506 F. App'x 650
9th Cir.2013Background
- Abston, high on meth, drove the wrong way on Highway 99 and refused to exit after a CHP stop.
- He fled, climbed onto a tractor-trailer sleeper, and resisted orders to descend while pepper spray was deployed.
- Hart and Arellano arrived; Abston continued resisting as Hart warned him and deployed multiple five-second Taser cycles.
- Abston became prone, handcuffed in front, and officers struggled to restrain his legs while he kicked and struck.
- Dalia arrived as Abston remained restrained; bystander video shows Abston face-down, handcuffed, ankle-shackled, with officers applying pressure to his back for about a minute.
- Abston stopped breathing shortly after and died; a pathologist attributed the death to positional asphyxia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether body compression of a restrained suspect violated the Fourth Amendment | Abston's restraint while prone and handcuffed was excessive force. | Force used was proportional to resistance and necessary to subdue. | Yes, body compression violated the Fourth Amendment. |
| Whether the Taser use was clearly established as reasonable or not | Repeated Tasers against a restrained, unthreatening suspect violated clearly established law. | Taser use was not clearly established as unreasonable given the circumstances. | Not clearly established; Taser claims fail under Saucier’s second prong; remand not required on that issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonable-force standard under Fourth Amendment)
- Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (squeezing breath from a restrained, prone suspect can be excessive)
- Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (existing precedent need not be on point but must place the question beyond debate)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits on taser use in restraint scenarios)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-prong qualified immunity framework (prong two central here))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (modifies Saucier by allowing prong choice in qualified immunity analysis)
- Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc; reaffirmed analysis of use-of-force in elite contexts)