By Carlos Miller
After a year that saw exaggerated use of Tasers against unarmed people who posed no threat to police, a federal appeals court ruled to limit the use of Tasers in these situations.
The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco this week will affect most of the western United States, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, along with two territories.
It stems from an incident where a 21-year-old California man was Tased after a traffic stop even though he did not threaten the officer or attempted to flee.
According to The New York Times:
In a vividly worded opinion issued by the court this week, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw described a “bad morning” for Carl Bryan, a 21-year-old Californian who drove over large stretches of Southern California to retrieve car keys mistakenly taken by a friend and ended up being Tasered by a Coronado, Calif., policeman and breaking four teeth when he fell to the ground.
Mr. Bryan was stopped twice on his driving odyssey, once for speeding and again for not wearing his seat belt. After the second stop, Mr. Bryan was “agitated, standing outside his car, yelling gibberish and hitting his thighs, clad only in his boxer shorts and tennis shoes,” the court said.
The judge noted, however, Mr. Bryan did not threaten the officer, Brian McPherson, and was not attempting to flee — all elements of a three-part test that the United States Supreme Court has used to determine when significant force is justified. As for the third factor in the Supreme Court test, the severity of the offense at issue, the Ninth Circuit judges observed that “traffic violations generally will not support the use of a significant level of force.”
Prior to the ruling, police were allowed immunity in Tasering people. Now they can be held liable, which hopefully will make them think twice before using their Taser.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Related posts:
- California appeals court rules that police were wrong to release photos of deceased
- New Mexico police chief Tasers girl, leaves gaping wound on her head
- Federal officers twice fail at intimidating photographer (videos)
- So now the feds say it is not illegal to photograph federal buildings
- Federal judge rules against photographer who was arrested
Support Photography is Not a Crime by buying your electronics through this ad.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
Unfortunately: 1) Bryan v. McPherson will likely go to the SCOTUS, where it’s a crap shoot that it would be upheld; and 2) the 9th Circuit precedents often do not make it out of the 9th Circuit.
I’m sure the Police Unions will have a group to file an amicus brief on how this will greatly interfere with their ability to do their job and will have the same impact on “officer safety”, the primary mission of all PD’s.
It's a shame that "public safety" isn't the primary mission of al PD's, considering that many of them work in Public Safety departments of their local government.
I doubt that this ruling will make the police "think twice" before using Tasers, as it seems that some don't even think *once* before using their Tasers…
uberVU - social comments // Jan 1, 2010 at 2:00 AM
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by photographyhelp: Federal court reigns in use of Tasers: By Carlos Miller After a year that saw exaggerated use of Tasers against.. http://bit.ly/6etLv1...
Federal court reigns in use of Tasers | Photography is Not a Crime Federal Me // Jan 1, 2010 at 3:37 AM
[...] the rest here: Federal court reigns in use of Tasers | Photography is Not a Crime By admin | category: Uncategorized | tags: against-unarmed, amendment-addresses, [...]
Cop Accused of Abusing Toddlers with Stun Gun:
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-taser-moles...
Hmmm
Sheesh. Younger and younger kids are being tazed. WHat's next, cut the umbilical cord and then tase the newborn?!?
Why wait that long?
I'm with Nathan on the thinking part – though I don't believe thinking is the problem, since the abusers are coming from a "can I get away with this?" standpoint and not "how do I handle this without someone getting hurt?"
Tasers are the all-purpose problem-solver. Got a granny who’s dissing you for pulling her over? Just apply some summary punishment to calm your cop ego down.</sarcasm>
After reading the opinion, I was impressed with the depth of analysis. Well-written and reasoned… and while IANAL it seems pretty solid with its logic and all. The threat tests seemed pretty inescapable, though who knows what the more conservative judges will do to work around that.
Here’s hoping this decision stands and gets taken up by the Supremes, or at least by other circuit courts.
I’m interested to hear what @JL thinks of this decision.
I'm surprised JL hasn't shown up to rant already. It must be taking a while to prepare.
The good news is that at least this judge is throwing the weight of his office into stopping this. Though I am certain some may not agree, judges are generally lagging indicators of political opinion. Thus, this is a positive sign.
I am flattered that you guys are eagerly awaiting my condemnation of this case. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I think the 9th Circuit decision is pretty reasonable. From reading the facts of the case, it sounds like the officer jumped the gun and tased the driver before he was an actual threat.
If you read the decision, the court references a previous taser case (Draper v. Reynolds) and reiterates that an officer can taser an aggressive unarmed individual on a traffic stop as long as the officer can articulate the threat. In the case of Draper, the officer gave multiple commands, had an extended argumentative conversation with Draper, and Draper approached the officer in an aggressive manner. The court had no problem with that tasing and the case sounded perfectly reasonable to me.
If I were a police supervisor reviewing the case in question (Bryan v. McPherson) I would recommend that the officer used the taser improperly. Would this stop still have eventually ended in a taser if the officer had taken it slower? Probably. Bryan sounds like an idiot who was acting like a child. Crying after a speeding ticket? Jumping out of a car on a traffic stop and beating on himself? Odds are that even if the officer had taken the time to give him some directions and warned that he faced getting taser, Bryan would have continued to act the fool and caused things to escalate. As it is, we will never know for sure because the officer rushed things.
Just my 2 cents.
A cop should take a few minutes to stretch before a taserin' so he doesn't pull a muscle.
I don’t see any reason to tase anyone if you don’t feel threatened. Even with a stupid warning. Saying, “If you don’t stop being upset I’m going to electrocute you” isn’t a good enough reason to electrocute somebody.
Good points, I think I will definitely subscribe!
. I’ll go and read some more!
I enjoy this site and agree with you…You might, however retitle this article…
You use the wrong verb..reign, the verb you use, means to rule..a king reigns…rein…means to control…like a reins used to ride a horse..Rein in..is to bring under control or hinder the free “unrestrained” use.
Thanks…Photography is not a crime…it is tool to fight tyranny. Thanks
Craig,
You’re right. It’s been fixed. Thanks.