Taser

Clearly established that officer could not fire stun gun at non-threatening, compliant subject.

Repeated use of Taser against resisting prisoner undergoing alcohol withdrawal was not excessive.

Use of stun gun on subject of 911 suicide call who had rope around his neck connected to basketball hoop did not violate clearly established 4th Amendment right.

Officer entitled to qualified immunity for Tasing suspect who rose to his feet and continued to approach officer after officer ordered him to stop and threatened use of Taser, distinguishing other similar cases.

Officer could not tase mentally disturbed subject “for refusing to stop and show his hands unless he had some other reason to fear for his safety,” “mere failure to follow orders would not lead a reasonable officer to believe that [the subject] posed a danger;” if subject fell to ground for some minutes after two applications of taser, then third taser application could not be justified; reversing qualified immunity for officer.

Although initial use of Taser was justified, continued use after subject was handcuffed and shackled and had stopped resisting violated clearly established law.

Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for tasing unconscious passenger of vehicle after crash following high-speed chase, where passenger did not respond to officer’s instruction to show his hands, passenger showed no signs of being conscious, and engaged in no active resistance and officer only suspected that he might have been armed.

If officer fired taser at suspect while he was in a precarious position atop an eight-foot wall, temporarily paralyzing him and causing him to fall, break his neck, and die, the force was excessive and violated clearly established law.

Prolonging use of Taser for 15 seconds after plaintiff began complying with officer’s commands, got out of his car, and lay down on ground, was excessive force, right was clearly established in Sept. 2014.

Plaintiff was unarmed, injured, covered in his own blood, hanging from second-story window by his hands with feet dangling when officer punched him repeated in head with closed fist; “right of an injured, visibly unarmed suspect to be free from temporarily paralyzing force while positioned at a height that carries with it a risk of serious injury or death” was clearly established by “robust consensus of cases”; second officer who tased plaintiff after he fell to ground and was unconscious violated his clearly established right to be free from excessive force in the form of being tased while