Mattos v. Agarano
661 F.3d 433
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Brooks was seven months pregnant; stopped for speeding in a school zone and questioned about signing a speeding citation.
- Brooks refused to sign the ticket; officers discussed tasing location given her pregnancy before use.
- Jones tased Brooks three times within under a minute in drive-stun and neck/arm areas, then removed her from the car and booked her.
- Mattos involved Jayzel and Troy Mattos in a domestic dispute; Aikala tased Jayzel during Troy arrest inside their home; Troy and Jayzel were arrested, charges later dropped.
- District court denied qualified immunity on Brooks and Mattos excessive force claims; the officers appealed; en banc court reversed in part, granting qualified immunity on §1983 excessive force claims but left state-law claims for Brooks as to assault and battery.
- The court held the taser uses may be excessive under Graham v. Connor, but qualified immunity depends on whether the law was clearly established at the time of the incidents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force under Fourth Amendment in Brooks | Brooks alleged excessive force from multiple tasers. | Officers acted reasonably; force was within scope of arrest. | Not clearly established; qualified immunity denied for Brooks’ §1983 claim. |
| Clearly established law for taser use in Brooks | Existing caselaw should have alerted officers. | No precedent clearly establishing unreasonableness at that moment. | Not clearly established; qualified immunity applied for Brooks. |
| Excessive force under Fourth Amendment in Mattos | Jayzel alleged tasing during domestic disturbance was excessive. | Tasing was reasonable given threat level and danger. | Not clearly established; qualified immunity applied for Mattos. |
| Clearly established law for taser use in Mattos | Precedent should have tied taser use to unreasonableness. | No controlling precedent; circumstances not clearly established. | Not clearly established; qualified immunity applied for Mattos. |
Key Cases Cited
- Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036 (6th Cir.1992) (tasering not clearly established in similar facts at time)
- Hinton v. City of Elwood, 997 F.2d 774 (10th Cir.1993) (domestic disturbance context; some factors weighed against excessive force)
- Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir.2004) (pre- Brooks taser usage; not clearly established in that context)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir.2010) (tasers constitute intermediate force; lack of clearly established law at time)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness rather than per se rules governs excessive force)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (balancing test for reasonableness of force during seizure)
- al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (clearly established law cannot be defined at high generality)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir.2001) (Graham factors; totality of circumstances)