Perea v. Baca, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6127

Police responded to welfare-check calls about Jerry Perea, who was reported mentally ill and possibly on drugs; officers were told no weapons were involved.
Officers found Perea on a bicycle; after he pedaled away and failed to stop, officers forced him into a parking lot and pushed him off the bike without warning or telling him he was being arrested.
Perea struggled while holding a crucifix; Officer Jaramillo first deployed a taser in probe mode, then used stun/contact mode nine more times—ten taserings in under two minutes.
At some point during the taserings the officers had Perea on the ground, with both officers on top of him, effectively subdued; taserings continued until his arms were freed and handcuffed.
Perea stopped breathing, was revived by CPR, then later died after ambulance arrival; his estate sued the officers alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force.
The district court denied qualified immunity as to the taser use (but granted it for the bicycle-related push); the officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether repeated tasering of Perea after he was subdued violated the Fourth Amendment	Repeated taserings against a subdued misdemeanant constituted excessive, objectively unreasonable force	Use of taser was justified by Perea’s resistance; taser deployments were reasonable to effect control	Yes. Repeated tasering after Perea was subdued was excessive force
Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the taser use	The law clearly established that continuing force against a subdued suspect is unconstitutional	No controlling authority specifically banning multiple taserings in two minutes; prior cases allow taser use in active resistance	No. Circuit precedent clearly established that continued force against a subdued individual is unconstitutional

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (qualified immunity: clearly-established-law standard)
Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147 (force against petty misdemeanor should be minimal)
Casey v. City of Fed. Heights, 509 F.3d 1278 (need for specificity in clearly-established-law analysis; disproportionate force unlawful)
Fancher v. Barrientos, 723 F.3d 1191 (continued shots after threat ended were unlawful)
Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456 (striking detainee after subdual unconstitutional)