The Department of Homeland Security has posted plans indicating Immigration and Customs Enforcement may buy high-voltage restraint gloves for officers, potentially spending up to $20 million on devices made by Compliant Technologies, a veteran‑owned company in Kentucky. The device is marketed as the G.L.O.V.E. (Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter). When an officer presses a button on the wrist, the glove delivers an electric shock on skin contact. It functions similarly to a taser in delivering pain and temporary incapacitation but does not deploy prongs that pierce the skin.
Video demonstrations from the company show people—often officers taking part in the demos—reacting with pain, yelling or falling to the ground when shocked. In one demonstration the company founder, Jeff Niklaus, activated the glove on an Oklahoma County deputy who screamed and briefly collapsed; the deputy later described the sensation as feeling like he had “no control.” The company’s materials say the glove helps “de‑escalate tense situations quickly and effectively” and is intended to assist officers making arrests when a person resists.
Former NYPD officer Kenneth Corey, now head of the Policing Leadership Academy at the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said he experienced the glove and found it painful, describing his knees buckling when someone gripped his wrist while wearing it. Corey cautioned that the tool itself is not the only issue: any new use‑of‑force technology requires clear policies, rigorous training, and accountability to prevent misuse.
That concern is central to critics’ objections. Immigrant‑rights advocates and civil liberties groups say ICE has been under intense scrutiny for its use of force following expanded enforcement in recent years and several fatal encounters involving federal immigration officers. Naureen Shah, director of policy and government affairs for immigration at the ACLU, questioned whether ICE personnel — including many recent hires — would be adequately trained to use such a device safely and humanely. She described the prospect of equipping an agency with a history of force complaints with a new painful restraint as worrisome and potentially reckless.
An ACLU report released earlier documented widespread force by federal immigration agents in prior enforcement surges and noted frequent use of tasers. DHS and ICE say they continually assess officer needs to ensure safe arrest tools and point to training in de‑escalation; the company says there have been no documented injuries from its glove.
The glove technology has been available for fewer than ten years and has been purchased by a range of public‑safety and institutional buyers. At least one city purchased the devices for its public schools, and a review of buyer lists found more than 50 police departments across roughly 20 states, as well as some prisons, jails, and hospitals, among purchasers. The company also markets the glove for managing agitated patients in healthcare settings.
Supporters argue the device offers a nonlethal option to quickly control dangerous encounters without the need for firearms, while opponents warn that any painful compliance tool can be abused, especially without strict limits, training, oversight, and clear reporting of use. The debate centers on whether safeguards will be sufficient should ICE move forward with widespread deployment.