Bryan v. MacPherson
630 F.3d 805
9th Cir.2010Background
- Officer MacPherson tasered Bryan during a July 24, 2005 traffic stop for a seatbelt violation; Bryan was unarmed, off-balance, shirtless, and standing about 20 feet away when tasered.
- Bryan did not threaten the officer and did not flee; he remained near his car and complied with most commands.
- Bryan sustained facial injuries (broken teeth and facial lacerations) and required hospital treatment after falling due to the taser discharge.
- Bryan sued MacPherson and the Coronado Police Department for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, among other claims; the district court denied qualified immunity to MacPherson at the summary-judgment stage.
- The panel initially held the taser use excessive but concluded qualified immunity could apply; en banc requests were denied.
- Judge Tallman dissented from rehearing en banc, arguing taser in dart mode is not intermediate force and criticizing the panel’s factual and legal approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the taser use excessive under the Fourth Amendment? | Bryan argues taser use was excessive and unreasonable. | MacPherson contends qualified immunity and reasonable belief in lawfulness. | Yes; ta ser use was excessive under the circumstances. |
| Is taser in dart mode an intermediate level of force requiring justification by governmental interests? | Bryan contends taser in dart mode is an intermediate level of force. | MacPherson asserts standard does not apply or is not clearly established. | Yes; taser in dart mode constitutes intermediate force requiring justification. |
| Were there feasible less intrusive alternatives or warnings that could have been used instead of the taser? | Bryan argues alternatives existed and warning should have been given. | MacPherson contends no practical alternatives or warnings were required. | There were feasible less intrusive options and a warning should have been issued. |
| Was the right clearly established in July 2005 to deny MacPherson qualified immunity? | Bryan asserts the right was clearly established against dart-mode taser use. | MacPherson contends no clearly established authority foreclosed his belief of lawfulness. | No; as of July 24, 2005, taser-dart use was not clearly established, so qualified immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 F.3d 386 (1989) (establishes objective reasonableness and Graham factors for force analysis)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-prong qualified immunity analysis; framework later revised by Pearson)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (2001) (limits on use-of-force and requirement that force be justified by governmental interest)
- Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185 (2000) (recognizes need to consider alternatives and the intrusion of force)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 608 F.3d 614 (2010) ( Ninth Circuit decision holding taser in dart mode is intermediate force and denying en banc rehearing)