{"id":21589,"date":"2016-04-07T00:01:41","date_gmt":"2016-04-07T05:01:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21589"},"modified":"2016-04-06T19:33:38","modified_gmt":"2016-04-07T00:33:38","slug":"ca9-it-was-not-clearly-established-at-the-time-that-tasing-a-noncompliant-detainee-was-excessive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21589","title":{"rendered":"CA9: It was not clearly established at the time that Tasing a noncompliant detainee was excessive"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cResponding 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&#8217;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.\u201d (Summary by the clerk) <a href=\"http:\/\/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2016\/04\/05\/13-55889.pdf\">Thomas v. Dillard<\/a>, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6210 (9th Cir. April 5, 2016).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cResponding 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 &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21589\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52,40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-excessive-force","category-qualified-immunity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21589","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21589"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21589\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21590,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21589\/revisions\/21590"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}