Daman v. BrooksPetition for certiorari denied on May 29, 2012
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-898||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2011|
Issue: (1) Whether – when officers applied a Taser to the plaintiff, who was under arrest and resisting officers’ efforts to remove her from her car – the Ninth Circuit erred in finding the Taser use unconstitutional where (a) it was the least risky pain compliance option available, and (b) the decision is in conflict with Graham v. Connor’s holding that an arrest necessarily carries with it the authority to use some degree of force; (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the plaintiff stated a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim despite declaring that the record was insufficient to assess the level of force presented by the drive-stun Taser, particularly where the court failed to address whether any less-risky alternatives were available to the officers; (3) whether the Ninth Circuit should have found the use of the Taser constitutional as a matter of law where the officers chose the least risky force option, the result reached by the original Ninth Circuit panel; and (4) whether the Ninth Circuit’s opinion conflicts with other circuits’ decisions on Taser pain compliance applications in similar circumstances.