399_C061
TASER USE
DETERMINED TO BE EXCESSIVE FORCE
|
Law Enforcement
Liability |
|
Qualified
immunity |
While
being arrested by police for residential burglary, a suspect was “tased” five
times over a period of 85 seconds. He sued the police department for use of
excessive force.
When
the officer arrived, the suspect was seen running from the burglarized house.
He kept running despite the order to stop, and the officer applied a Taser,
bringing the suspect down with the first firing. When the suspect did not
follow the officer’s instructions to lie flat with his arms extended, he was
“tased” four additional times, although witnesses stated that he appeared to be
disoriented and heard him repeatedly say, “I can’t” to the officer’s demands.
In
arriving at its decision, the court looked for precedent at the standards for
determining excessive force set down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. S. Ct. 1865, 104 L Ed. 2d443 (1989). The standards to be
considered include the severity of the crime that led to the confrontation,
whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer, and whether the
suspect was actively resisting arrest or trying to run away from the officers
to avoid being taken into custody.
In
this case, although burglary is a crime, the court noted that it is a lesser
crime than armed robbery, and the suspect was not observed to be carrying a
weapon as he attempted to flee. As a second officer arrived at the scene
shortly after the suspect was “tased” the first three times, the suspect could
not reasonably be considered a threat to the first officer, especially since he
was on the ground and appeared incapable of complying with the officer’s
demands. The two officers had other less painful means to subdue the suspect, such
as pepper spray or physically holding him down.
After
considering all the evidence, the court concluded that the use of a Taser
involves application of force, and each additional application involves
additional use of force. The first three firings of the Taser did not
constitute excessive force as the officer could have reasonably believed that
the suspect was resisting arrest and was trying to run away. However, once the
suspect was on the ground and a second officer arrived, the court concluded that
the two additional firings of the Taser were unnecessary to subdue the suspect,
and that these violated his Fourth Amendment rights. On the other hand, the
court found that the officers were shielded by qualified immunity and were not
held liable for damages.
Beaver
v.