Acoustic weapons are real, commercially sold, and owned by American police departments. Genasys, formerly LRAD Corporation, markets long-range acoustic devices to law enforcement, and what they do to people has been litigated. In Edrei v. Bratton the Second Circuit held that using one against non-violent, non-resisting protesters can violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The device in that case, a Model 100X, produces up to 136 decibels at one metre; the NYPD's own testing recorded 110 decibels at 320 feet in area-denial mode, and hearing loss can follow short exposure at 110 to 120 decibels. Plaintiffs reported tinnitus, vertigo, migraines, and in one case nerve damage requiring steroid treatment. The court's reasoning was that novel technology does not escape proportionality review. So the general question is settled: the devices exist, police own them, and a federal appeals court has held their use can be excessive force. The Denver question is answered differently by the public record. The largest adjudicated case of Denver police force against citizens is Epps v. City and County of Denver, where a federal jury awarded $14 million in March 2022, upheld by the Tenth Circuit in April 2026 at $14.75 million. The force documented there was shotgun rounds, flash-bang grenades and chemical agents. Acoustic devices are not part of that record. One property matters for anyone trying to answer this for themselves. An acoustic weapon projects ordinary sound through air in a directional beam: everyone in the beam hears it, a phone left recording captures it, and a decibel meter registers it. It is not a covert instrument, which means its use is testable by anyone who suspects it.
- Edrei v. Bratton, No. 17-2065 (2d Cir. 2018) — LRAD use on non-violent protesters can violate the Fourteenth Amendment; qualified immunity denied at the pleading stage
- LRAD Model 100X: up to 136 dB at one metre; NYPD testing recorded 110 dB at 320 feet in area-denial mode
- Hearing loss can follow short exposure at 110–120 dB; Edrei plaintiffs reported tinnitus, vertigo, migraines and nerve damage
- Epps v. City and County of Denver — $14m jury verdict, March 2022; Tenth Circuit affirmed April 2026 at $14.75m
- Force documented in Epps: shotgun rounds, flash-bang grenades, chemical agents. No acoustic device appears in that record
- Genasys (formerly LRAD Corporation) markets acoustic hailing devices to law enforcement
Open questions
- Nothing in this research establishes that Denver Police own or have deployed an acoustic weapon. That is an absence of finding, not proof of absence — a Colorado Open Records Act request would settle it outright.
- No acoustic device accounts for a sound only one person perceives. A directional beam of air pressure is audible to bystanders and recordable by any phone.
References
- Edrei v. Bratton (2d Cir. 2018)
- Epps v. City and County of Denver — ACLU of Colorado
- Genasys — LRAD for law enforcement
Edrei and Epps are decided cases and are cited for what each court found. The vendor link is the manufacturer's own marketing, included to show the devices are sold to police, and is not independent evidence of any deployment.
Not independently verified
This concept reports decided litigation and published device specifications. It does not establish that any acoustic weapon has been deployed in Denver, nor against any individual.
Topics: Proposed solutions · Technology · Violence · Law enforcement & government · Health & physical effects