The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Carl Bryan’s car was stopped by officer Brian McPherson of the Coronado, CA Police Department in 2005 as the 21-year-old was driving home. Granted, Bryan did appear strange: as he stepped out of his vehicle, wearing only boxer shorts and tennis shoes, he slapped his thighs and muttered gibberish to himself. However, he wasn’t making any threatening verbal or physical gestures towards McPherson. However, McPherson tasered Bryan without warning. As a result, Bryan fell on his face, breaking four front teeth and also required a hospital visit to remove the electronic darts from his body.

Subsequently, Bryan sued the city, police department, and McPherson. A trial judge dismissed all but the McPherson part of the lawsuit and on Monday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the decision. Specifically, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 3-0 that officer McPherson wasn’t immune to the damages lawsuit filed by Bryan. According to the opinion, the court ruled that officer McPherson violated Bryan’s constitutional right "to be free from excessive force."

The decision could open the door for lawsuits against police officers who carelessly use their Taser guns, since it is the first of its kind to set specific standards for when Tasers can be used. In the court’s opinion, Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote:

While Bryan’s behavior created something of an unusual situation, this does not, by itself, justify the use of significant force.

At the very least, the judges decided, McPherson should have given Bryan a warning that he might be tasered.

One Comment

  1. Gravatar for Anonymous

    There's also the recent Maryland AG report on tasers that concluded that Taser International has "significantly" understated the risks of taser use. That's a pretty serious conclusion. It's basically Failure to Warn, False and Misleading Advertising, and Fraud (IMHO).

Comments are closed.

Of Interest