Striking the man's arm several times also had little effect. After several attempts, during which the driver was unable to follow directions, he began to walk away towards his truck. The man fled from the scene and an additional officer responding to the scene had to stop his car to avoid hitting him when the man ran in front of the vehicle. The court also reasoned that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were a modern invention, and that "nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military." The U. Supreme Court vacated that decision, stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding," and that it had previously rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare are protected" by the Second Amendment. The pursued car later stopped and several individuals were seen exiting it. The plaintiffs also failed to show a pattern of deaths resulting from the supposed inadequate training. The trial court rejected a motion for a new trial, disagreeing with arguments that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence, or at odds with applicable law. An officer placed herself on the man's legs because he was kicking. The officer told him that he was not free to leave, but the driver started to run. Officers repeatedly asked the man to give them his hands, but he refused, swore at them, placed his hands under his body on the ground, and threatened to kill them. The case involved a woman with an abusive boyfriend who found that protective orders she obtained proved futile so she accepted a stun gun from a friend to protect herself and when she brandished it, the ex-boyfriend got scared and left her alone. An officer hit one of the fleeing men, who was running, with his car. The defendant officer in this case was the first trained officer in the city whose actions resulted in the death of a suspect when a Taser was deployed to the suspect's chest.
The "expert's" proposed testimony was largely based on "common sense" rather than any "methodology, scientific research, or testing. When she arrived, she informed the troopers of the man's seizure the day before and said that he needed to be left alone. He started running towards the officer, according to the officer's account. He tried to climb over a six foot high fence, but when he reached the top, one of the officers fire a Taser in the dart mode at him, allegedly without a warning. Plaintiff refused to comply with officers' commands, and against a backdrop of uncertainty as to whether he was armed, an officer crept behind him and discharged a Taser in the dart mode, causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground. Claims against a borough and a township were rejected, because the allegations of failing to adopted constitutional policies on the use of Tasers and related matters were "bare allegations" that were conclusory and therefore not entitled to the assumption of truth. The woman was unreceptive, uncooperative, and greeted the officer with obscenities. as his rear window was covered by a black plastic bag, obstructing his rear view and because the light on his license plate was non-functioning. Two National Park Service rangers, investigating reports of a disturbance, stopped two men at night. They encountered the man, who refused to remove his hands from his jacket. An officer detected an odor of alcohol when the car window was rolled down. He had knowledge that a bench warrant existed for her arrest, and saw her make a turn without using a turn signal, so he pulled the car over. A state trooper attempted to stop a man riding a motor scooter on an expressway with no license plates and without wearing a helmet or protective eyewear. In rejecting a motion for qualified immunity, the court characterized this as "a case where, if the allegations are true, a petty complaint from a neighbor led to a grossly disproportionate response by police, culminating in officers entering a family's home and arresting its owner for doing nothing more than attempting to videotape the officers' over-reaction on her own property." Two officers went to a woman's home in response to a neighbor's complaint that a guest in her home had parked a car so that the front tire was on the curb in front of the neighbor's house. A motorist pulled over for a traffic stop claimed that an officer fired a Taser in the dart mode at him for no apparent reason, activating it three times. An officer stopped a motorist for a non-functioning brake light, and the incident escalated when he exited his truck and refused several commands to get back inside. " One of the officers believed that this conduct threatened the officer's safety by distracting their attention from the approached vehicle and its occupant. It rejected as without merit and unsupported by the evidence the plaintiff's argument that the use of the Taser to effectuate his arrest was unreasonable because the officers supposedly had other options available to capture or subdue him.
Largely consisting of "conclusory interpretations of the autopsy report and deposition testimony," his testimony fell short of the "qualification, reliability, and helpfulness" required to be admitted. Later, a trooper saw the man walking out of some nearby woods, and approached him with a rifle aimed at him, asking him to show his hands and lie on the ground. He fired his Taser in the dart mode into the man's chest, but the man kept coming, pulled the dart's barbs from his own chest, grabbed the officer's shirt, slammed him into parked cars, and struck him in the head multiple times, then reaching for the officer's gun. In a subsequent decision, the trial court addressed the plaintiff's motion to exclude a defendant's expert witness from testifying. He fell from the fence onto concrete, suffering facial fractures and dental injuries. That fall, in turn, led to a spinal injury and paraplegia. Claims of inadequate training failed to show deliberate indifference and were also rejected, and the plaintiff did not show how such alleged lack of training caused his injuries. She grabbed the swinging gate and repeatedly blocked the officer's attempts to enter the yard, striking her with the gate several times. The motorist began yelling at the officers and he was told to get out of his vehicle. After they looked at their identification, they contacted a dispatcher and learned that one man was wanted for a probation violation and unpaid parking tickets; they decided to take him into custody. An officer deployed his Taser in the dart mode for five cycles over a 32-second period. The female driver did not have her license with her, and a male passenger admitted that he had been drinking. The driver was directed to move her vehicle to a pull-off area. He asked the driver to step out of the car after confirming that the warrant was still in effect. A pursuit ensued, with the driver running a red light, crossing the center line of the road, and making a U-turn to evade the officer. Officers' actions in using a Taser in stun mode twice on the back of the thighs of an uncooperative intoxicated arrestee to get her to go into a squad car was objectively reasonable. One of the officers, upon arrival, allegedly started yelling at the woman and her family, who were about to leave for a family outing. He was charged with an excessive noise violation, not having a driver's license in his possession, and disorderly conduct, with all charges later dropped. A verbal argument ensued, and the driver claimed that the officer fired his Taser in the dart mode at him without a warning, causing him to fall to the ground. The patron was told several times to stop and told that he was under arrest. The appeals court also found that one of the officer's receipt, almost a year before, of a letter of guidance from the county sheriff's department concerning his use of a Taser in a separate incident had no bearing on the constitutionality of the force used in the immediate case.
The decedent had been actively attempting to stab the officers. Three state troopers were dispatched to the residence to do a welfare check on the man. Instead, he screamed obscenities and fled inside the house. RESTRICTIVE: Officers in a police car approached a man as he stood on the sidewalk with others. On New Year's Eve, police encountered a man whose use of marijuana laced with PCP caused him to engage in a streak of vandalism to automobiles in a residential neighborhood. A man sued a number of officers for excessive use of force, claiming that they shot him with a Taser in the dart mode multiple times at a tavern, and then handcuffed him, dragged him outside, and proceeded to beat him with their hands and feet, causing him physical and mental injuries, including a concussion. An officer was dispatched to a residence to investigate reports that a woman there was acting strangely by throwing things into the parking lot of an adjacent convenience store, creating a general commotion, and bothering the store's customers. A financially distraught man went into the woods with a .357 magnum and sent his wife a text message that he might kill himself. The next thing he knew, he woke up in the hospital. The trial court adopted a magistrate's recommendation that claims against the police chief be dismissed based on "threadbare facts" as to any basis for his liability, as well as a claim for injunctive relief against the continued use of Tasers, but allowed discovery to move forward on claims against the city for inadequate supervision and training, allowing more facts to be developed, with the issue of municipal liability to be revisited on summary judgment.
The plaintiff's sole expert, who proposed to testify as to the man's psychological state, law enforcement techniques, ballistics, and forensic psychology, had been barred from testifying. The woman who owned the home was asked to come home and she said no one should be in the house and that there were no guns there. He then reemerged, still naked and without any weapon. One of the officers allegedly yelled out, "there they are right there." The plaintiff began to run, and the officers pursued him. He ultimately faced off with police as he jumped on the roof of a car. Claims against two police departments were rejected, as the municipalities were the proper parties to sue. The officer had been sent to disturbances at the same residence ten times before and was aware that the woman, who was then in the home's yard, was "in some way mentally unstable." She found the woman walking back in the yard yelling in what she believed to be Polish. Police were summoned and set up a perimeter while one officer went to the home. A vehicle was stopped at night at a DUI checkpoint. An officer on patrol observed a woman driving a car. The officers said that the patron yelled at them to turn off their "damn lights," continued to walk towards them when instructed to mind his own business, and stated that "I'll kick your ass!
During the encounter, he was warned that a Taser would be used if he did not stop resisting, and it was used in a combination of the dart mode and the stun mode for a five second cycle. The officer yelled at him to stop, and then fired his Taser in the dart mode at him, with the prongs striking him in the back. The officer allegedly deployed the Taser once more when the driver tried to get on his hands and knees and then placed him under arrest. An officer placed his finger on a pressure point under the man's nose to try to gain pain compliance, but this had no effect. A medical center terminated a registered nurse after several reports of inappropriate behavior, including possessing an illegal weapon, a Taser, at work. many animals out there these days." Three other employees reported observing her with the Taser at the nurses' station. She was then convicted of violating the state law that barred private possession of stun guns. This man stood up and resumed running, ignoring orders to stop, so the officer fired his Taser in the dart mode, striking him and causing him to fall to the ground. While it is possible to establish a failure-to-train case based on a single incident, "this action does not present circumstances which would support a finding of a deficient training program based on one incident." Summary judgment was therefore awarded to the city on municipal liability issues concerning training.
Officers kept him in a face-down, prone position until he was securely secured in a five-point restraint. The officers had at least a reasonable basis to try to detain the man, but there were factual issues as to whether force was used after he stopped actively resisting them. The court found that a factual dispute precluded summary judgment for the officer on an excessive force claim. Striking the man's arm several times also had little effect. She denied bringing the weapon to work, but posted on her Facebook page that "I think it should be legal for nurses on duty to carry Tasers . Rhode Island law makes possession or use of such a weapon by non-law enforcement personnel unlawful. Two other officers also fired their Tasers in the dart mode after they thought that the first officer's Taser cycle had ended and was no longer effective. On claims against the officer, qualified immunity was granted as to the first use of the Taser, but was denied without prejudice as to his second and a possible third application of the Taser as it appeared that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the decedent was immobilized at those points in time.
As to the final shot however, there was a triable issue, as the decedent had already been shot in the abdomen, back, and right hand, was on the ground, but allegedly retained possession of his knife and was in the process of pushing up from the ground. While the man at first complied, he then stood up and asked the trooper "Why don't you just go ahead and shoot me? RESTRICTIVE: A DUI arrestee was being processed at a police station. The officer fired two rounds into the man's chest from a distance of two inches. The witness had a scientific specialty of bioelectricity or the interaction of electricity and the body. The officers approached him, screamed at him to stop moving, and activated the Taser once more. The court found that no jury could reasonably find the force used to be excessive, given the man's drugged condition, the possibility that he was armed (there had been earlier reports of gunshots fired), and the fact that he kept his hands in his pockets and if in fact he had been armed, was well within range of discharging a weapon at or into homes on both sides of the street. The plaintiff also failed to show how two defendant police chiefs directly caused his injuries. She was warned to back away from the gate or a Taser would be used, but refused to comply. He was very irate and kept yelling and swearing, and seemed intoxicated. The suspect ignored orders not to move, backed away, turned away, and started to walk away quickly. Despite having been Tasered, the man remained standing, and his body tensed up. An officer said he would run a check to see if she had a valid license, and would be let go with a verbal warning if it checked out. A male passenger questioned the reason for the stop. Springdale Borough Officials at a county jail were scanning all detainee's fingerprints for biometric access to the commissary. Officers came to a storekeeper's business to arrest him on a bench warrant for failing to appear in court. When the driver turned into an apartment complex, he was knocked off his vehicle by a cable blocking the entrance. An arrestee was Tasered in the stun mode twice by local police after being pulled out of the back seat of the vehicle. Officers observed what they believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction taking place. The Taser was only used after "repeated entreaties and warnings by the officers, and after the arrestee's "continued verbal and physical refusals." The force was used for the sole purpose of placing the arrestee into the police car, and succeeded in gaining her compliance. There was also allegedly an issue of the neighbor having accused a member of the family of spitting at her, which the family denied. A federal appeals court denied qualified immunity to the officer on an excessive force claim. The officer claimed that the driver had exited his vehicle in an aggressive manner, with his fist balled, advancing towards the officer's car yelling, and telling him that he was under arrest, pointing his Taser at him when he disobeyed orders to return to his truck. The patron started and then stopped walking away, turned around, and assumed what the officers described as a "bladed stance" with his non-dominant foot to the rear, his hands at his side, which was characterized as a fighting stance.
" The trooper claimed that the man walked towards him, with one fist clinched and the other hand "flipping him off." The homeowner and her son claimed the man actually walked forward with his hands in the air. A woman claimed that the use of a Taser to subdue her son during an arrest caused his death, that no effort was made to render first aid to her son for his injuries and that her son had suffered a gunshot wound years earlier and still had a bullet in his head on the night of the incident. While handcuffed and sitting in a chair, he kicked an adjacent chair, and then stood up and lifted up that chair. The man reached again for the gun, and the officer shot him a third time in the chest. After a man on a motorcycle made an illegal U-turn, police pursued him. His expert report contained opinions on whether the Taser immobilized the plaintiff, how far the plaintiff was from the edge of the bypass when he was struck by the Taser, and whether the Taser caused him to fall from the bypass. The plaintiff 's objections did not call into question the expert's ability to testify as an expert but essentially amounted to disagreements with his opinion and the basis of it, which were proper subjects for cross-examination. The trial court declined to dismiss claims for excessive use of force by the officer, failure to train by the city (based on specific allegations about the inadequacy of Taser training), and state law claims for assault and battery. The officer admitted that he violated a departmental directive against using his Taser against a suspect in an elevated position, but the violation of a departmental directive is not necessarily a constitutional violation. The court found that a claim that the officers did not adequately document their actions was not a valid claim, as that, even if true, did not cause the plaintiff's injuries. The Taser was fired in the dart mode, striking the woman in the abdomen, after which she was handcuffed. He allegedly failed field sobriety tests, and agreed to take a portable breathalyzer test. A state trooper attempted to stop a man riding a motor scooter on an expressway with no license plates and without wearing a helmet or protective eyewear. One of the rangers shot the suspect with his Taser in the dart mode, causing him to fall to the ground and strike his face. Another officer fired his Taser in the dart mode and the man went down. The male passenger continued loudly making vulgar statements and would not stop despite orders to do so. After the driver was handcuffed and placed in the police car, the officer observed the passenger repeatedly turning his head and moving about, and that he appeared to be making reaching movements. A lawsuit against the police department and the since retired police chief concerning the incident asserted that they failed to properly train or supervise the officer or another officer who was present who failed to intervene. One prisoner refused on the basis that he had a religious objection and did not have commissary privileges. The storekeeper argued, was agitated, and said that the warrant was not valid. Fuel from the scooter spilled onto the ground and the driver. Officers claimed that they did so because he had tried to smash the windows of the vehicle with his feet and head and had tried to open the car door and the plastic partition inside the vehicle. One suspect, when ordered to "come here," abandoned a pill bottle and started to run. It was the minimal amount of force needed under the circumstances. The yelling officer then allegedly approached the woman's husband "aggressively," placing his face within inches of the husband's face. It noted that the plaintiff's alleged offenses were nonviolent minor traffic offenses, there was no evidence establishing that he was a danger to the officer at any time during the incident, and he was not attempting to flee or resist. The driver, told he was arrested, then turned back to his truck telling the officer that he couldn't "do hit [sic] shit to me, whereupon the Taser was fired. A South Carolina prisoner claimed that when he and another prisoner were engaged in a fight, a correctional officer fired a Taser in the dart mode at him, causing him to fall to the ground. He disobeyed orders to stop, and walked forward towards the officers.
: As a precaution, AELE editors have added the word RESTRICTIVE before selected case summaries, because a court has determined, a jury has found, or a settlement has indicated, that the quantum of force used either was, or may have been, unreasonable. The Court found that the appeals court, in upholding summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for the officer, had erred by failing to view the evidence on summary judgment in the light most favorable to the plaintiff on the facts. In the case, a jail detainee claimed that jailers used excessive force against him when they moved him to a different cell after he refused orders to take down a yellow sheet of paper covering the light in his cell. This had the effect of reinstating the case, and the appeals court must now take a new look at whether it should have viewed the case from the perspective of the facts alleged by the plaintiffs. At the time, the plaintiff was approximately 15 to 20 feet away from the officer on the front porch of his parents' home. Supreme Court has vacated and remanded a federal appeals court decision rejecting liability for the use of a Taser in the stun mode and other force against a detainee.
: Some ECW experts prefer to categorize ECW applications by event descriptions, such as their use on juveniles, the disabled, elderly persons, pregnant women, or individuals who are perched on ledges, etc. Instead, the appeals court improperly resolved disputed issues concerning the lighting present, the demeanor of the plaintiff's mother, the plaintiff's positioning during the shooting, and whether he had shouted a direct threat, in favor of the officer, the moving party on the summary judgment motion. The prisoner refused to cooperate with the move, lying face down on his bunk and refusing to get up. The Court found that the appeals court, in upholding summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for the officer, had erred by failing to view the evidence on summary judgment in the light most favorable to the plaintiff on the facts. In the case, a jail detainee claimed that jailers used excessive force against him when they moved him to a different cell after he refused orders to take down a yellow sheet of paper covering the light in his cell.
An officer was entitled to qualified immunity in a case where a man was subjected to eight applications of a Taser (seven stun mode applications and one unintended dart mode application) during an arrest. Prior rulings in the Fifth Circuit did not put the officer on notice that using the Taser under these circumstances would constitute excessive force. Later, a jury returned a verdict for the defendants, which was upheld on appeal. Moreover, given the evidence of record, the jurors might well have decided that, although the officers had acted in an objectively unreasonable manner, they did not have the subjective intent required by the erroneous instruction. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Tolan v. A Taser was then applied to the detainee's back in stun mode for five seconds. The trial court noted the case law that held that it was reasonable to use force against an inmate who refused to comply with orders but concluded that the issue in the case was "whether [the] defendants' response to plaintiff's obstinance was reasonable under the circumstances or whether it was excessive and was intended to cause [the] plaintiff harm." The court also concluded that, because a jury could find that the defendants had acted with malice, qualified immunity was not available. Nevertheless, those factors were suggested to the jury not in the context of applying them to an objective test but as circumstantial evidence from which an inference of reckless or malicious intent might be drawn. An officer observed a man fleeing from the scene where he allegedly had broken into a parked car.