11th Circuit Court
11th Circuit Tosses Taser Case; YouTube Video of Incident Lets Viewers Judge
Posted Sep 18, 2008, 07:55 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A video showing a motorist who was jolted three times with a Taser as he sat on the ground crying has ended up on YouTube (Video) after a lawsuit over the incident was tossed by a federal appeals court.
The 2-1 Sept. 9 unpublished decision (PDF) by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a deputy’s tasering of the handcuffed suspect was not an excessive use of force that violates the Constitution, according to the Fulton County Daily Report. The motorist, financially destitute and homeless, had refused to sign the speeding ticket and would not stand up. He began sobbing and told the officer to arrest him.
The case spurred a strong dissent by U.S. District Judge Beverly Martin, sitting by designation, who suggested the video of the incident be posted along with the court’s opinion. "The Fourth Amendment forbids an officer from discharging repeated bursts of electricity into an already handcuffed misdemeanant—who is sitting still beside a rural road and unwilling to move—simply to goad him into standing up,” she wrote.
In a Sept. 10 post, blogger Howard Bashman of How Appealing noted Martin’s dissent. “It appears that her suggestion has not convinced the 11th Circuit to make the video available over its website,” he wrote. “Perhaps the lawyers for the plaintiff will post the video to YouTube.”
Bashman got an e-mail Tuesday night notifying him that the video was being placed on YouTube. He calls the video “quite disturbing” and says it “certainly demonstrates that the dissenting judge had legitimate grounds for the passionate nature of her dissent.”
Related Stories
- Absent Defendant Gets Probation, But is Now Jailed for Fleeing Court
2 hours, 58 minutes ago - Due to Bigamous Marriage, NY Lawyer Can’t Now Foreclose on Loan to ‘Wife’
3 hours, 47 minutes ago - Supreme Court Will Hear ‘Powder Keg’ Voting Rights Case
4 hours, 15 minutes ago - As Feds Seek to Lock Up Madoff & His Money, Jailed Dreier Asks to Pay Lawyer
5 hours, 35 minutes ago
Related Topics
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by WiseOne - 3 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Stupid acting people should not gain advantage through stupid action. Every moment spent on the side of the road with traffic is dangerous, far too many Officers and members of the public have lost their lives. The Officer should have drained the batteries on the perp to get himmoved off the side of the road to safety for both the officer and perp.
Posted by WiseOne - 3 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 50 minutes ago
Ask yourself this; if your relative or friend perished and you later learned that the reason that an Officer was too late to the scene to save them was that he had a distraught criminal sitting on the side of the road, crying, refusing to get up and get into the police car?
Posted by Marc J. Randazza - 3 months, 3 weeks, 22 hours, 21 minutes ago
You cite a remote possibility as the justification for destroying the Fourth Amendment?
Why don’t you ask *yourself* this… what if your relative or friend received this kind of treatment? What if they died as a result?
There are far more fatalities from peckerwood cops using tazers inappropriately than there are deaths from cops being delayed by destitute homeless people.
Wise One indeed.
Posted by ELLEN BARSHEVSKY - 3 months, 3 weeks, 18 hours, 11 minutes ago
I saw a cop see a car drive past a school bus with its RED FLASHING LIGHTS ON.
Now why didn’t that COP go after the driver of the car that had passed the school bus with its red lights flashing?
Because it was a MAN driving to work. I have seen this happen regularly, and it wouldn’t happen if there was someone making video’s and posting the video’s on YOU TUBE.
IF WE HAD YOU TUBE VIDEOs of UNEQUAL enforcement of the laws, there would be equal enforcement of the laws.
We should insist on EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS, and should encourage more YOU TUBE VIDEOS.
When I see this, I know there needs to be better law enforcement.
Posted by PB - 3 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 22 hours, 47 minutes ago
This actually misstates the fractured holding somewhat. Judge Edmonson’s lead opinion would have held that the use of force was constitutional. Judge Martin’s dissent would have held the force not constitutional and not protected by qualified immunity. Judge Dubina, the third judge on the panel, concurred in the result, writing that the third application of the taser was excessive force, but it was protected by qualified immunity. So two judges believed that the officer’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, and for future cases, this use of a TASER would give rise to liability.