[NYAPRS Enews] SB: 'Landmark' Federal Ruling Limits Taser Use on People w Psych Disabilities

[Harvey Rosenthal]

<http://thecrimereport.org/2009/12/29/9th-circuit-limits-police-use-of-t
asers-against-mentally-ill/> 9th Circuit Limits Police Use Of Tasers
Against Mentally Ill


Crime Report December 29th, 2009 

 

A federal appeals court yesterday issued one of the most comprehensive
rulings yet limiting police use of Tasers against low-level offenders
who seem to pose little threat and may be mentally ill, the Sacramento
Bee reports. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit criticized a
San Diego County officer who without warning shot an emotionally
troubled man with a Taser when he was unarmed, yards away, and neither
fleeing nor advancing on the officer.

There have been at least nine Taser-related fatalities in the Sacramento
region. A 9th Circuit panel affirmed a trial judge's ruling that the
level of force used by a San Diego County officer was excessive. The
officer's "desire to quickly and decisively end an unusual and tense
situation is understandable," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote. "His
chosen method for doing so violated [the victim's] constitutional right
to be free from excessive force."


 


 


---------------


Federal Appellate Court Limits Cops' Use Of Tasers


By Hudson Sangree Sacramento Bee December 29, 2009


 


A federal appeals court on Monday issued one of the most comprehensive
rulings yet limiting police use of Tasers against low-level offenders
who seem to pose little threat and may be mentally ill.


 


In a case out of San Diego County, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
criticized an officer who, without warning, shot an emotionally troubled
man with a Taser when he was unarmed, yards away, and neither fleeing
nor advancing on the officer.


 


Sold as a nonlethal alternative to guns, Tasers deliver an electrical
jolt meant to subdue a subject. The stun guns have become a common and
increasingly controversial tool used by law enforcement. 


 


There have been at least nine Taser-related fatalities in the Sacramento
region, including the death earlier this month of Paul Martinez Jr., an
inmate shot with a stun gun while allegedly resisting officers at the
Roseville jail.


 


As lawsuits have proliferated against police and Taser International,
which manufactures the weaons, the nation's appellate courts have been
trying to define what constitutes appropriate Taser use.


 


The San Diego County case is the latest ruling to address the issue. The
court recounted the facts of the case: In the summer of 2005, Carl
Bryan, 21, was pulled over for a seat-belt violation and did not follow
an officer's order to stay in the car. Earlier, he had received a
speeding ticket and had taken off his T-shirt to wipe away tears. He was
wearing only the underwear he'd slept in because a woman had taken his
keys, the court said without further explanation. During his second
traffic stop in Coronado, he got out of the car. He was "agitated ...
yelling gibberish and hitting his thighs, clad only in his boxer shorts
and tennis shoes" but did not threaten the officer verbally or
physically, the judges wrote. That's when Coronado Police Officer Brian
McPherson, who was standing about 20 feet away watching Bryan's "bizarre
tantrum," fired his Taser, the court said. Without a word of warning, he
hit Bryan in the arm with two metal darts, delivering a 1,200-volt jolt.
Temporarily paralyzed and in intense pain, Bryan fell face-first on the
pavement. The fall shattered four of his front teeth and left him with
facial abrasions and swelling. Later, a doctor had to use a scalpel to
remove one of the darts.


 


Bryan sued McPherson, the Coronado Police Department and the city of
Coronado, alleging excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment
rights. The officer moved to have the claim dismissed, but a federal
trial judge ruled in Bryan's favor.


 


A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the trial judge's ruling
on Monday, concluding that the level of force used by the officer was
excessive.


 


McPherson could have waited for backup or tried to talk the man down,
the judges said. If Bryan was mentally ill, as the officer contended,
then there was even more reason to use "less intrusive means," the
judges said. "Officer McPherson's desire to quickly and decisively end
an unusual and tense situation is understandable," Judge Kim McLane
Wardlaw wrote for the court. "His chosen method for doing so violated
Bryan's constitutional right to be free from excessive force."


 


Some lawyers called it a landmark decision. Eugene Iredale, a San Diego
lawyer who argued the case, said it was one of the clearest and most
complete statements yet from an appellate court about the limits of
Taser use. He said after Monday's decision that courts will consider all
circumstances, including whether someone poses a threat, has committed a
serious crime or is mentally troubled. "In an era where everybody
understands 'don't tase me, bro,' courts are going to look more closely
at the use of Tasers, and they're going to try to deter the promiscuous
oversue of that tool," he said.


 


That's especially true in the context of those who appear to be
emotionally disturbed or mentally ill, said Johnny Griffin III, a
Sacramento plaintiffs lawyer. Griffin represented the family of a
troubled Woodland man who died under police restraint after being struck
multiple times with Tasers.


In May 2008, Ricardo Abrahams walked away from a voluntary care facility
and disobeyed the orders of officers called to check on his well-being.
They shot him repeatedly with stun guns. The case against the city of
Woodland and its officers was settled in June for $300,000. "I think it
confirms what I and other lawyers in this area have been saying: You
can't treat a person with mental illness the same as someone without
mental illness," Griffin said.


 


Law enforcement authorities in Sacramento said they don't expect
Monday's ruling to prompt much change. Sacramento Police Department and
Sacramento County Sheriff's Department policies permit the use of force
to gain control of a suspect or prevent harm to others. "Certainly the
officer should be able to articulate the reason the force (was used),
and a mere resistance to comply may not be enough," said Sheriff John
McGinness.


Sgt. Norm Leong, spokesman for the Police Department, said his agency's
policy on the use of stun guns mainly covers safety considerations. It
doesn't list behaviors or situations that warrant using the devices, he
said. "Ideally, in every circumstance, we try to gain compliance
verbally, and force is the last option we ever want to use," he said.


 


http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2425481.html

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kilakwa.net/pipermail/nyaprs_kilakwa.net/attachments/20091230/746c360a/attachment.html>