The Sacramento Bee reports on a ruling out of San Diego County where the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a comprehensive ruling that limits the use of Tasers by police against low-level offenders who seem to pose little threat and may have mental illness.
The specific case involves an emotionally disturbed individual who was shot with a Taser. He was described as unarmed, yards away, and neither fleeing nor advancing on the officer.
According to the article, there have been a proliferation of lawsuits against police and the manufacturer, Taser International. The nation’s appellate courts to this point have attempted to define constitutionally appropriate Taser use. Some have called this a landmark decision.
The Bee reports:
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.
The local implication to this is the death of Ricardo Abrahams due to positional asphyxiation following a tasing by Woodland police in 2008.
The Bee article interviews Johnny Griffin III, a Sacramento attorney who represents the Abrahams family in a lawsuit. A portion of it was recently settled to the amount of $300,000 with Woodland Police.
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.
The article further reports that law enforcement authorities in Sacramento do not expect the ruling to change their policies. Accordingly,
“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.”
However, from our perspective it begins to hone in on the use of force by law enforcement. Tasers are advertised as nonlethal alternatives to guns and deliver an electrical jolt that will subdue a subject. However, they have increasingly become controversial as they have become more common in use by law enforcement. Ultimately it will be left to the courts to sort out permissible use by police.
There are really two areas that seem to be covered by this ruling that need to be further fleshed out. First, how do police respond to the non-cooperative subject who is not following the orders of police but does not pose a clear threat and are not physically resisting arrest.
The second, and this will relate to another topic of conversation, how do the police deal with people who are not complying with commands not out of contempt or self-imposed intoxication, but because through little fault of their own, they simply do not understand the commands or the situation.
The court here in my mind has basically eliminated what should be clear-cut situations where police should not use Tasers. If you have an individual who is not a threat–described here as “did not threaten the officer verbally or physically” and 20 feet away from the individual, there is no need to fire a Taser just because the individual is exhibiting a “bizarre tantrum.”
This is a good start, but obviously it will impact only a small number of Taser cases and not the ones in the more gray realm.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
