Court to review case of Tasered pregnant woman

[n2doc]

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SEATTLE -- A federal appeals court has agreed to reconsider the case of a pregnant woman who was stun-gunned by Seattle police when she refused to sign a traffic ticket.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Malaika Brooks' case in March, saying the police officers were justified when they used the Taser. The ruling prompted an incredulous dissent from one member of the panel who called the decision "off the wall" and said Brooks posed no threat whatsoever.

The appeals court said this week it will rehear the case with an 11-judge panel.

Brooks gave birth to a healthy baby two months after the traffic stop, but she says she still has scars from the stun gun.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_pregnant_woman_tasered.html

[hlthe2b]

1. Has the device even been tested (in animals) to look at impact

on the fetus when the mother is tazed? This opens up all kinds of issues.

What warped judges to have made that original judement.

[valerief]

2. Couldn't they have used a video camera instead of a taser? nt

[enlightenment]

3. An interesting blog comment from 2009

suggests that Washington law was changed in 2006 - drivers are NOT required to sign tickets (maybe that changed after the blog posting?)

If she wasn't breaking any laws by refusing to sign, why on earth would she have been tazed for refusing?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/160628.asp

<snip>

Q: Are people in Washington state required to sign traffic tickets?

A: No.

Drivers ticketed were previously required to sign the tickets. Though signing the tickets was not an admission of guilt, failure to sign and acknowledging receipt of the notice was a gross misdemeanor.

That changed in June 2006.

The Legislature passed a bill with support from a court decision, negating the need for a signature. It also decriminalized the act of refusing to sign, since the signature itself was unnecessary, Bellevue police spokesman Greg Grannis said.

Rather than an acknowledgement from the violator that he had received the citation, the court requires the issuing officer to affirm that is was given.

<snip>

[MadMaddie]

4. My question goes to the officer

If he is willing to use this level of force for someone not signing a ticket then what happens in a real critical incident. All he had to do was document that she refused to sign the ticket and give her a copy of it.

This is assault for no reason.

[merqz]

5. The RELEVANT case law is Bryan v. Mcpherson

There are several important distinctions between this case and McPherson... but it appears to me that there is a good chance that THIS case will fail the McPherson standard...

That case established taser use (in the 9th circuit) as an "intermediate level of force" and established at least some guidelines to determine when and if it is justified.

good reading...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xnsVFu5bgGIJ:www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/28/08-55622.pdf+mcpherson+taser&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgUdtZhznTnTFLpKZ5zcsvBeSptaeY8nDF5V4tAyF2Y1F5VBGH9TNPD1xaw7zYNKp811_Xp6A6KqfJcJ0uUeoiXPDtPwzVodUFVAL1x3YOorHn-TVTojPZMrPe-xkzVpOkSioZN&sig=AHIEtbQJoOGv2TcvU5yXivLNy8s884bgeQ

In brief, the officers did not (under case law) have to use the LEAST intrusive method of force available, however their failure to consider less intrusive methods and the availability of same is a factor in determining "reasonableness."

Again, there are some differences. For example, in this case, they gave a warning before tasering, iow threatened use of taser if noncompliance continued, etc. but weighing all the factors, I think this case will PROBABLY fail the McPherson standard.