CA8: Tasering suspected armed and dangerous arrestee was subject to qualified immunity, even when it turned out officers were reasonably mistaken as to ID of suspect

U.S. Marshals reasonably believed the plaintiff was a wanted armed and dangerous felon. He backed away and refused to submit to arrest and was Tasered. “We have since confirmed that ‘non-violent, non-fleeing subjects have a clearly established right to be free from the use of tasers.’ DeBoise v. Taser Intern., Inc., 760 F.3d 892, 897 (8th Cir. 2014).” The officers had qualified immunity for the use of force here because it wasn’t clearly established that a potentially violent arrestee could not be tasered. After it was determined that plaintiff wasn’t the right guy, he was unhandcuffed and released after twenty minutes. Because of all the confusion that day, the 20 minutes wasn’t unreasonable. Plaintiff did, after all, resist arrest. Wright v. United States, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22484 (8th Cir. Dec. 23, 2015):

Recently, in Hollingsworth v. City of St. Ann, we determined that it was not clearly established in July 2009 that the use of a Taser resulting in only de minimis injury violated the Fourth Amendment. 800 F.3d 985, 991 (8th Cir. 2015). Despite a Taser’s “unique capability to cause high levels of pain without long-term injury, ‘we have not categorized the Taser as an implement of force whose use establishes, as a matter of law, more than de minimis injury.'” Id. at 990-91 (quoting LaCross v. City of Duluth, 713 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2013)). In April 2009, when the events at issue in this case transpired, the state of the law was no different. “‘[A] reasonable officer could have believed that as long as he did not cause more than de minimis injury to an arrestee, his actions would not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.'” Id. at 991 (quoting Bishop v. Glazier, 723 F.3d 957, 962 (8th Cir. 2013)). Therefore, the Marshals are entitled to qualified immunity on Wright’s excessive force claim.

. . .

Accordingly, we hold that the Marshals are entitled to qualified immunity on Wright’s excessive force claim because it was not clearly established in April 2009 that the use of a Tazer against a suspected armed and dangerous felon violated the Fourth Amendment.

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.