Replies

All of these represent recent decisions in cases where already restrained subjects were tased.

Willkomm v. Mayer (WI Dells) USDC W.D. WI (Slip Copy 2006 WL 582044) March 9, 2006, the court held that the TASER device was a reasonable use of force when used to gain compliance with the officer's orders in an effort to handcuff the plaintiff, comply with the officer's orders while handcuffed and to secure plaintiff for transportation to the hospital.

In Devoe v. Rebant, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 334297, E.D.Mich. (Feb 13, 2006), the officer administered a "drive stun" with his TASER device to the plaintiff's lower right back when the plaintiff resisted the officer's commands. At that point, the plaintiff voluntarily sat down inside the patrol car. The court noted that attempting to physically force the plaintiff into the vehicle likely would have escalated the situation into a physical struggle in which the plaintiff or the officers could have been seriously injured and held that the use of the TASER device was a reasonable use of force under the circumstances.

In the case of McBride v. Clark, USDC W.D. MO (Slip Copy 2006 WL 581139) March 8, 2006, an officer deployed a TASER device on plaintiff's neck while he was restrained in a restraint chair. The court granted summary judgment to the officer by ruling (as a matter of law) that under the circumstances the use of the TASER device on Plaintiff's neck was "objectively reasonable."

I note you chose to present court rulings, not a written departmental policy. Nevertheless the rulings do provide some support for your position.

The last case cited doesn't fit the criteria, because the subject is described as being in a "restraint chair," indicating a degree of custody far beyond anything being discussed here. Subjects in "restraint chairs" typically are experiencing something like a psychotic episode, which a tased shock might help to dispel. In any case more would have to be known about that particular case before I could admit to its relevance.

The second case does not specifically state that the subject was in handcuffs.

The first case seems to fit the criteria. I find it very chilling that a judge found it reasonable for an officer to use a taser on a subject in order to force the subject to "comply with the officer's orders while handcuffed and to secure plaintiff for transportation to the hospital." The ruling is an obscene escalation in police powers and should be overturned.

Also, the first case only mentions a single officer. If -- big if -- the officer was alone while trying to secure the subject in his car, he may have been justified in the use of the taser. But only in a case where no assistance was available to the officer from his fellow officers.