Meyers v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD., 814 F. Supp. 2d 552

Ryan Meyers had long-standing bipolar disorder and lived at home with his parents; he was 40, about 6 feet tall and 260 pounds, and treated by Sheppard Pratt with Seroquel and Lamictal.
Over ten years, the Meyers family called 911 on five occasions to have Ryan detained for psychiatric evaluation, with some involuntary committals in the past.
On March 16, 2007, at 10:55 p.m., Mrs. Meyers reported a fistfight between Ryan and his brother Billy; police arrived as Ryan held a baseball bat inside the home.
Officers engaged Ryan through the front door after attempts to calm him; Ryan refused to exit and the officers deployed a Taser after entry, with multiple cycles used as the situation escalated.
Ryan fell to the ground during the struggle; EMS declared cardiac arrest; the Medical Examiner attributed death to cardiac arrhythmia due to cardiomegaly aggravated by agitated behavior and restraint, with uncertain contribution from heart disease, agitation, and restraint.
Plaintiffs filed counts under Maryland and federal law, alleging excessive force and various failures; the court bifurcated supervisory liability and granted summary judgment for the defendants on all counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the seizure and use of force violated the Fourth Amendment.	Meyers claim excessive force during seizure.	Officers acted reasonably; qualified immunity applies.	No constitutional violation; qualified immunity.
Whether Officer Mee's initial tasings were excessive.	Taser use unnecessary or excessive given circumstances.	Taser reasonable to subdue armed, agitated suspect.	Initial tasings reasonably appropriate; no excessive force.
Whether the subsequent stun-mode tasings violated clearly established law.	Six additional stun shocks were excessive and unlawful.	Law evolving; no clearly established rule limiting stun-mode in such context.	Not clearly established; Mee entitled to qualified immunity.
Whether alternative actions (MCT or barricade tactics) were required.	Dept should have used Mobile Crisis Team or tactical options.	Under 4th Amendment, reasonable alternative not mandated; inaction not clear error.	Entry into the home was reasonable under the circumstances.
Whether the evidence shows liability for supervisory or other claims.	Count IV-VII against supervisors/constitutional claims hold them liable.	No basis for liability given lack of constitutional violation and immunity.	Summary judgment for defendants on supervisory claims as well.

Bailey v. Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731 (4th Cir.2003) (probable cause for mental health seizure standards)
Gooden v. Howard County, 954 F.2d 960 (4th Cir.1992) (dangerousness lacks precise legal standard in mental-health seizures)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness jury standard for police use of force)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (reasonableness assessed from officer on scene perspective)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (requires two-step qualified immunity analysis; may skip to final step)
Wargo v. Municipality of Monroeville, 646 F.Supp.2d 777 (W.D.Pa.2009) (subsequent tasers not excessive when initial tasings fail)
Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804 (9th Cir.1994) (taser usage in resisting arrest context)
Isom v. Town of Warren, 360 F.3d 7 (1st Cir.2004) (pepper spray reasonable to disarm while resisting)
Schultz v. Braga, 455 F.3d 470 (4th Cir.2006) (unreasonable seizures include excessive force)