Johnathan Mansfield Died After Repeated Use of an Electrical-Shock Glove and Taser. Now ICE Wants Thousands of Similar Gloves — Is America Better Yet?

A Kentucky jail investigation found prolonged electrical-force use and concluded officers used excessive force. The coroner blamed methamphetamine intoxication. Now ICE is preparing a multimillion-dollar, noncompetitive purchase of the same type of electric-shock glove.

By Roberto Zapatero
Independent Forensic Investigative Journalist, Is America Better Yet?
August 12, 2026

Johnathan Mansfield was 43 years old. His attorney described him as a husband, father, musician, commercial electrician and union member.

On Sept. 27, 2024, Mansfield was arrested for public intoxication and taken to the Madison County Detention Center in Richmond, Kentucky.

Within roughly two hours, officers had restrained him and subjected him to repeated electrical force using both a Taser and an electric shock glove. He became unresponsive, was treated for cardiac arrest and was taken to a hospital. He died on Oct. 10 after 12 days at the University of Kentucky Hospital.

The exact number of shocks differs among the public records and court accounts. A wrongful-death lawsuit alleges Mansfield was shocked 27 times with the glove and another 13 times with a Taser. A separate Madison County Sheriff’s Office investigation counted 23 glove applications, 13 drive-stun Taser applications and two Taser probe shots.

What is not disputed is that some of the glove applications lasted far longer than the device’s recommended limit. Court records and reporting describe two prolonged activations lasting roughly 40 to 45 seconds and 99 seconds. The manufacturer’s recommended maximum is 15 seconds.

The sheriff’s internal investigation concluded that continued use of the Taser and shock glove had become unreasonable after the devices repeatedly failed to produce compliance. The investigation said the repeated exposures inflicted unnecessary pain and increased the risk of serious medical complications.

One officer involved, James Hollins, was fired after the investigation. Another, Mikael Burns, received a five-day suspension, according to local reporting.

And then the medical record divided.

Two very different explanations for Mansfield’s death

Doctors at the University of Kentucky told investigators they believed Mansfield’s cardiac arrest followed the repeated electrical shocks, according to the lawsuit and local reporting. Maj. Dwight Hall, one of the officers involved in the internal investigation, likewise concluded that the excessive force caused Mansfield’s cardiac arrest.

The Fayette County Coroner’s Office reached a different conclusion.

The coroner ruled Mansfield’s death an accident caused by “delayed complications of methamphetamine intoxication.” Coroner Gary Ginn said his office reviewed medical records and police information, and Mansfield tested positive for several drugs, including methamphetamine. A state medical examiner performed an autopsy.

The Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the autopsy found no evidence that a cardiac arrest had occurred, even though emergency responders treated Mansfield for cardiac arrest and University of Kentucky doctors reportedly linked that medical crisis to the repeated shocks.

That conflict matters.

The public record does not establish that the electric glove caused Mansfield’s death. The coroner attributed the death to methamphetamine intoxication. Mansfield’s widow, however, alleges in a pending wrongful-death lawsuit that the repeated electrical force contributed to his death, while treating physicians and the jail investigation tied the shocks to the cardiac arrest that preceded it.

Those competing findings should not be blurred together.

But neither should the documented use of force be treated as hypothetical.

A man was repeatedly shocked with this technology. Internal investigators found prolonged applications that exceeded the recommended duration and concluded the force had become unreasonable. He became unresponsive and later died.

Now U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants thousands of the same type of gloves.

ICE is preparing a purchase worth as much as $20 million

ICE plans to buy thousands of CT-G5 G.L.O.V.E. devices, short for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter, for officers and agents. The Department of Homeland Security’s acquisition forecast places the planned purchase in a $10 million to $20 million range and describes it as noncompetitive.

That range is a planning estimate, not a final contract award and not a blank check to the vendor. The actual quantity, negotiated unit price and final contract value have not yet been publicly disclosed.

An authorized distributor currently lists the CT-G5 at an MSRP of $1,995 per unit. That does not establish what ICE will pay. Federal pricing could include training, accessories, support or discounts, and the government has not yet disclosed a negotiated per-unit price.

Those missing numbers matter. Taxpayers should be able to answer two basic questions: How many devices are being bought, and what will each one actually cost?

Why is the purchase noncompetitive?

The planned acquisition is not simply for a generic glove capable of delivering an electrical stimulus. The government has identified the CT-G5 specifically.

Federal procurement rules generally favor full and open competition. They permit a sole-source or brand-specific purchase when an agency can justify that only one source or product can satisfy its needs, but that decision must be documented and approved.

For a brand-specific acquisition, federal rules require the government to explain why the particular product is essential and why another manufacturer’s product cannot meet the requirement. For a proposed noncompetitive contract above $900,000 and up to $20 million, the written justification generally requires approval by the procuring activity’s competition advocate or another authorized higher official.

That makes the procurement questions straightforward:

• Why this glove?
• What alternatives were evaluated?
• Who inside ICE decided the CT-G5 was necessary?
• Who approved avoiding competition?
• What evidence showed that another product could not meet the same need?

DHS has said that ICE continually evaluates equipment needed by officers and that technology decisions receive appropriate review. But it has not publicly explained why this specific product was chosen or identified the individual who made the operational selection.

The solicitation is expected as early as Aug. 14. The justification for a brand-specific noncompetitive purchase should provide considerably more information.

A use-of-force device that can look like an ordinary glove

The CT-G5 looks and functions much like a normal patrol glove until the officer activates its electrical mode.

The officer then has to make contact with a person’s exposed skin. The device delivers a painful electrical stimulus intended to gain compliance.

Unlike a Taser, the manufacturer says the glove does not normally leave burn or contact marks. That creates an unusual accountability problem: a person watching an encounter may not be able to tell that electrical force is being applied at all.

That makes the paper trail and electronic trail unusually important.

The CT-G5 has event-recording capability. The manufacturer says serial-number and date-and-time event information can be downloaded from the device.

The glove also does not automatically shut itself off while in active mode. The manufacturer says it can remain available for repeated applications and that a fully charged device can provide up to 90 minutes of continuous stimulation. That is not a recommendation to shock one person for that length of time. It does mean the equipment itself does not enforce the 15-second application limit that became so important in Mansfield’s case.

The safeguard therefore depends on the officer, agency policy and subsequent review.

What happens after an ICE officer activates it?

That question should be answered before thousands of gloves are distributed.

ICE has not yet publicly detailed a complete use-of-force and medical-review framework specifically governing these devices.

At a minimum, the public should know whether every activation must generate a use-of-force report and whether the glove’s electronic event data must be downloaded and retained. ICE should also disclose exactly what the event record captures, including whether it records activation duration. Whatever data the device preserves should be compared with body-camera footage, officer reports, witness accounts and medical documentation.

If an officer’s report conflicts with the device’s electronic record, who investigates the discrepancy?

If several activations occur during an encounter, who determines whether each one remained necessary?

If a person is injured, who reviews whether the force complied with policy?

And if an officer violates those rules, what happens next?

Mansfield’s case shows why those questions cannot be left to theory. The jail’s investigation resulted in one officer being fired and another receiving a five-day suspension. Whether ICE has comparable disciplinary standards for misuse of the CT-G5 has not yet been publicly established.

The manufacturer itself warns against some uses

The manufacturer warns that the device should not be used against elderly people, small children, pregnant women or severely disabled people. Its user guidance also warns against using the glove merely for verbal defiance or as punishment, torture or horseplay.

Those restrictions are particularly important for ICE because its officers and detention personnel can encounter children, pregnant people, elderly people and people with disabilities during arrests, transportation and detention operations.

ICE should therefore make clear what happens if the glove is used on someone in one of those high-risk groups.

Is immediate medical evaluation mandatory?

Does the incident automatically receive higher-level review?

Must a supervisor determine whether the officer knew or should have known the person was medically vulnerable?

What happens if the use violated policy?

Those are not questions about whether ICE officers should be allowed to protect themselves from someone who is genuinely dangerous. They are questions about what happens after the government gives an officer a device specifically designed to inflict pain through direct physical contact.

The audit trail may matter more than what witnesses can see

The manufacturer markets the G.L.O.V.E. as an “invisible partner” for officers.

That description points to the central accountability problem.

A Taser discharge can be visible and audible. A firearm is unmistakable. An activated electric glove may look to a bystander like an officer simply grabbing someone’s arm.

If there is little outward indication that the electrical mode is being used, then accountability depends heavily on records that the government controls.

The event log matters. The body camera matters. The officer’s report matters. The medical examination matters. And independent supervisory review matters.

Those records should agree with one another.

When they do not, someone outside the immediate encounter needs to determine why.

Mansfield’s case is the warning

Johnathan Mansfield’s death does not prove that ICE officers will misuse these gloves. It does not establish that the glove caused his death, and the official coroner’s finding says otherwise.

But his case establishes something else that should be impossible to ignore.

The technology can be applied repeatedly. It can be applied far longer than recommended. Its use can become excessive. And when that happens, the consequences can become medically and legally serious.

The government is now preparing to spend as much as $20 million placing thousands of these devices into federal officers’ hands.

Before that happens, taxpayers and the people those officers encounter deserve answers.

How many are being bought? What will each one cost? Why was the purchase taken out of competition? Who approved it? What exact rules govern activation? How will every use be audited? What medical care follows a shock? And what consequences follow when an officer breaks the rules?

Johnathan Mansfield cannot answer those questions.

The government can.

Sources

• Associated Press, Ryan J. Foley, “AP Exclusive: ICE plans to give officers gloves that can deliver painful electric shocks,” Aug. 11, 2026.
• Associated Press, Ryan J. Foley, “ICE’s plan to give officers electric shock gloves draws outrage and fears of misuse,” Aug. 12, 2026.
• Lexington Herald-Leader, Taylor Six, “Suit: KY man was shocked about 40 times before dying of cardiac arrest,” updated Oct. 29, 2025.
• WEKU, Shepherd Snyder, “Wrongful death lawsuit alleges Richmond man tased 40 times while in custody,” Oct. 29, 2025.
• Compliant Technologies, official CT-G5 G.L.O.V.E. product specifications and FAQ, accessed Aug. 12, 2026.
• Acquisition.gov, Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 6, including sections 6.302-1, 6.303 and 6.304, current as of Aug. 12, 2026.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Planning Forecast System, ICE planned CT-G5 G.L.O.V.E. acquisition, published Aug. 10, 2026.
• Optimal Training & Equipment, authorized CT-G5 distributor listing, accessed Aug. 12, 2026, for publicly advertised MSRP only. The listing is not evidence of ICE’s negotiated price.

This article will be updated if ICE publishes the solicitation, exact quantity, negotiated unit price, noncompetitive justification, use-of-force policy or additional medical and oversight requirements.

Roberto Zapatero
Independent Forensic Investigative Journalist
Is America Better Yet?

I write for you,

— Roberto.

isamericabetteryet.org

Copyright © 2026 Roberto Zapatero / Is America Better Yet? All rights reserved.