The decision does not discuss in any detail whether or not the use of the Taser was excessive at the time it was used, but refers to a more general issue of whether force was improperly used after resistance had effectively ended. Because the suspected crime was DUI, the motorist could not have posed an immediate threat to the safety of others while on the ground after the initial use of the Taser. An officer placed herself on the man's legs because he was kicking. The trial court found that she was properly terminated for inappropriate conduct, possessing the weapon in violation of state law and hospital policy, not, as she claimed, because of her lesbian sexual orientation or because of unlawful retaliation. The man was lying face down with blood coming from his head or face area. The court rejected a claim that the defendants delayed in providing medical assistance after it became clear that there was a need for it, and rejected municipal liability claims. If he was not trying to resist arrest at that time, a jury could find that the alleged second use of the Taser was excessive force. 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 court also rejected her defamation claims against a co-worker who told the employer and union that she brought the weapon to work. He was treated for a fractured skull and severe traumatic brain injury. NYPD officers were sent to a couple's home after the wife called 911 to report that her husband was suffering an emotional breakdown and was armed with a knife.
Summary judgment was entered for the defendant officer on an excessive force claim on the basis of qualified immunity. A decision was made to take him into protective custody for evaluation for mental impairment possibly threatening harm to himself or others. Backup was summoned and the officers attempted to talk to the man. The detainee claimed that he only backed up into his cell in a non-threatening manner and asked if he could brush his teeth. The man fell to the ground on his stomach landing with his hands underneath him. He was handcuffed and became unresponsive and subsequently died.
The court found that on the date of the incident in October of 2011, "it was not clearly established that it was unconstitutional to shoot a seemingly impaired suspect fleeing on foot with a Taser to prevent that suspect from engaging in further flight that appeared to pose a high risk of serious injury." Dixon v. 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. A person at the building informed an officer that the man was a bath salts user. An officer tried to stop a vehicle which turned without signaling and without illuminated headlights at night. In a subsequent decision, the court found that the plaintiff's theory for imposing municipal liability for inadequate training was unsound as it amounted to arguing that the city was not just under a constitutional duty to change its training to instruct officers to avoid center mass, they were under a constitutional duty to provide officers with better training by providing a medical explanation to officers concerning why they should avoid deploying a Taser to the chest area. He was shot with a Taser in the dart mode, given medical attention, and then taken to court. The deputy ordered the man to pull his hands out, believing that he might be hiding a weapon under him or in his pants or pocket. A lawsuit claimed that the use of the Taser was excessive and caused the decedent's death.
The court rejected a claim that the defendants delayed in providing medical assistance after it became clear that there was a need for it, and rejected municipal liability claims. Depending on the degree of force sustained by the plaintiff when he was struck on the officer's car, he may not have had the capacity to pose such a threat of flight and resistance that it required the first officer's immediate and without warning Taser deployment, and this was a question of fact to be determined. The final bullet entered the man's head, killing him.
Similarly, the court could not rely without question upon the other two officers' defendant reports that they then deployed their Tasers without knowledge of each other's actions when they both observed the plaintiff pushing up off the ground. Claims for municipal liability and negligent screening, hiring, retention, training, and supervision were dismissed as unsupported. Keywords: experts State police received a report from a medical center that an unidentified man had called and stated that he wanted to slit his throat in the back yard. (Trial judgment's order adopting magistrate's report and recommendations). A lawsuit claimed that a man was killed by a police officer who fired his Taser in the dart mode without just cause, striking the man's center mass, causing cardiac capture and death.
This is a law library, not a policy or training site. He was forcibly removed and handcuffed and placed on a bunk. Supreme Court found that the detainee only had to show that the force purposefully or knowing used was objectively unreasonable, as that standard adequately protected an officer who acted in good faith. On remand, the federal appeals court vacated the district court's judgment and ordered a new trial, as the plaintiff urged them to. 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.
Litigants and policymakers are bound by the case law of their federal circuit. When the officers tried to remove the handcuffs, he allegedly resisted, which he later denied. The jury instructions were erroneous because they suggested that the jury should weigh the officers' subjective reasons for using force, whether the officers actually intended to violate, or recklessly disregarded the detainee's rights, and the issue of whether that error was harmless would depend in part on the detailed specifics of the case. "We have undertaken the required scrutiny of the record and are convinced that the error in this case cannot be characterized as harmless. He was forcibly removed and handcuffed and placed on a bunk. Supreme Court found that the detainee only had to show that the force purposefully or knowing used was objectively unreasonable, as that standard adequately protected an officer who acted in good faith. On remand, the federal appeals court vacated the district court's judgment and ordered a new trial, as the plaintiff urged them to.
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.
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.