Ninth Circuit Ruling Restricts Use of Taser By Police

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that a California police officer may be held liable for injuries caused to an unarmed motorist who was tasered during a traffic stop. The decision is forcing police agencies throughout California to examine their policies regarding the use of tasers. The court’s opinion defines when the use of a taser is appropriate and limits the use of the taser to situations where the person presents an obvious danger.

The ruling stems from a 2005 incident in which a former Coronado, California police officer stopped a motorist for failing to wear a seatbelt while driving. The driver, Carl Bryan, testified he did not hear the officer order him to remain in the vehicle. He exited and vehicle and stood about 20 feet from the officer. Bryan became visibly agitated and upset with himself, but did not make any verbal threats. The officer claimed he tasered Bryan when Bryan took a step toward the officer-a claim that Bryan has denied. Bryan’s face hit the pavement, resulting in bruises and four shattered front teeth.

The justices did not rule on whether the police officer acted appropriately, but it paves the way for Bryan to pursue a civil lawsuit against the officer and the City of Coronado.

Under the new ruling, tasering a fleeing suspect or a suspect who refuses to comply with an order to lie down during an arrest appears to be prohibited, since the suspect would not pose an obvious danger in these scenarios.

The ruling sets forth clear legal guidelines for when an officer may use a taser, and defines scenarios where the use of a taser would be prohibited. The justices further stated that the use of a taser poses a much more serious use of force than pepper spray-this opinion runs directly contrary to the policies of many law enforcement agencies in California and throughout the nation. Several law enforcement agencies throughout California have announced plans to review their policies regarding the use of tasers in view of this recent appellate court ruling.