CA9: It was not clearly established at the time that Tasing a noncompliant detainee was excessive

“Responding to a possible domestic violence call, officer Dillard demanded that plaintiff submit to a Terry frisk for a search of weapons. When plaintiff refused to be searched, officer Dillard tased him. The panel held that although the domestic violence nature of a police investigation is a relevant consideration in assessing whether there is reason to believe a suspect is armed and dangerous, it is not alone sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. The panel therefore held that Dillard violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure by detaining him for the purpose of performing a Terry frisk. The panel nonetheless held that Dillard was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that the initial demand for a frisk was unlawful. The panel further held that it was not clearly established at the time that continuing to detain a noncompliant domestic violence suspect for the purpose of executing a frisk and tasing him when he refused to comply were unlawful.” (Summary by the clerk) Thomas v. Dillard, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6210 (9th Cir. April 5, 2016).