In this case, the court concluded that the TASER® X26™ CEW and other similar devices, when used in dart mode, constitute an intermediate, significant use of force that must be justified by the governmental interest involved. Applying this reasoning, the court determined that the Officer used excessive force when he deployed his X26 in dart mode to apprehend Bryan for a seatbelt infraction, where Bryan was obviously and noticeably unarmed, made no threatening statements or gestures, did not attempt to resist or flee, but was standing inert twenty to twenty-five feet from the officer.
(SEE TASER® CASE RE-VISITED, BY JACK RYAN PUBLISHED BY THE LEGAL & LIABILITY RISK MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE FOR A MORE DETAILED SUMMARY OF THIS CASE).
In this case, the court affirmed its previous stance, that a TASER CEW may not be deployed on a non-violent misdemeanant who does not pose a threat and is not resisting or evading arrest without first giving a warning. The court held that the officer used unreasonable force when he deployed his TASER CEW in dart mode into the back of an unarmed woman without warning her that she was under arrest, commanding her to stop or giving her an opportunity to comply with requests before using force.
Officer’s use of TASER CEW was a reasonable, good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline within the jail, when the Officer deployed a single TASER CEW application in dart-mode, after several warnings, to large male arrestee who was pacing in his cell, yelling obscenities and refusing to comply with officers’ instructions.
The court held that the officer’s use of force was reasonable when he applied a single application of the TASER CEW in dart-mode to vehicle occupant who stepped out of the vehicle and started to approach the officer while the officer was placing the non-compliant vehicle driver under arrest.