holding that an officer’s use of a taser three times was not excessive force when the handcuffed plaintiff sat on the ground with his legs crossed and refused to walk to the police car
How later courts described this case
- holding that an officer’s use of a taser three times was not excessive force when the handcuffed plaintiff sat on the ground with his legs crossed and refused to walk to the police car
- finding no excessive force when officer used taser in drive-stun mode against a handcuffed subject that was lying- on the ground, refusing to stand and crying
- holding that repeated ECD usage on a non-compliant suspect during an arrest on the side of a busy highway at night was objectively reasonable
- explaining that the government has a “significant interest in enforcing the law on its own terms, rather than on terms set by the arrestee”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DUBINA, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
Although I believe that Deputy Rack-ard’s conduct of applying the taser on the third occasion violated the Constitution, nevertheless, I agree with Chief Judge Edmondson that such violation was not clearly established. Accordingly, I agree that we should reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.