## Facts

- A deputy stopped Jesse Daniel Buckley for speeding at night on the shoulder of a dark, two-lane highway with passing traffic.
- Buckley became upset and refused to sign the traffic citation despite repeated requests and warnings that refusal would result in arrest.
- After Buckley said “arrest me,” the deputy handcuffed him without physical struggle.
- Buckley then dropped to the ground behind his car, crossed his legs, sobbed, and refused repeated commands to stand and walk to the patrol car.
- The deputy warned Buckley about the danger from traffic; Buckley stated, “My life would be better if I was dead.”
- The deputy attempted to lift Buckley but could not, warned that a taser would be used if Buckley did not comply, and then applied a taser in drive-stun mode three times (about five seconds each) over roughly one minute.
- After the taser applications and the arrival of backup, Buckley stood and was taken into custody.
- Buckley alleged taser burns and emotional distress.
- Buckley pleaded nolo contendere to refusing to sign the ticket and resisting arrest without violence.

## Issues

1. Whether applying a taser multiple times to a handcuffed arrestee who refused to stand and walk to a patrol car constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
2. If the force was excessive, whether the unconstitutionality of this specific taser use was clearly established in March 2004 so as to defeat qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity to the deputy and remanded with instructions to dismiss the federal § 1983 claims against him.
- The court held the taser use was not unconstitutionally excessive in the roadside context where the arrestee refused to comply with commands necessary to complete the arrest and move to a safer location.
- Alternatively, even if the force were excessive, the court held the law in 2004 did not clearly establish that this particular use of a taser on a handcuffed but noncompliant arrestee was unconstitutional.
- A dissent would have found excessive force and clearly established law.

## Legal Principles

- Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims are evaluated under the objective-reasonableness standard of *Graham v. Connor*, considering offense severity, immediate safety threats, and resistance or evasion, from the standpoint of a reasonable officer on scene.
- An arrestee’s refusal to comply with commands necessary to complete a lawful arrest may justify intermediate, pain-compliance force when lesser measures fail and the situation presents safety risks.
- Video evidence may control the factual account for summary-judgment purposes when it clearly depicts the material events.
- Qualified immunity protects an officer unless existing precedent placed the unlawfulness of the specific conduct beyond debate; general excessive-force statements are insufficient without materially similar authority or an obvious constitutional violation.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that using a drive-stun taser three times to obtain compliance from a handcuffed arrestee who refused to stand and move during a nighttime roadside arrest was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment or, at minimum, not clearly established as unlawful in 2004, requiring dismissal of the federal claims on qualified-immunity grounds.


Buckley v. Haddock, 292 F. App’x 791 (11th Cir. 2008)