“We conclude that Detective Minium is entitled to qualified immunity. It was not clearly established in August 2014 that an officer uses excessive force when he tackles and uses a taser in “drive stun” mode on an individual he is attempting to arrest because she refuses to allow officers to enter her home to ensure the safety of the home’s occupants from a perpetrator of domestic violence who the officer has reason to believe is inside. As the District Court properly noted, Randolph-Ali has failed to identify any judicial decisions indicating to law enforcement that Detective Minium’s conduct would contravene the Fourth Amendment.” Randolph-Ali v. Minium, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35995 (3d Cir. Dec. 4, 2019).

“Relevant to the facts of this case, there exists a sufficient body of caselaw establishing that tasering an individual (an older man in this case) who is already on the ground, who is not actively resisting arrest or fleeing, who has made no verbal threat to an officer’s safety, is not suspected of possessing a weapon much less has brandished one, whose offense is a misdemeanor, and who poses little or no threat to the officers’ or the public’s security (in part because Alfred was outnumbered several officers to one, was near the jail, and was on the ground), and where such use of force was disproportionate to the need constitutes excessive force.” Faughn v. Kennedy, 2019 Ark. App. LEXIS 601, 2019 Ark. App. LEXIS 601 (Dec. 4, 2019).*