alternative for subduing individuals during high-stress interactions without the need for traditional projectile weapons like tasers.
The DHS has expressed intent to acquire the CTG-5 model, which operates at a significantly higher voltage than many conventional non-lethal tools. Documentation indicates this model can output between 324 and 380 volts with an amperage of 700 to 1200mA when it makes direct contact with a subject.
To understand the mechanics, it is important to distinguish between voltage and amperage. Voltage acts as the force that pushes electricity through resistance, such as clothing or skin, while amperage measures the intensity of the electrical flow. Because the G.L.O.V.E. utilizes lower voltage compared to some alternatives, it generally requires direct contact with skin or thin, moisture-saturated clothing to be effective. In contrast, projectile-based tasers like the Taser 10 utilize prongs that pierce the skin to deliver electricity, allowing for a wider range of operation but introducing the risk of puncture wounds.
Keep exploring
More from GroundworkWhile marketed as a non-lethal device, the G.L.O.V.E. carries specific operational risks that require strict adherence to safety protocols. The manufacturer’s own user manual notes that applying more than two devices to a single individual simultaneously may result in severe injury or death. Furthermore, the manual explicitly advises against using the device on vulnerable populations, including the elderly and young children, and prohibits contact with sensitive areas such as the throat, face, chest, or groin.
To mitigate these risks, the manufacturer recommends limiting the duration of any single application to no more than 15 seconds. These constraints highlight the necessity for rigorous training, as the efficacy of the device is tied directly to the precise placement and duration of contact. Without standardized usage policies, the risk of improper application remains a primary concern for civil rights advocates and medical professionals who monitor the deployment of new law enforcement technologies.
The DHS has allocated up to $20 million for the procurement of these devices, intending to distribute them across ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) divisions. This distribution is part of a broader shift toward integrating "conductive distraction" technology into the standard kit for federal agents.
If you are researching the implications of this technology, consider the following points:
- Operational scope: The devices are intended for close-quarters engagement where traditional containment methods might be difficult.
- Compliance requirements: Agents must follow strict usage manuals to avoid liability and prevent long-term injury to subjects.
- Policy oversight: The deployment of such technology often precedes the development of agency-wide policies regarding the documentation and reporting of every instance where the device is activated.
Understanding the technical capabilities of these tools is essential for assessing how federal agencies balance officer safety with the potential for physical harm to the public.
