The Informant

SFPD

Interim Chief Jeff Godown will ask the Police Commission to allow Tasers.

As the San Francisco Police Department moves to convince the Police Commission that officers in the city should be carrying Tasers, the 9th Circuit recently reviewed two big Taser cases, which may impact how the weapons are used in California.

In the first, a Maui woman, Jayzel Mattos was Tased by a police officer responding to a domestic violence call at her house. Mattos, the apparent domestic violence victim, allegedly interfered with officers as they arrested her husband. Mattos’ husband was apparently yelling and swearing at officers when they entered the house. Mattos herself says she was merely standing in the hallway and had raised her hands when an officer brushed by and bumped into her.

In the second case, three officers stunned a pregnant woman during a traffic stop. The woman allegedly refused to sign her speeding ticket and did not get out of her car when officers decided to arrest her. She was tased three times and apparently dragged out of her car and arrested.

In both cases, the women who were stunned are suing the officers who stunned them, and in both cases, a panel of judges has found that the women’s rights were not violated and that they have no grounds for a lawsuit. And in both cases, the women’s lawyers asked the full court to go back and review their cases, which the 9th Circuit did in December. (No opinion has been issued yet.)

The general standard for use of force by police officers falls under the legal umbrella of the Fourth Amendment, which protects civilians against unreasonable search and seizure. Courts have interpreted that right to protect people against excessive force (and to determine that force is acceptable if an officer had a reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of others). The status of Tasers has been particularly hazy, as there’s debate over how dangerous shocking is in the long term. Generally, court-watchers have said that it’s hard for a use-of-force lawsuit against an officer to survive “unless the law enforcement officer’s force left a sufficiently serious wound.”

What’s also hazy is to what extent police officers can use stun guns to make an arrest go more smoothly, rather than defend themselves from a perceived threat. The 9th Circuit, in 2009, let a lawsuit go ahead by a man who was stunned during a traffic stop and fell to the ground, breaking teeth. The man, who was locked out of his house and was wearing only boxer shorts, appeared agitated after being pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. Later, the court dismissed the lawsuit, but did make clear that using a stun gun must be justified by an officer perceiving a safety threat. That ruling, applicable in the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, has not been appealed to the US Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court, which could eventually hear the Hawaii and Washington cases, has not ruled on setting guidelines for when it’s appropriate for law enforcement to use Tasers. One justice at least, Justice Thomas, has personal experience with Taser use. Thomas reportedly flew to New Orleans in July to investigate after security guards in a hospital there used a Taser to subdue his nephew, who suffers from epilepsy.