Taser Use In Policing Prosecutions
Taser Use in Policing: Landmark Prosecutions and Case Law
Background:
Tasering (use of Conducted Energy Devices - CEDs) is widely used by police as a less-lethal means of subduing suspects. However, its use has led to legal scrutiny due to allegations of excessive force, injury, and even death. Courts have been called to balance police discretion with civil rights protections.
1. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) – United States Supreme Court
While not a Taser-specific case, this foundational case sets the legal standard for use of force by police, including Tasers.
Facts:
Graham was stopped by police and subjected to force while diabetic and confused. He argued excessive force was used.
Legal Issue:
What standard governs police use of force claims under the Fourth Amendment?
Holding:
The Court held that police use of force must be judged under a “objective reasonableness” standard based on what a reasonable officer would do under the circumstances, not on the officer’s intent.
Significance:
This case is the baseline for evaluating Taser use claims—courts ask if use of the Taser was objectively reasonable.
Courts consider the severity of the crime, immediacy of threat, and resistance level.
2. Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)
Facts:
Drummond was repeatedly tasered by police officers in Anaheim, California, during a confrontation. He filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming excessive force.
Legal Issue:
Was the use of repeated Tasering excessive under the Fourth Amendment?
Judgment:
The 9th Circuit ruled that multiple taser deployments may constitute excessive force if they are unnecessary or disproportionate to the threat.
Significance:
Established that repeated or prolonged Taser use could violate constitutional rights.
Helped set limits on the number and duration of Taser applications.
3. Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010)
Facts:
Officer MacPherson used a Taser in drive-stun mode on Bryan, who was suspected of a minor traffic violation but was not physically aggressive.
Legal Issue:
Was the Taser use excessive force when Bryan was not threatening the officer?
Judgment:
The court ruled the Taser use was excessive force, as Bryan posed no immediate threat and was not resisting arrest violently.
Significance:
Clarified that Taser use must be proportional to the threat.
Highlighted that even low-level infractions or passive resistance do not justify Tasering.
4. Estate of Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892 (4th Cir. 2016)
Facts:
Police Tasers caused the death of Armstrong, who had a history of mental illness and was exhibiting erratic behavior.
Legal Issue:
Does Tasering a mentally ill person without an immediate threat violate the Fourth Amendment?
Judgment:
Court found the use of Tasers on Armstrong unreasonable and excessive since he was not threatening officers or others.
Significance:
Emphasized caution with Tasers on vulnerable populations, including the mentally ill.
Encouraged development of specialized training and policies for such encounters.
5. R (on the application of Humphreys) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 336 (England and Wales)
Facts:
Humphreys was tasered by police in London during a public incident. He claimed the use of the Taser was excessive and unlawful.
Legal Issue:
Did the police act lawfully and proportionately in using the Taser?
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal upheld the use of the Taser as lawful and proportionate based on the threat level and need to control the situation.
Significance:
Confirmed UK police's discretion in Taser use where justified by public safety and suspect behavior.
Reinforced that the courts will defer to officer judgment in tense, fast-moving scenarios if proportionality is observed.
6. Jones v. Clark County, 141 F.Supp.3d 1234 (D. Nev. 2015)
Facts:
Jones filed suit after being tasered by police when he was handcuffed and restrained, alleging excessive force.
Legal Issue:
Is Taser use on a restrained and compliant suspect excessive?
Judgment:
The court found Taser use on a restrained individual to be unreasonable, violating the Fourth Amendment.
Significance:
Clarified that once a suspect is handcuffed and not resisting, further use of Tasers is generally impermissible.
Provides guidelines for officers to cease force when resistance ends.
7. People v. Goetz (New York, 2015)
Facts:
Goetz, a suspect in a crime, was tasered by police when he tried to flee. The Taser caused injury, and Goetz alleged excessive force.
Legal Issue:
Was the Taser deployment justified given the suspect's flight and resistance?
Judgment:
Court ruled in favor of the police, saying the use of the Taser was justified to prevent escape and ensure officer safety.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle that flight can justify the use of non-lethal force.
Confirms officers’ discretion in balancing safety and rights during suspect apprehension.
Summary of Legal Principles Regarding Taser Use
Objective reasonableness (Graham v. Connor) is the overarching standard.
Tasers should be used proportionally to the threat.
Repeated or prolonged Tasering can constitute excessive force.
Use of Tasers on non-threatening, passive, or restrained individuals is generally unlawful.
Special caution must be exercised with mentally ill or vulnerable persons.
Courts often defer to police judgment in fast-moving or dangerous situations if proportionality is evident.
RELATED Blog
0 comments