#BipolarLivesMatter
Mentally Disturbed Man Tased for Seatbelt Violation Has No Remedy
Traffic Stop Ends in Trip by Ambulance with Broken Teeth
This article is one in a series of stories about police using excessive force against people who are either mentally ill or behaving like they are and are beaten, tased or killed. Previous stories include this one arising out of Columbus, Ohio, this case from Massachusetts, a story out of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and one from Pinehurst, North Carolina.
On July 24, 2005, 21-year-old Carl Bryan set out with his brother early, wearing a t-shirt and boxer shorts. He slept from Camarillo in Ventura County south to their parents’ house in Coronado, San Diego County. While traveling on the San Diego Freeway (I-405), a California Highway Patrolman (CHP) stopped the Bryan brothers and issued Carl a speeding ticket. This act upset Carl greatly. He began crying and moping, ultimately removing his t-shirt to wipe his face. The two continued south without further incident and finally crossed the Coronado Bridge at about 7:30 a.m.
An already bad Sunday morning for Carl Bryan got even worse. Officer Brian MacPherson of the Coronado Police Department was stationed at an intersection to enforce seatbelt regulations. He stepped in front of the Bryans’ car and signaled to stop. Carl immediately realized that he had not fastened his seatbelt after his previous encounter with the CHP officer. MacPherson approached the Bryans’ car and asked Carl whether Carl knew why he had been stopped. Carl Bryan knew why and stared angrily forward.
The cop asked young Carl to turn down his radio and pull over to the curb, and he complied with both requests. As Carl pulled his car to the curb, angry with himself over the prospects of another ticket on the same morning, Carl hit his steering wheel and yelled expletives to himself. Having pulled his car over and placed it in park, Carl Bryan stepped out of his car.
Bryan was agitated, standing outside his car, yelling gibberish, and hitting his thighs, clad only in his boxer shorts and tennis shoes. The court said, “It is also undisputed that Bryan did not verbally threaten Officer MacPherson and, according to Officer MacPherson, was standing twenty to twenty-five feet away and not attempting to flee.”
The cop, as is standard practice, testified that he told Bryan to remain in the car, which Bryan testified to not hearing. The only dispute in testimony was that the cop testified — again, as is standard practice — that Bryan took “one step” toward him, which young Carl denied. “And the physical evidence indicates that Bryan was facing away from Officer MacPherson. Without giving any warning, Officer MacPherson shot Bryan with his taser gun.”
Young Carl fell face-first into the ground, fracturing four teeth and suffering facial contusions. “Bryan’s morning ended with his arrest and yet another drive — this time by ambulance and to a hospital for treatment.” Bryan sued the cop, the department, and the City of Coronado for excessive force, a civil rights violation, and state law claims, including failure to train against the department and the city.
In the U.S. District Court in San Diego, District Judge Larry A. Burns granted summary judgment to the city and police department. However, the court determined that Officer MacPherson was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Bryan “presented no immediate danger to [Officer MacPherson] and no use of force was necessary.” In particular, the district judge found that a reasonable jury could find that Bryan was located between fifteen to twenty-five feet from Officer MacPherson and was not facing him or advancing toward him.
The court also found that a reasonable officer would have known that the use of the taser would cause pain and, as Bryan was standing on asphalt, that a resulting fall could cause injury. Under the circumstances, the district court concluded it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that shooting Bryan with the taser was unlawful. The cop appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, throwing the entire case out.
The Court of Appeals held that: (1) use of stun guns and similar devices constitute an intermediate, significant level of force that a substantial government interest must justify; (2) the cop’s use of the stun gun WAS excessive; BUT (3) the cop’s use of the stun gun “did not violate established Fourth Amendment rights.” Therefore, the cop was entitled to a “qualified immunity” defense.
The intermediate level of force employed by Officer MacPherson against Bryan was excessive in light of the governmental interests at stake. Bryan never attempted to flee. He was unarmed and was standing, without advancing in any direction, next to his vehicle. Officer MacPherson stood approximately twenty feet away, observing Bryan’s stationary, bizarre tantrum with his X26 drawn and charged. “Consequently, the objective facts reveal a tense but static situation with Officer MacPherson ready to respond to any developments while awaiting backup.” Bryan was neither a flight risk, a dangerous felon, nor an immediate threat. Therefore, there was simply “no immediate need to subdue [Bryan]” before Officer MacPherson’s fellow officers arrived, or less-invasive means were attempted.
“Based on these recent statements regarding the use of tasers, and the dearth of prior authority, we must conclude that a reasonable officer in Officer MacPherson’s position could have made a reasonable mistake of law regarding the constitutionality of the taser use in the circumstances Officer MacPherson confronted in July 2005. Accordingly, Officer MacPherson is entitled to qualified immunity.”
The case is Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010).
Are you interested in state-sponsored violence against the mentally ill? Do you have a story yourself? Surf over to #BipolarLivesMatter, https://BipolarLivesMatter.org.
