## Facts

- During a seatbelt-enforcement stop in Coronado, California, Officer Brian MacPherson stopped Carl Bryan for a seatbelt infraction.
- Bryan pulled over and exited his car; he was wearing only boxer shorts and tennis shoes and appeared highly agitated, yelling incoherently and hitting his own thighs.
- Bryan was unarmed, made no verbal threats, and stood about 15–25 feet from MacPherson; he was not attempting to flee.
- Without warning, MacPherson fired a Taser X26 in dart mode at Bryan, causing neuromuscular incapacitation and a fall onto the pavement.
- Bryan suffered injuries including fractured or chipped teeth and facial contusions.
- Bryan was arrested and charged with resisting an officer; the charges were later dismissed after a hung jury.
- Bryan sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment excessive force (and asserted related state-law claims).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the municipal defendants on the § 1983 claims but denied MacPherson qualified immunity at summary judgment; MacPherson took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether deploying a Taser X26 in dart mode against an unarmed, agitated, non-fleeing motorist stopped for a minor traffic infraction constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of such Taser use was not clearly established as of July 24, 2005.

## Decision

- The court held that, viewing the evidence most favorably to Bryan, the Taser use in dart mode was objectively unreasonable and therefore excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
- The court nonetheless held the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because, in 2005, precedent had not clearly established that using a Taser in dart mode in these circumstances was unconstitutional.
- The court affirmed the excessive-force determination but reversed the denial of qualified immunity to the officer.

## Legal Principles

- Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims are analyzed under objective reasonableness by balancing the nature and quality of the intrusion against the governmental interests at stake, considering the factors identified in *Graham v. Connor* (severity of the offense, immediate threat, and resistance or flight).
- A Taser X26 used in dart mode constitutes an “intermediate” or “significant” level of force and requires a strong governmental interest to be reasonable.
- The “most important” reasonableness consideration is whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to officer or public safety.
- The absence of a warning, when warning and compliance are feasible, weighs against the reasonableness of force.
- Qualified immunity can apply even when a constitutional violation occurred if existing precedent did not clearly establish the unlawfulness of the conduct at the time of the incident.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ruled that firing a Taser X26 in dart mode without warning at an unarmed, non-fleeing person stopped for a minor traffic infraction could be found excessive under the Fourth Amendment, but it granted qualified immunity because the state of the law in 2005 did not clearly place that Taser use beyond constitutional bounds.


Bryan v. MacPherson, 608 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2010)