Police Officers Use Excessive Force Against Mentally Ill Person

Case Overview

The plaintiff in this case had an extensive history of mental illness. On the day in question, his ex-wife called 911 and reported that he was drunk and being argumentative. Police officers responded, and started talking to him. He refused to allow the officers to enter, and would only talk with them through the cracked front door, which was otherwise secured by a chain. An Emergency Service Unit (“ESU”) arrived, broke down the door, entered the home, and promptly tasered him twice, even though he was unarmed. The officers used a close proximity taser, and then used a dart taser. After the tasering, the police physically subdued/forced the plaintiff and proceeded to remove the darts, which had lodged in his face. The police took the handcuffed plaintiff to be evaluated at a mental health hospital where doctors, finding no reason to conclude he was a threat of any kind, immediately released him. An expert witness in police activities was retained for this issue.

Questions to the Law Enforcement expert and their responses

Were the police justified in taking the plaintiff into custody?

No. The ex-wife, though obviously upset with the plaintiff, did not claim that he had committed any crime. And the plaintiff was unarmed.

Was the level of force used appropriate?

The level of force used cannot be justified. Again, the plaintiff was unarmed. He had not used, or threatened to use, any force against the police. Thus the use of tasers was out of proportion to the situation at hand. That the dart taser was aimed at the plaintiff’s face, whether intentionally or inadvertently, is shocking. There is simply no reason to fire at the face – the taser is just as effective when aimed at the body mass. The officers who arrived on the scene should not have removed the Taser darts from the suspect themselves, but should have left it to trained professionals; either emergency medical personnel or the trained medical personnel at the psychiatric institution. Finally, the fact that the mental health facility immediately released the plaintiff further establishes that the use of force was insupportable.

About the expert

This expert is nationally recognized in the field of law enforcement liability. He has conducted hundreds of training sessions focusing on high risk/critical tasks such as pursuit and uses of force for police supervisors, managers and chiefs of police in all 50 states. He has conducted risk assessments, audits, investigations, and management reviews for law enforcement agencies focusing on evaluations of their operations, policies and procedures, management and leadership styles, organizational climate and generally any factor that might contribute to the presence of potential or actual liability in those organizations. Finally, he is also the proprietor of training programs in law enforcement policy development, and has acted as an expert witness in cases involving excessive use of force.

E-006414

Specialties:

Law Enforcement