Dockery v. Blackburn

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendants-police officers’ motion for summary judgment asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants used excessive force by using Taser four times on him while he was being fingerprinted after his arrest on trespass and criminal damage to property charges. Ct. of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider defendants’ interlocutory appeal, where: (1) entire incident was captured on videotape; and (2) instant issue on appeal was purely legal question as to whether use of Taser was objectively reasonable under circumstances of case. Moreover, Ct. of Appeals found that first use of Taser was objectively reasonable, where video showed that plaintiff was uncooperative when defendants attempted to handcuff him at police station during their attempt to fingerprint plaintiff, and plaintiff twice escaped their grasp. Also, remaining three Taser usages were objectively reasonable, where video showed that within two seconds of first Taser use, plaintiff flipped over, maintained his combative demeanor, kicked his foot at one defendant, sat up and pulled Taser prong out of his arm and ignored defendants’ instructions to lie down.