State v. COPELAND (Three Cases), 310 Ga. 345

Background

On July 7, 2017, Deputies Howell, Copeland, and Scott encountered Eurie Lee Martin after a homeowner reported a “suspicious person.” Martin walked along a two‑lane road; deputies activated lights and approached him.
Deputies used multiple TASER deployments during the encounter: Copeland deployed a TASER initially; Martin walked away, was followed, and later Scott deployed a close‑range TASER to Martin’s back; deputies also used repeated "drive stun" activations while restraining him.
Deputies secured one handcuff on Martin’s right wrist; a struggle continued, tasing ceased after both hands were restrained, and Martin was found pulseless and died at the scene.
The deputies were indicted for felony murder and related offenses; each moved for statutory immunity under OCGA § 16‑3‑24.2. The trial court granted immunity for all three following an evidentiary hearing.
The State appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied the immunity statute and conflated self‑defense standards with separate justification doctrines.
The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s collective grant of immunity and remanded, finding inconsistent factual findings, legal conflation (especially reliance on State v. Hall), unclear treatment of TASER use as potentially lethal force, and lack of individualized determinations for each deputy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly granted immunity under OCGA §16‑3‑24.2	Trial court expanded statute, failed to find deputies acted in self‑defense, conflated unrelated justification doctrines	Deputies reasonably believed force necessary to defend themselves/others	Grant of immunity vacated; remand for proper §16‑3‑24.2 analysis
Whether deputies had reasonable suspicion/probable cause (tier classification) to detain Martin	No evidence supported loitering or other offense; trial court erred elevating encounter to Terry stop based on later "defensive stance"	Deputies claim Martin’s conduct and posture provided articulable suspicion to detain	Court found trial court’s tier conclusions inconsistent with facts and ordered a determination whether reasonable suspicion existed at the pertinent time
Whether the trial court impermissibly applied proportionality/"reasonably necessary" arrest standards (OCGA §16‑3‑20 / Hall) instead of self‑defense (§16‑3‑21)	Trial court relied on Hall and §§16‑3‑20(2)/(4), conflating police‑duty reasonableness with self‑defense analysis required by §16‑3‑24.2	Deputies relied on Hall’s test that force was proportionate and reasonably necessary to effect seizure	Court disapproved using Hall for §16‑3‑24.2 immunity; self‑defense standard of §16‑3‑21 governs immunity analysis
Whether TASER deployments constituted force "intended or likely to cause death" and need for individualized deputy analysis	Multiple/tandem TASER uses and durations could be deadly; trial court erred treating TASER categorically non‑deadly and granting collective immunity	Deputies argued TASERs are non‑deadly and were used reasonably	Court held deadly‑force determination is case‑by‑case; trial court must analyze manner, duration, and each deputy’s perceptions and act separately for each deputy

Key Cases Cited

State v. Green, 288 Ga. 1 (standard of review for immunity orders)
Clay v. State, 290 Ga. 822 (trial‑court findings from videotape reviewed de novo when not credibility‑based)
State v. Hall, 339 Ga. App. 237 (Court of Appeals decision disapproved to the extent it conflated standards)
Eberhart v. State, 307 Ga. 254 (TASER can be a deadly weapon in certain circumstances)
Jones v. State, 291 Ga. 35 (three tiers of police‑citizen encounters)
Black v. State, 281 Ga. App. 40 (right to ignore or avoid officers in a first‑tier encounter)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (reasonable‑suspicion basis for investigative stop)
Thompson v. State, 288 Ga. 165 (law enforcement officers can claim immunity under §16‑3‑24.2)