The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently dismissed a 1983 lawsuit against officers alleging excessive force in the use of a taser against a subject who engaged in pre-arrest flight. (Brown v. Giles, 95 F.4th 436 (6th Cir. 2024)) Notably, the court found that a taser prong striking the suspect’s head was not clearly established as excessive and that other allegation clearly refuted by the video footage should be dismissed as well.
The court explained the suspect’s mother called the police when he showed up at her workplace seeking money and a place to stay. The suspect, who suffered from addiction and homelessness, had a warrant out for his arrest. When contacted by the officers, he provided a fake name and then fled.
One of the officers pursued him and mid-stride fired his taser with one probe striking his head and the other his back. The suspect fell to the ground and hit his head. While handcuffing him, the officer held his taser against his back in case he resisted. The suspect sued claiming the use of the taser was excessive and caused injuries. He also claimed he was drive stunned while being handcuffed, a claim contradicted by the video.
The court wasted little time affirming that its reasonable to tase fleeing suspects, so that tasing alone is insufficient to establish excessive force. The court noted that while lethal force would not have been appropriate, tasers are not lethal force. The court also rejected the argument that this particular use of the taser was unreasonably dangerous because the suspect was running and struck in the head. The court explained:
“We doubt that this difference matters in the context of a mid-chase decision to tase a fleeing suspect. It’s difficult to imagine how a sprinting officer could aim his taser precisely enough to (1) hit a suspect with both taser probes while (2) ensuring that neither probe hits the suspect’s head. It’s even harder to imagine that the Fourth Amendment requires such a feat. That’s precisely why we defer to the “split-second” decisions of officers in fast-paced, complex situations.”
As for the claim that the officer continued to tase the suspect after he was subdued, the court noted the alleged conduct would constitute excessive force if true. However, the court dismissed these allegations based on the video of the incident demonstrating that the suspect was only tased once. The officer never deployed the taser while pressed against the suspect’s back, as the “lack of noise utterly discredited” the suspect’s claim.
Importantly, the court explained “we don’t need to accept as true any allegation ‘blatantly contradicted’ by the video. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). This dooms [the suspect’s] claim.”
