CA9: Use of Taser during domestic disturbance call was reasonable

Use of Taser by police during a domestic disturbance call was reasonable because of a risk of danger. Mattos v. Agarano, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 694 (9th Cir. January 12, 2010):

Finally, in weighing the gravity of the Fourth Amendment intrusion against the government’s interest, we conclude that the force used against Jayzel was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Even though we find that use of a Taser represents a serious intrusion on interests protected by the Fourth Amendment, we recognize that in responding to a domestic violence call, the officers confronted a dangerous and volatile situation. When an intoxicated Troy began yelling profanities at the officers and demanding that they leave, the officers felt the need to arrest him to finish their investigation and diffuse the situation. Because Jayzel interfered with Troy’s arrest and, in doing so, made contact with Aikala, Aikala was justified in removing her from Troy’s side. Although an alternative method of force may have been advisable, the Fourth Amendment does not require an officer to use the minimum amount of force necessary to move Jayzel and arrest Troy. See, e.g., Bryan v. McPherson, __ F.3d ___, No. 08-55622, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 28413, *31 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2009). In this heated situation, Aikala’s deployment of a Taser did not violate Jayzel’s constitutional rights.

Plaintiff claimed that he was falsely arrested by being framed for a burglary by the police. His complaint was dismissed, and affirmed, for failing to properly show that he was the subject of a Fourth Amendment seizure. Rhodes v. Prince, 360 Fed. Appx. 555 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.