Taser lawsuit dismissal is upheld on appeal

9th Circuit Court says Taser International had no reason to advise in 2004 that repeated jolts from its stun guns could cause a condition that raises heart attack risk.

Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times

July 11, 2012

A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against the manufacturer of Tasers, ruling the company had no duty to warn that repeated jolts from the stun guns could trigger death.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed unanimously that Arizona-based Taser International had no reason to advise police agencies in 2004 that the stun guns could cause metabolic acidosis, a condition in which lactic acid, produced during physical exertion, accumulates more quickly than the body can expel it. The condition raises the risk of a heart attack.

The parents of Michael Rosa, 38, who died in 2004 after police repeatedly shocked him with electricity from Tasers, sued the manufacturer on the grounds the company should have warned of the risk. The company maintains there is no evidence that Tasers cause acidosis but began warning about it anyway in 2009.

The suit stemmed from an incident in the Monterey County city of Del Rey Oaks. Someone called police to report that a "pretty disturbed" man was walking around and yelling. The first officer on the scene believed the man, Rosa, was "either really high or crazy" and called for backup, the court said. More officers arrived, and officers repeatedly fired Tasers at Rosa before wrangling him into handcuffs.

"At this point, Michael slumped, his lips blue, his breathing erratic," Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain wrote for the court. "He quickly stopped breathing entirely."

Efforts to resuscitate Rosa failed, and he died shortly thereafter. High levels of methamphetamines were discovered in his blood, and his death eventually was linked to acidosis, the court said. But studies previous to the Rosa incident failed to substantiate that Tasers cause acidosis, the court said.

John Maley, an attorney for the company, said it has been sued several times on the grounds the weapon caused the condition. One case led to a jury award of about $200,000 against the company. Maley said he hoped Tuesday's ruling would end the litigation.

"The science even today doesn't establish that dangerous acidosis results from Taser application," Maley said. He said the company decided to issue warnings only to avoid potential liability.

Peter Williamson, one of Rosa's lawyers, disagreed, citing a 2005 study that he said showed Tasers can trigger the deadly condition. The Rosa suit was dismissed only because the death occurred before that study was published, Williamson said.

9th Circuit finds police stun gun use excessive in 2 cases

October 18, 2011
Carol J. Williams, LA Times

Police used excessive force when they fired Tasers at a pregnant woman in Seattle and a victim of domestic abuse in Maui, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a case that could influence how police handle those resisting arrest across the West.

The ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in a full 11-judge forum used to decide important questions of law, could prompt police forces to reexamine their rules and practices for the temporarily debilitating stun guns.

In the Seattle case, a seven-months pregnant Malaika Brooks was driving her son to school when she was stopped by police, ticketed for driving 12 miles over the 20-mph speed limit and blasted with a stun gun three times after refusing to sign the citation.

Two years later and thousands of miles away in Maui, Jayzel Mattos was trying to defuse a brewing clash between her drunk husband and four police officers called to a domestic disturbance when one of the officers suddenly dropped her to the floor with two jolts from his Taser, which was set in dart mode.

The federal appeals court ruled that in both instances, police used excessive force and that their actions violated the Constitution's protection from unreasonable force.

While deeming the use of the stun guns in Seattle and Maui excessive, the court said the officers weren't liable in the civil suits filed against them because the law governing Taser use wasn't clearly established at the time of Brooks' 2004 arrest or when Mattos was jolted without warning for what police said was obstructing police at her home in 2006.

But the court's ruling Monday may now serve to establish that using stun guns without an imminent threat of harm is unreasonable, at least in some cases, exposing police officers to liability in future lawsuits, legal analysts said.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said the 9th Circuit ruling wouldn't be unduly restrictive for law enforcement because the circumstances in the two cases it reviewed were unusual and unlikely to be relevant in most instances when police decide to use stun guns.

"They took some pretty sympathetic factual scenarios to establish this law," said Laurie Levenson, a criminal law professor at Loyola Law School, noting Brooks' advanced pregnancy and the allegedly unprovoked stunning of Mattos.

The ruling should encourage police to better assess the threat level they confront and the severity of the offense for which a citizen is resisting arrest, said Levenson, describing the decision as "certainly not a case where the court says police can't use Tasers."

The Los Angeles Police Department has detailed guidelines for officers on the appropriate use of stun guns and their procedures already comply with the court ruling, said Assistant Chief Sandy Jo MacArthur.

Other regional law enforcement agencies have been refining their stun gun rules after a similar decision last year involving Coronado police in San Diego County.

Monday's ruling could influence the outcome of a lawsuit filed by the parents of a San Bernardino man who died in May. Three officers were accused of shocking him repeatedly with stun guns for 10 minutes. Allen Kephart, 43, was stopped by three sheriff's deputies after he honked his horn at them for turning in front of his car, the lawsuit contends.

Four of the 11 judges dissented in part from the 9th Circuit ruling, including Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who expressed concern that restricting the use of non-lethal force with Tasers could result in police resorting to more dangerous means to subdue those resisting arrest.

In the last decade, Kozinski said, half a million police officers were assaulted in the line of duty and 536 were killed, "the vast majority while performing routine law enforcement tasks like conducting traffic stops and responding to domestic disturbance calls."

Two of the dissenters disagreed that Brooks' constitutional rights were violated, saying she brought the action on herself by repeatedly refusing to sign the traffic citation or to get out of her car when police tried to arrest her.

"There are only so many ways that a person can be extracted from a vehicle against her will, and none of them is pretty. Fists, batons, choke holds, dogs, tear gas, and chemical spray all carry their own risks to suspects and officers alike," wrote Judges Barry G. Silverman and Richard R. Clifton.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Jury Verdict Against TASER International, Inc., in Wrongful Death Suit

First-Ever Products Liability Verdict Upheld

San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) May 11, 2011

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the first-ever plaintiff’s products liability verdict against Scottsdale based TASER International, Inc., the leading manufacturer of Electronic Control Devices (“ECDs”). TASER had sought to overturn the jury’s wrongful-death verdict claiming various errors during the trial (see the attached Memorandum Decision). However, a unanimous three-judge panel substantially rejected TASER’s appeal and affirmed the verdict. The plaintiffs are extremely gratified by the court's ruling which holds TASER responsible for the death of their son and brother, respectively, according to their attorneys, John Burton of Pasadena, California and Peter M. Williamson of Woodland Hills, California.

According to the plaintiffs' complaint, on February 19, 2005, Robert C. Heston began acting erratically inside his family's Salinas, California home. Suspecting a drug relapse, Heston's father called the police reporting his son's bizarre behavior and asked for help. Officers from the Salinas Police Department used their TASER ECDs repeatedly, ultimately subjecting Heston to 75 seconds of electrical discharges. As a result, Heston suffered a cardiac arrest. He was removed from life support and died the following day.

In their lawsuit, Heston v. City of Salinas, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. C 05-03658 JW (United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose)), Heston's parents alleged that TASER ECDs are unreasonably dangerous and defective for use on human beings because they were sold without adequate testing and without sufficient warning that multiple shocks on people under the influence of drugs can cause cardiac arrest and death.

On June 7, 2008, the Heston jury found that TASER knew or should have known that its M26 model ECD was dangerous because prolonged exposures to the device pose a substantial risk of cardiac arrest to persons against whom the device is deployed. The jury also found that TASER International failed to adequately warn purchasers of its device of the risks associated with its use. It awarded the parents of Robert Heston $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000.00 in punitive damages. The jury also awarded Heston's estate $21,000.00 in compensatory damages and another $200,000.00 in punitive damages. However, it also found Robert Heston 85% comparatively negligent for the incident which ultimately resulted in his death. After post-trial motions, the trial court vacated the punitive damage awards leaving a net verdict of $150,000 to the parents of Robert Heston and $3,150 to his estate. TASER was also ordered to pay $1,423,000.00 in attorneys’ fees under the California Private Attorney’s General statute to attorneys John Burton of Pasadena, California and Peter M. Williamson of Williamson & Krauss of Woodland Hills, California who successfully represented the Heston family.

In upholding the verdict, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not disturb the jury’s findings that substantial evidence existed to prove that TASER knew or should have known that its M26 model ECD was dangerous because prolonged exposures to the device pose a substantial risk of cardiac arrest to persons against whom the device is deployed. The Court, however, did vacate the jury’s award of $3,150 to the Heston estate concluding that insufficient evidence was presented at the trial to support this award. The Court also vacated the award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs’ counsel agreeing with TASER that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding such fees under the California Private Attorney’s General statute.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Jury Verdict Against TASER International, Inc., in Wrongful Death Suit

May 11, 2011
PRWeb

First-Ever Products Liability Verdict Upheld
San Francisco, CA (PRWEB)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the first-ever plaintiff’s products liability verdict against Scottsdale based TASER International, Inc., the leading manufacturer of Electronic Control Devices (“ECDs”). TASER had sought to overturn the jury’s wrongful-death verdict claiming various errors during the trial (see the attached Memorandum Decision). However, a unanimous three-judge panel substantially rejected TASER’s appeal and affirmed the verdict. The plaintiffs are extremely gratified by the court's ruling which holds TASER responsible for the death of their son and brother, respectively, according to their attorneys, John Burton of Pasadena, California and Peter M. Williamson of Woodland Hills, California.

According to the plaintiffs' complaint, on February 19, 2005, Robert C. Heston began acting erratically inside his family's Salinas, California home. Suspecting a drug relapse, Heston's father called the police reporting his son's bizarre behavior and asked for help. Officers from the Salinas Police Department used their TASER ECDs repeatedly, ultimately subjecting Heston to 75 seconds of electrical discharges. As a result, Heston suffered a cardiac arrest. He was removed from life support and died the following day.

In their lawsuit, Heston v. City of Salinas, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. C 05-03658 JW (United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose)), Heston's parents alleged that TASER ECDs are unreasonably dangerous and defective for use on human beings because they were sold without adequate testing and without sufficient warning that multiple shocks on people under the influence of drugs can cause cardiac arrest and death.

On June 7, 2008, the Heston jury found that TASER knew or should have known that its M26 model ECD was dangerous because prolonged exposures to the device pose a substantial risk of cardiac arrest to persons against whom the device is deployed. The jury also found that TASER International failed to adequately warn purchasers of its device of the risks associated with its use. It awarded the parents of Robert Heston $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000.00 in punitive damages. The jury also awarded Heston's estate $21,000.00 in compensatory damages and another $200,000.00 in punitive damages. However, it also found Robert Heston 85% comparatively negligent for the incident which ultimately resulted in his death. After post-trial motions, the trial court vacated the punitive damage awards leaving a net verdict of $150,000 to the parents of Robert Heston and $3,150 to his estate. TASER was also ordered to pay $1,423,000.00 in attorneys’ fees under the California Private Attorney’s General statute to attorneys John Burton of Pasadena, California and Peter M. Williamson of Williamson & Krauss of Woodland Hills, California who successfully represented the Heston family.

In upholding the verdict, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not disturb the jury’s findings that substantial evidence existed to prove that TASER knew or should have known that its M26 model ECD was dangerous because prolonged exposures to the device pose a substantial risk of cardiac arrest to persons against whom the device is deployed. The Court, however, did vacate the jury’s award of $3,150 to the Heston estate concluding that insufficient evidence was presented at the trial to support this award. The Court also vacated the award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs’ counsel agreeing with TASER that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding such fees under the California Private Attorney’s General statute.

9th Circuit hears 2 big ECD cases

January 29, 2011
policeone.com

Less Lethal Issues in Law Enforcement
- Sponsored by TASER International
(that says it all)

with Capt. Greg Meyer (ret.)

On December 14, 2010, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard appellate arguments on two recent, important TASER cases (Brooks v. Seattle; and Mattos v. Agarano). Both of these cases had been decided favorably for law enforcement earlier in 2010 by different three-judge panels of the 9th Circuit. Plaintiffs appealed those decisions, and were considered by an en banc hearing of the 9th — meaning there were 11 judges on the panel instead of the usual three). Some months from now, the court will publish its rulings on these cases.

The Brooks case involved a pregnant woman who was drive-stunned by an officer three times (arm, shoulder, side of neck), with a patrol supervisor present and with warnings and verbal persuasion attempts before and between each drive-stun; then she got out of the car. The Mattos case involved a wife who was TASERed with darts when she put herself between her husband and the officers who were trying to arrest the husband at a domestic-violence incident.

I attended the appellate hearing and made a few notes. It was very obvious that the judges on the panel did not know or understand much about TASERs and how they work. But some of their points were quite interesting.

One judge said, “I know there's no risk of death from pepper spray...” Then he wondered rhetorically whether the TASER can result in a heart attack.

Another judge — who is a former Los Angeles police commissioner, thus he had at least some familiarity with TASERs — said, “Maybe every judge on the panel should be tased so they know what it feels like.”

No argument from me!

One judge quickly corrected one of the plaintiff's attorneys who asserted that police must use “minimal force” under the involved agency’s policy. The judge not-too-gently reminded the attorney that “reasonable force” (not “minimal force”) is the national legal standard for reviewing use of force, and that she didn't care what the department's policy was. [Does your agency policy reflect the legal standard?]

The head judge on the panel considered other options besides TASER use on Brooks (who had braced herself in the driver seat by gripping the steering wheel and actively resisting efforts to remove her from her car when she had been arrested). The judge said that if you pull her out of the car, you could dislocate her shoulder, or cause a variety of other significant injuries.

The Brooks plaintiff's attorney asserted that Brooks could not get out of the car on her own after she received a drive-stun on the arm, the shoulder, and the base of the neck. [Since the judges collectively didn't seem to know much about TASERs, no one knew what to say to that plainly wrong assertion.]

The Brooks plaintiff's attorney talked about the TASER warnings that the officers used with Brooks, recounting that they verbally warned her that it would hurt, and they demonstrated the spark. But he characterized the warning process as “taunting her with the TASER.” [The judges didn't seem to buy that, or much of what he was trying to sell.]

In the Mattos case, the plaintiff is the wife of a domestic violence suspect. The wife put herself between the husband and the officers who were arresting the husband. The wife pushed an officer and got tased with darts from close range, and later testified that she “may have” extended her arm toward the officer. The plaintiff's attorney asserted that the officer could/should have shoved the wife to push her back, not use a TASER.

The head judge stated [quite accurately] that there are divergent views on what level of force TASER represents. He asked rhetorically, how do we determine what the effects of the TASER are? [I don't think today's hearing did much to clarify the issue. There are obviously multiple ways to use the TASER, and apply the current for varying periods of time. The court seems mostly in the dark about such details, and the questions asked the various judges reflected a general lack of knowledge about typical TASER effects.]

The Mattos plaintiff's attorney plainly stated that he was comfortable with the TASER at the same level as pepper spray, as he sees them both as intermediate force options! [I’ll give the plaintiff’s attorney a point for that one. The 9th Circuit has previously characterized the TASER as an “intermediate” level of force, which dovetails nicely with my belief over three decades.]

One judge said that some people argue that TASER effects are equivalent to the shock one gets from walking across a carpet and touching a doorknob. [This is a total misinterpretation of a traditional TASER training reference that is meant merely to point out that high voltage in and of itself is not dangerous. The concept does not speak to TASER effects.]

The defense attorney [that’s our side, folks] in the Brooks matter got in the last word when he pointed out to the judges that when determining reasonableness, it is important to consider the potential effects of alternative force options. [This was in the context of much research that has shown that TASER use results in fewer and less severe injuries to officers and suspects compared to several other police tools and tactics.]

I was honored to coordinate a nationwide effort on short notice to get the support of law enforcement organizations for an amicus brief (which most of us call a “friend of the court brief”) to counter the briefs submitted by the ACLU and the National Police Accountability Project (an arm of the National Lawyers Guild). Our brief was late, thus not technically accepted by the court. But it was obvious to me, as I listened to the judges’ questions, that they had read it. Thank you to all who stepped up to the plate and put in lots of hours (at no charge) on behalf of law enforcement.

Special thanks to Steve Ijames, Sid Heal, Jeff Chudwin, and Don Kester for helping round up support of some great organizations to support the amicus brief, including: National Tactical Officers Association, California Association of Tactical Officers, Illinois Tactical Officers Association, Kansas City Metro Tactical Officers Association, Mountain States Tactical Officers Association, Ohio Tactical Officers Association, Pennsylvania Tactical Officers Association, Rocky Mountain Tactical Team Association, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and District Attorney Investigators, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, and the City of Burbank. And VERY special thanks to attorneys Steve Renick (who wrote the brief), Gene Ramirez and Missy O’Linn (all of Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP of Los Angeles) who jumped in and worked miracles to get our brief done!

Some months from now (perhaps many months!) we'll see what the 9th Circuit does with the Brooks and Mattos cases.

That's it for now! Please stay safe... especially important after a terrible January for police across the country.

Portland police chief wants to know: How should his officers use their Tasers?

January 26, 2011
Maxine Berstein, The Oregonian

A motorist wanted on a felony warrant and driving a stolen vehicle suddenly bails out of the car and is about to scale a fence in a residential neighborhood. Should a pursuing Portland police officer use his Taser on the suspect to stop him?

Should an officer in the city's downtown who is trying to clear the entertainment district at club-closing time use a Taser against a man who is intoxicated and not following instructions, and then balls up his fists at officers?

Police Chief Mike Reese is seeking community input on what the criteria should be for officers to use their stun guns.

Portland's current policy -- which allows police to use a Taser when a person engages in, or displays the intent to engage in physical resistance -- is more permissive than other cities' and model guidelines.

Deputy City Attorney Dave Woboril says Portland's current guidelines are not precise enough and need to be improved to better guide officers. The review also comes in light of recent court opinions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal appeals court ruled in late December that police can be held liable for using a stun gun against an unarmed person who poses no immediate threat.

Woboril is meeting with local citizen groups to gauge their opinions, and threw out the two scenarios to get people talking at a recent meeting of the Community and Police Relations Committee of Portland's Human Rights Commission.

"The Taser directive doesn't quite work for the Police Bureau," Woboril said.

Assistant Chief Larry O'Dea said the chief has asked for input to learn: "What are the community expectations?"

Tasers are considered a "less-lethal" weapon, designed to temporarily incapacitate or restrain a person when lethal force is not appropriate. In 2005, the bureau issued Tasers to all of its officers. They're used in two ways.

They can fire barbs attached to wires that transmit electricity to A suspect. Each press of the trigger activates the stun gun for one cycle, which typically lasts five seconds. If a second cycle is needed, the officer can pull the trigger again to send an additional wave of electricity through the probes attached to a suspect.

The Taser also can be used in a stun mode, where the gun is pressed directly against someone's skin to shock them.

In contrast to other municipalities, Portland's policy allows Taser use when the subject shows only the intent to resist police.

According to guidelines issued by the Police Executive Research Forum, a Taser should be used only on people who are actively resisting, being actively aggressive or to prevent the subject from harming themselves or others, according to a City of Portland audit.

Five of eight police agencies that city auditors studied have the stricter threshold, including Cincinnati, Colorado Springs (Colo.), Denver and San Diego police, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon doesn't think the Police Executive Research Forum's guidelines are tight enough, according to Dave Fidanque, executive director. The ACLU says police should only use Tasers if they encounter active physical resistance where there is a likelihood the situation will escalate to a need for deadly force. The Ashland Police Department is the only one in Oregon to adopt this stricter policy.

"This chief especially puts value on how our policies and procedures reflect what the community wants," bureau spokeswoman Lt. Kelli Sheffer said.

Anyone wanting to provide input about the proper use of Tasers by Portland police may contact the commander of the precinct where they live, and participate in their precinct advisory committee.

Portland has three precincts. The addresses and phone numbers are as follows:
North, 449 N.E. Emerson, 503-823-5700.
Central, 1111 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 503-823-0097.
East, 737 S.E. 106th Avenue 503-823-4800.

Police must have reasonable grounds for using Tasers, 9th Circuit rules

December 1, 2010
Carol Williams, Los Angeles Times

A Coronado, Calif., police officer used excessive force when he shot a Taser dart at a young driver who was stopped for a seat belt violation, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Carl Bryan, then 21, fell to the asphalt after being struck by the dart, breaking four teeth and suffering facial cuts. He later sued the Coronado Police Department and Officer Brian MacPherson.

The excessive-force ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could have consequences for police use-of-force policies across the West, legal experts predicted. Two other lawsuits over Taser incidents are still pending before the appeals court, including a case in which a pregnant woman in Seattle was subjected to the device in a routine traffic stop.

Police must have reasonable grounds for using a Taser on a suspect, the appeals panel said, noting that Bryan was wearing only boxer shorts and tennis shoes and was clearly unarmed. Bryan was standing about 20 feet away with his back to MacPherson when he was hit.

"I think police departments will have to tailor their use-of-force policies to the Bryan decision from now on," said Steven E. Boehmer, the El Cajon, Calif., attorney who represented MacPherson.

The appeals panel, while deeming the Taser use excessive and unjustified, said the officer nonetheless deserved immunity from prosecution because the circumstances in which the weapon could be reasonably deployed weren't clearly defined at the time.

Because of the immunity grant, Coronado, in San Diego County, won't appeal the excessive-force ruling, Boehmer said, and would work with police to establish guidelines for use of the weapon.

Bryan, who now lives in Europe, where he assists his tennis-champion cousins Bob and Mike Bryan, still has state court actions in which he hopes to recover damages, said his attorney, Julia Yoo.

Bryan had been stopped at a seat belt enforcement roadblock at the Coronado Bridge after spending hours on the morning of July 24, 2005, driving between Camarillo and Los Angeles to fetch his keys that had been accidentally taken by a cousin's girlfriend. On the drive home from Camarillo to Coronado, Bryan had been cited for speeding and was agitated when he was stopped a second time by MacPherson, according to court records.

New hearing for mom scarred by Taser in traffic stop

October 2, 2010
Mike Carter, Seattle Times

In a rare move, judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether to revive the lawsuit of a pregnant Seattle woman who three Seattle police officers shot with a Taser after she refused to sign a traffic ticket.

The court on Thursday said the appeal by Malaika Brooks will be heard "en banc," meaning an 11-judge panel will reconsider the case.

The ruling came after a three-judge panel in March split 2-1 and overturned a Seattle federal judge's decision to let Brooks' case go to trial. The majority — Senior Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall and Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain — found the officers were justified in using their Tasers, set in stun mode, to zap the seven-months pregnant woman three times when she resisted their efforts to pull her from her car after a traffic stop in 2004.

In her dissent, Judge Marsha Berzon called their opinion "off the wall."

Brooks was driving her son to Seattle's African American Academy and was stopped while doing 32 mph in a school zone. She insisted that it was the car in front of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket because she thought she'd be admitting guilt, according to court documents.

Rather than give her the ticket and let her leave, the officers decided to arrest her. One reached in, turned off her car and dropped the keys on the floor. Brooks, according to police reports, stiffened her arms against the steering wheel, told the officers she was pregnant and refused to get out, even after they threatened to stun her.

The officers — Sgt. Steven Daman, Officer Juan Ornelas and Officer Donald Jones — first attempted a manual "pain compliance" hold to force her from the car. When that didn't work, the officers applied a Taser in the painful touch-stun mode three times in rapid succession on her thigh, shoulder and neck. The officers then pulled her out of the car and handcuffed her facedown in the street, according to the reports and her federal lawsuit.

Brooks gave birth to a healthy baby two months later, but has scars from where she was touched by the Tasers, according to her lawsuit.

Brooks claimed the officers violated her constitutional rights, and U.S. District Judge Richard Jones allowed the case to continue. In a June 2008 ruling, Jones declined to grant the officers immunity for performing their official duties and said Brooks posed no threat to anyone and that her rights were clearly violated.

Brooks' attorney, Eric Zubel, couldn't be reached Friday.

The lawyer representing the officers, Ted Buck, said Friday night he suspects the appeals court is going to use the Brooks case and another recent Taser case to "harmonize" the circuit's law on the matter.

"But I don't expect a different outcome," Buck said. "She was under arrest, resisting arrest, and the officers had the right to use force to take her into custody."

In her dissent, in the 9th Circuit's March ruling, Berzon was unconvinced by the majority's opinion that Brooks was obstructing justice. "I fail utterly to comprehend how my colleagues are able to conclude that it was objectively reasonable to use any force against Brooks, let alone three activations of a Taser, in response to such a trivial offense," she wrote.

Berzon noted that under Washington law, the officers had no authority to take Brooks into custody: Failure to sign a traffic infraction is not an arrestable offense, and it's not illegal to resist an unlawful arrest.

The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court, the country's largest federal judicial circuit, encompasses nine states and two Pacific Island jurisdictions, and hears only about 20 such en banc cases per year, those reserved for "legal questions deemed by the court to be of exceptional importance," according to the court's website.

Letter to the President of the United States

To: President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC, USA 20500

Subject 21st Century Electronic Lynching

Mr. President,

This letter was written to express the protests of concerned Individuals, Civil Rights Organizations and activists who complain that our civil rights have been so eroded that it is now acceptable Police policy to use cruel and unusual punishment on a Citizen without due process of law. We the undersigned Citizens, Citizen Groups and Civil Rights Organizations, protest that the 4th, 8th, and 14th amendments of the constitution are being systematically violated by Police Officers using electronic torture devices on Citizens and non-Citizens.

Representatives of the company that manufacturers electronic torture devices lied to Police Officials when they told them that the devices had been tested and were found to be non-lethal. They bragged instead about the excruciating agony and terror caused by their use. It is impossible for the manufacturer to have tested these electronic torture devices with electrodes shot at different depths under a victims skin, and in all possible places on the human body, and for the extended times experienced in the field, also they could not have tested the devices on victims with various medical, physical and mental conditions. Had this happened there would have been many deaths of the test subjects. Instead, the company in effect used Police Officers as lab assistants and the public as lab rats for their tests, then they harvest Para-Medic and Medical Examiners Reports all for free. They scammed an all too willing law enforcement community with half truths and outright lies. The best estimate that we can find to date indicates that thousands of victims have suffered cruel and unusual punishment and 476 victims were tortured and died after being electrocuted with an electronic torture device in the US and Canada. Medical records prove many victims suffer neurological damages after being electrocuted with an electronic torture device by a Police Officer.

Michael Patrick Jacobs Jr., a bipolar 24-year-old black youth, who needed medical attention was tortured for 54 seconds with 50,000 volt electrodes shot into his neck and chest. He was not a criminal. His 21st Century Electronic Lynching was declared a homicide by the Tarrant County, Tx. Medical Examiner. After his taser torture death the taser manufacturer sent bulletins to all Police departments to direct Officers not to shoot a victim in the chest area to avoid causing cardiac arrest. This was after 12 years of vehemently denying that tasers could be lethal and after 424 prior taser related torture deaths. The inaccuracy of the devices gives Police Officers little control over where they will be shot into the flesh of a victim so each use is playing Russian Roulette with a victims life.

Mr. President, there is no more cruel and unusual punishment than being slowly electrocuted with 50,000 volts of electricity delivered under the skin. Please take the time to count down 54 seconds to understand just how long Michael Jacobs and thousands of others have suffered the agony of electrocution. The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the 4 seconds of agony suffered by a convicted felon, before death occurred in the electric chair, was cruel and unusual punishment, and unconstitutional. Electrocution has been abandoned as a means of execution. Michael Jacobs who was convicted of nothing, cruelly and senselessly suffered the agony of being electrocuted with over 20 times the voltage (and pain) used in the electric chair, with a 50,000 volt barb shot into his neck and chest, for 13.5 times longer than a convicted criminal had to suffer in the chair before death happened. He suffered 54 seconds of agony before his young healthy heart was caused to fail. He is survived by two Fatherless Children and a grieving Mother and Father who blame themselves for calling for help to medicate their son and got him tased, tortured to death instead. Michael Patrick Jacobs Sr. wishes the Police had shot his son in the leg instead of torturing to him death. He said "at least he would still be alive." Google his name for the full story.

The complete Michael Patrick Jacobs Junior test is readily available to anyone who doubts that being tased for 54 seconds is cruel and unusual punishment and torture. Ft Worth, Texas has a Police Officer that is expert in administering it.

The 9th District Court made the ruling this past September that a taser could only be used when an Officer's life or the life of someone else was in danger. Police Officers train and by instinct do not use a taser in a life threatening situation, they use a lethal weapon just as they trained for and always have. This is backed by FBI records and we agree that a Police Officer is justified in using lethal force in defense of his life or to prevent harm of an innocent life. That said, any time a Government Official intentionally takes a citizen's life that act must be investigated and evaluated as to it's constitutional validity. In the 9th District Court ruling, the Judge declared that the use of electronic torture devices (tasers) causes severe pain and terror. By the very definition, severe pain and terror constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The United Nations declared that the use of a taser against a victim is "a potentially lethal form of torture".

After the famous case of the Polish immigrant who was tortured to death in a Vancouver, British Columbia airport for failing to comply with police orders, the Canadian government made the ruling that tasers could only be used in life threatening situations. Again Police Officers do not use tasers in life threatening situations. On the news this evening a Police Officer shot a Pit Bull that was attacking him. He didn't use his taser.

The use of water boarding on terrorists was condemned by you, and high ranking members of The Democratic Party, as torture while it was being done on George Bush's watch and water-boarding produces no physical pain and is mild compared to electrocution with 50,000 volts of electricity under the skin. Our troops are sacrificing their lives every day for the avowed purpose of eliminating the use of torture and terror by our enemies while torture and terror is being inflicted on our own Citizens daily by Police Officers, without due process of law. No one is fighting for these tortured, terrorized Citizens. 41 percent of the torture deaths resulting from taser use in 2009 were black men and boys.

Mr. President, an 84 year old Grandmother and 10 year old children have been tortured with a taser by Police. One little 10 year old child was taser tortured in her home by an Arkansas Police officer because she refused to take a shower before bed time. Tear down this wall and end this terrible atrocity. 84 year old Grandmothers should not be made to live in fear and cringe each time they see a Police Officer. Be the President that is remembered in history as the President that ended barbaric torture and terror in the USA. Set the standard for all the world and issue an executive order outlawing the use of torture of any kind and especially electrical torture. Outlaw the possession, manufacture, sale, and/or use of electrical torture devices in the USA by anyone, including Police Officers, our Military and the CIA here and abroad. Return the dignity and respect to this Nation that we once had.

Signed
Kyev Tatum SCLC President
Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) Texas
sclctarrantcounty@yahoo.com
kyevtatum@yahoo.com

Signed
Hector Carrillo LULAC District Director
League of United Latin American Citizens
hcarrillo29@hotmail.com

Signed
Deryl Muhammad--Representative
Nation of Islam
derylmuhammad@yahoo.com

Signed
Drew X
Chairman New Black Panther Party
drewx2003@yahoo.com

Signed
Tom Franklin
Pastor New Mt. Calvary Baptist Church
The Taser-Torture-Death Memorial Site
frenklinart@aol.com

Signed
Marcus Hardin SCLC Texas
Strategist, Researcher, Historian
mhardin104@aol.com
http://truthnottasers.blogspot.com/

Signed
Friendship Rock Missionary Baptist
A. Scott Harper
asharper35@yahoo.com

Signed
Eddie Griffin (BASG)
eddiegriffin_basg@yahoo.com
http://eddiegriffinbasg.blogspot.com/

Signed
Julie Walker
Prevent Dangerous Harm Inc.
jwalker@preventdangerousharm.com
www.preventdangerousharm.com

Court: Seattle police OK to stun pregnant woman

March 26, 2009
By GENE JOHNSON (AP)

SEATTLE — Three Seattle police officers were justified when they used a stun gun on a pregnant mother who refused to sign a traffic ticket, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a case that prompted an incredulous dissent.

Malaika Brooks was driving her son to Seattle's African American Academy in 2004 when she was stopped for doing 32 mph in a school zone. She insisted it was the car in front of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket because she thought she'd be admitting guilt.

Rather than give her the ticket and let her go on her way, the officers decided to arrest her. One reached in, turned off her car and dropped the keys on the floor. Brooks stiffened her arms against the steering wheel and told the officers she was pregnant, but refused to get out, even after they threatened to stun her.

The officers — Sgt. Steven Daman, Officer Juan Ornelas and Officer Donald Jones — then stunned her three times, in the thigh, shoulder and neck, and hauled her out of the car, laying her face-down in the street.

Brooks gave birth to a healthy baby two months later, but has permanent scars from the Taser. She sued the officers for violating her constitutional rights, and U.S. District Judge Richard Jones allowed the case to continue. He declined to grant the officers immunity for performing their official duties and said Brooks' rights were clearly violated.

But in a 2-1 ruling Friday, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judges Cynthia Holcomb Hall and Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain held that the officers were justified in making an arrest because Brooks was obstructing them and resisting arrest.

The use of force was also justified because of the threat Brooks posed, Hall wrote: "It seems clear that Brooks was not going to be able to harm anyone with her car at a moment's notice. Nonetheless, some threat she might retrieve the keys and drive off erratically remained, particularly given her refusal to leave the car and her state of agitation."

They also noted that the force used wasn't that serious because the Taser was in "touch" mode rather than "dart" mode, which hurts more. They reversed the lower court's opinion and held that the officers were entitled to immunity from the lawsuit.

The officers' lawyers, Ted Buck and Karen Cobb, said the officers made the right decision under the circumstances they faced.

"Police officers have to have the ability to compel people to obey their lawful orders," Buck said. That's all the court recognized today. The 9th Circuit just applied the law instead of getting caught up in the otherwise unfortunate factual circumstances."

The majority's opinion outraged Judge Marsha Berzon, who called it "off the wall."

"I fail utterly to comprehend how my colleagues are able to conclude that it was objectively reasonable to use any force against Brooks, let alone three activations of a Taser, in response to such a trivial offense," she wrote.

She argued that under Washington law, the officers had no authority to take Brooks into custody: Failure to sign a traffic infraction is not an arrestable offense, and it's not illegal to resist an unlawful arrest.

Berzon said the majority's notion that Brooks obstructed officers was so far-fetched that even the officers themselves didn't make that legal argument. To obstruct an officer, one must obstruct the officer's official duties, and the officers' only duties in this case were to detain Brooks long enough to identify her, check for warrants, write up the citation and give it to her. Brooks' failure to sign did not interfere with those duties, she said.

Furthermore, Brooks posed no apparent threat, and the officers could not have known how stunning her would affect the fetus, or whether it might prompt premature labor — another reason their actions were inexcusable, Berzon said.

Brooks' lawyer, Eric Zubel, said he would ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case.

"This is outrageous — that something like this could happen to a pregnant woman, in front of an elementary school, at 8:30 in the morning, to someone who posed no threat whatsoever," he said.

Did Court Deal Fatal Blow to Tasers for Police?

January 10, 2010
New America Media, Commentary, Raj Jayadev and Aram James

In what is being heralded as a landmark decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently declared that police officers could be held liable for using a Taser without proper cause. And in making their determination, the court also set new legal parameters on how law enforcement is to use Tasers, stating, "The objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public." The federal finding substantially changes the landscape of Taser usage, and may signal the end of Tasers for law enforcement agencies who are now more vulnerable to civil and criminal action then ever before.

The decision, which has already caused law enforcement agencies to re-evaluate their Taser policies, stems from a case involving a Coronado police officer, Brian McPherson, who tased unarmed 21-year-old Carl Bryan during a traffic stop for a seatbelt infraction in Southern California. After being pulled over, Bryan was standing outside of his vehicle, wearing only boxer shorts and tennis shoes. He was 20 to 25 feet from the officer, and when tased, fell face first to the ground, fractured four teeth, and had to get the Taser prongs removed with a scalpel. Bryan went on to sue the Coronado Police Department, and the federal appellate court was making a determination if McPherson had immunity to the lawsuit as an officer. The court ruled in favor of Bryan.

And while any regulation on Taser use is a move forward from the status quo, which repeatedly has left civilians tased for innocuous circumstances, and the decision acknowledges some of the inherent dangers of the weapon, it falls short in a most critical way. The instruction is based on a false premise that Tasers “fall into the category of non-lethal force” as stated in Judge Wardlaw’s written opinion. By denying the lethality of Tasers, the court mistakenly treats Tasers as an intermediary weapon, like a baton, when it should be treated as a deadly weapon, like a firearm.

According to Amnesty International, there have been more than 350 deaths due to Tasers. In San Jose, which was the first city to arm every one of its officers with the weapon in 2004, there have been six Taser-involved deaths, more than a death a year since its inception. Currently, the city is facing a $20 million lawsuit from the family of one of the more recent victims, Steve Salinas. The unarmed Salinas was tased to death in his motel room in 2007. Like Bryan, Salinas’s ultimate tasing originated from a minor starting point: police were called to the scene due to allegedly loud noises emanating from the room. Salinas, who was naked at the time, died in the room shortly after the police arrived.

The growing body count attributed to Tasers refutes the commonly accepted advertisement from its leading manufacturer, Taser International, that Tasers are a non-lethal option for officers. Furthermore, the unreliability of the weapon to bring down its target makes it dangerous even for officers who may be in a situation requiring deadly force. According to a San Jose Mercury News study of the San Jose Police Department use of Tasers in 2007, Tasers in dart mode are only effective 70 percent of the time in bringing down their target, and in stun mode only 60 percent of the time.

The Taser consequently is left in a state of limbo. Its capacity to unintentionally kill leaves it too dangerous to use in non-lethal circumstances, say when an officer would use an intermediate weapon, such as pepper-spray or a control hold. Yet, due to its unpredictability to subdue a target, using a Taser would not be a gamble an officer would want to bet on if his or her life were in jeopardy.

The Bryan case, where the subject is unarmed and charged with a minor infraction or misdemeanor, is more the rule then the exception according to recent studies. In a Houston Chronicle study of Taser use by the Houston Police Department in a two-year span, officers deployed the weapon more than 1,000 times, but in 95 percent of those cases the subject was unarmed. The study also found that more than 50 percent of the Taser incidents escalated from relatively common police calls, such as traffic stops, disturbance and nuisance complaints. In more than a third of the incidents, no crime was charged or prosecuted.

In October 2009, in a tacit admission of the inherent dangers of Tasers, Taser International began telling police agencies to avoid firing the devices at suspects' chests. In a revision of their usage manual, they write, "Should sudden cardiac arrest occur in a scenario involving a Taser discharge to the chest area, it would place the law enforcement agency, the officer, and Taser International in the difficult situation of trying to ascertain what role, if any, (the device) could have played.”

It was a tactic reminiscent of the tobacco industry putting warning labels on cigarette packs. The action does not change the harm of the product, but rather is intended to create a layer of insulation from civil action.

In June 2008, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Taser International to pay $6.2 million in damages to the family of Robert C. Heston. Heston, of Salinas, Calif., had died after being hit by Tasers by Salinas police officers. Shortly after the decision, Taser International stocks plummeted, hitting its lowest numbers in a year. The jury, however, did not fault the police department, finding that Taser International did not instruct the officers properly on how to use the weapon. Having lost a major civil action, and knowing that other lawsuits would follow, Taser International scrambled to fend off civil action by deploying a revised usage policy.

But it is impossible to create a safe policy for an inherently unsafe weapon, just as it is impossible for the tobacco industry to create a safe way to smoke cigarettes.

And criticism has even come from the law enforcement community itself. Ray Samuels, former Newark police chief, turned down the offer to bring Tasers into his city in 2005. In explaining his position, which he has gone on to share with other city administrations that are considering the weapon, he wrote, "What scared me about the weapon is that you can deploy it absolutely within the manufacturer's recommendations and there is still the possibility of an unintended reaction. I can't imagine a worse circumstance than to have a death attributed to a Taser in a situation that didn't justify lethal force."

The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should send a clear message to the police and the cities that they work for that civil action is now a reality every time the Taser is drawn.

Raj Jayadev is director of Silicon Valley Debug. Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County public defender and a co-founder of San Jose’s De-Bug Legal Advocacy Clinic.

Which came first: the fractured skull or the taser?

Coroner: Man hit with Taser died from skull fracture

And so, I ask you this: If you're run over by a Greyhound Bus and you die, did you die because of "internal injuries" or did you die because you were RUN OVER BY A GREYHOUND BUS???

A comment received here this evening:

To be fair, Taser International does warn that individuals can be injured if they are tasered and thus fall from a height. Of course, in this case the subject died after falling from the "height" of perhaps 5-foot-10-inches (a guess). Even when tasers work exactly as intended (hey, it happens), they can still kill. As the Maryland Attorney General recently determined, Taser International has "significantly" understated the risks associated with taser use. And these clear facts perfectly justify the recent 9th Circuit Court decision as an excellent first step with immediate effect.

And another comment:

I used the same analogy about drunk drivers... If you were hit by a drunk driver and died then would you have died from the injuries or from the drunk driver. I like the greyhound bus analogy too. How rediculous to think that if someone is TAZED resulting in a fatality, that the cause of death would be the injuries sustained during the fall??? Is anybody really buying that explanation? YES. Do you know who is buying it? Police Officers and Taser International. Thank you for all the work you have done on this website and have a Happy New Year! Peace

Court's limits on Taser use could affect police use of less-than-lethal device

December 30, 2009
By Kirk Mitchell, The Denver Post

A federal appeals court ruling restricting the lawful use of Tasers may also persuade local police to limit their deployment of the devices, attorneys and police say.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling Monday limiting police use of Tasers against people who are posing no immediate threat and may be mentally ill.

The ruling will have a limited advisory effect on Colorado, which is within the jurisdiction of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But, when combined with a previous warning from the maker of Tasers about the potential for the devices to cause what the company called "adverse cardiac events," some police departments are now rethinking their widespread use.

"How effective are Tasers going to be if they are so restricted in their use?" Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said Tuesday. "That's what we're grappling with around the country."

The court, which handles appeals in nine Western states and Guam, ruled in the case of a man named Carl Bryan, who was hit with a Taser by Coronado, Calif., police Officer Brian McPherson while Bryan was having what the court called "a tantrum" after a traffic stop. But, the court noted, Bryan did not threaten the officer or advance toward him, making use of the Taser excessive force under the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

"Officer McPherson's desire to quickly and decisively end an unusual and tense situation is understandable," the court wrote. "His chosen method for doing so violated Bryan's constitutional right to be free from excessive force."

Civil-liberties advocates seized on the ruling as a milestone in the debate over "less-than-lethal" police tactics such as batons, pepper spray and Tasers.

"I think police departments should take a significant note," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Denver. "The decision takes into account the serious potential threat of injury (of using Tasers)."

Boulder ACLU chairman Judd Golden agreed.

"It's getting national attention," Golden said. "We hope this will be another signal for police to re-evaluate their policies."

In a statement released by Taser International, which manufactures the Taser, spokesman Steve Tuttle said the California ruling applies only to that case.

"The court's holding does not establish any new law for use of a TASER device," Tuttle said in an e-mail message.

Tasers deliver an electric charge in order to subdue a person as an alternative to gunfire. They have been controversial, connected to at least six deaths in Colorado and hundreds of deaths across the country.

The ACLU took Boulder police to task in the summer after an officer allegedly fired a Taser in the back of the arm and the face of a mentally disabled man, who had walked away from a caretaker.

Like the California case, the officer could have called for backup to subdue the nonthreatening man, Golden said.

"This was a person who was clearly mentally impaired," he said.

But the officer had several warnings that the man was a physical threat to her and the community and he had to be subdued immediately, Beckner said. "Would you rather the person be struck by a metal baton?" he asked.

A factor that had a more immediate impact on Boulder policy than the out-of-state court decision was an Oct. 15 training bulletin by Taser International, Beckner said. The company advised police agencies not to shoot its stun guns at a suspect's chest in order to manage risk. Now, Boulder officers aim elsewhere on the body.

"The problem is, it's not always easy to hit people where you want when they are moving," he said.

Police in Denver and Aurora did not return calls for comment.

A landmark decision

December 29, 2009
Hudson Sangree, Modesto Bee

A federal appeals court on Monday issued one of the most comprehensive rulings yet limiting police use of Tasers against low-level offenders who seem to pose little threat and may be mentally ill.

In a case out of San Diego County, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals criticized an officer who, without warning, shot an emotionally troubled man with a Taser when he was unarmed, yards away, and neither fleeing nor advancing on the officer.

Sold as a nonlethal alternative to guns, Tasers deliver an electrical jolt meant to subdue a subject. The stun guns have become a common and increasingly controversial tool used by law enforcement.

Three men died in the Stanislaus County men's jail this year after they were shot with Tasers, though coroner's reports have suggested other factors caused their deaths. Earlier this month, there was the death of Paul Martinez Jr., an inmate shot with a stun gun while officers said he was resisting them at the Roseville City Jail.

As lawsuits have been filed against police and Taser International, the nation's appellate courts have been trying to define what constitutes appropriate Taser use.

The San Diego case is the latest ruling to address the issue.

The court recounted the facts of the case: In the summer of 2005, Carl Bryan, 21, was pulled over for a seat belt violation and did not follow an officer's order to stay in the car.

Earlier, he had received a speeding ticket and had taken off his T-shirt to wipe away tears. He was wearing only the underwear he'd slept in because a woman had taken his keys, the court said.

During his second traffic stop in Coronado, he got out of the car. He was "agitated and yelling gibberish and hitting his thighs, clad only in his boxer shorts and tennis shoes" but did not threaten the officer verbally or physically, the judges wrote.

That's when Coronado officer Brian McPherson, who was standing about 20 feet away watching Bryan's "bizarre tantrum," fired his Taser, the court said.

Without a word of warning, he hit Bryan in the arm with two metal darts, delivering a 1,200-volt jolt.

Temporarily paralyzed and in intense pain, Bryan fell face-first on the pavement. The fall shattered four of his front teeth and left him with facial abrasions and swelling. Later, a doctor had to use a scalpel to remove one of the darts.

Bryan sued McPherson, the Coronado Police Department and the city of Coronado for excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The officer moved to dismiss the claim, but a federal trial judge ruled in Bryan's favor.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the trial judge's ruling Monday, concluding that the level of force used by the officer was excessive.

McPherson could have waited for backup or tried to talk the man down, the judges said. If Bryan were mentally ill, as the officer contended, then there was even more reason to use "less intrusive means," the judges said.

"Officer McPherson's desire to quickly and decisively end an unusual and tense situation is understandable," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the court. "His chosen method for doing so violated Bryan's constitutional right to be free from excessive force."

Some lawyers called it a landmark decision.

Eugene Iredale, a San Diego lawyer who argued the case, said it was one of the clearest and most complete statements yet from an appellate court about the limits of Taser use.

He said after Monday's decision that the courts will consider all circumstances, including whether someone poses a threat, has committed a serious crime or is mentally troubled.

"In an era where everybody understands 'don't Tase me bro,' courts are going to look more closely at the use of Tasers, and they're going to try to deter the promiscuous overuse of that tool," he said.

That's especially true in the context of those who appear to be emotionally disturbed or mentally ill, said Johnny Griffin III, a Sacramento plaintiffs lawyer.

Griffin represented a troubled Woodland man who died under police restraint after being struck multiple times with Tasers. The case settled against the city and its officers in June for $300,000.

Law enforcement authorities said they don't expect Monday's ruling to prompt much change.

"We're satisfied with the deployment policy we have in place," Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson said.

His department's Taser policy advises deputies not to shock suspects who are standing in such a way that a fall would hurt them further, and it tells deputies to warn a subject before firing if possible, both steps the officer in the Coronado case did not take.