If a police officer tased you when you were unarmed, not committing a serious crime, or in the middle of a mental health crisis, you likely have grounds for a Taser excessive force lawsuit under the Fourth Amendment. Federal courts, and the Ninth Circuit in particular, treat a Taser as a significant level of force that officers cannot use against people who pose no real threat. The suit is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute, and it can target both the officer who fired the weapon and the city that employs them.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
When Taser Use Crosses the Constitutional Line
Every excessive force claim starts with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures. When an officer fires a Taser at you, you have been seized, and the question a court asks is whether that seizure was objectively reasonable given everything the officer knew at the time.2Justia. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386
The Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Graham v. Connor set the framework courts still use. Three factors carry the most weight:2Justia. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386
- The severity of the crime, if any, that the officer suspected.
- Whether you posed an immediate threat to officers or others.
- Whether you were actively resisting arrest or trying to flee.
These three are not the only considerations. The Ninth Circuit’s model jury instructions add thirteen more factors a jury may weigh, including whether it should have been apparent that the person tased was emotionally disturbed.3Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions. 9.27 Particular Rights – Fourth Amendment – Unreasonable Seizure of Person – Excessive Force The stronger those factors run in your favor, the stronger the case that the tasing was unconstitutional.
Why Tasers Count as Significant Force
In Bryan v. McPherson (2010), the Ninth Circuit became the first federal appellate court to explicitly classify Taser deployment as an intermediate, significant level of force. The court explained that a Taser overrides the central nervous system, paralyzes the body’s muscles, and leaves the target helpless for the electrical cycle. That level of intrusion, the court held, must be justified by a strong government interest.4Casemine. Bryan v. MacPherson, 608 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2010)
The facts in Bryan show how low the threshold can be for a constitutional violation. Officer McPherson fired his Taser in dart mode at Carl Bryan over a seatbelt infraction. Bryan was unarmed, made no threatening statements or gestures, did not resist arrest or attempt to flee, and was standing roughly twenty feet away. The shock dropped him face-first into the pavement, shattering four teeth and requiring surgery to remove a barbed probe from his skin.4Casemine. Bryan v. MacPherson, 608 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2010)
Dart Mode Versus Drive-Stun Mode
Courts distinguish between the two ways a Taser is used. In dart or probe mode, the device fires two barbed probes that embed in clothing or skin and deliver a charge designed to cause complete neuromuscular incapacitation. The person collapses. In drive-stun mode, the officer presses the device directly against the body, and the effect is more limited: it functions primarily as pain compliance rather than full incapacitation. Bryan‘s holding that Tasers are significant force was directed at dart mode, though repeated drive-stun applications have also drawn scrutiny.
The Medical Reality Behind the Legal Classification
A standard Taser deployment delivers an initial shock of roughly 1,200 to 2,520 volts in a five-second cycle, sending about 1,140 electrical pulses per minute into the body. The trigger can be pulled multiple times, and holding it extends the cycle beyond five seconds. Research published by the American Heart Association concluded that these devices can cause sudden cardiac arrest in humans, documenting eight cases where the arrest resulted from the electrical impulse.5American Heart Association Journals. TASER Electronic Control Devices Can Cause Cardiac Arrest in Humans Beyond cardiac risk, involuntary muscle paralysis causes uncontrolled falls that produce broken bones, facial fractures, and lacerations. Those medical realities support the legal treatment of Tasers as significant force and often become central to damages.
Mental Health Crises and Passive Non-Compliance
Taser cases involving people in psychiatric distress are where excessive force claims tend to be strongest. Each Graham factor cuts differently than it would for a criminal suspect.
On severity of the crime, there often is no crime at all. When officers arrive on a welfare check or 911 call about someone in crisis, they are functioning in a caretaking role, and the government’s interest in using force drops. On immediate threat, an unarmed person in crisis rarely poses meaningful danger to officers. Even in a precarious situation, the primary risk is to the person themselves, and a minimal officer-safety concern does not justify intermediate force.
On resistance, the most common scenario is passive non-compliance: not following commands, not responding, moving unpredictably. Courts have consistently distinguished this from active resistance. Someone whose mental state prevents them from understanding or obeying is not “resisting” in any meaningful sense, and the Ninth Circuit’s model jury instructions direct juries to consider whether the officer should have recognized the person was emotionally disturbed.6United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 9.25 Particular Rights – Fourth Amendment – Unreasonable Seizure of Person – Excessive Force
Mattos v. Agarano (2011) reinforced this framework. Officers responded to a domestic dispute call, and when one officer moved to arrest Jayzel Mattos’s husband, he pushed against her chest. She raised her arm defensively. Without warning, the officer fired his Taser in dart mode. The court found the force constitutionally excessive: any crime was minimal, Jayzel posed no threat, her contact was defensive, and the officer gave no warning, which the court said “pushes this use of force far beyond the pale.” Simply not facilitating an arrest, the court emphasized, is not the same as fighting back.7FindLaw. Mattos v. Agarano (9th Cir. 2011)
Repeated Taser cycles make the case even stronger. If the first cycle incapacitates you and you are on the ground, a second or third cycle against a person no longer capable of resistance is very difficult to justify under any reading of Graham.
How the Lawsuit Works
A person harmed by an unconstitutional Taser deployment sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires two elements: the defendant acted under color of state law, and their conduct deprived you of a right secured by the Constitution.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights For an on-duty officer, the first element is straightforward. The second requires proving the force was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment using the Graham framework.
Suing the City Under Monell
Plaintiffs typically name both the individual officer and the city or county employing them. Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, a municipality is not liable simply because one of its employees violated your rights. You must show that an official policy, custom, or practice of the municipality caused the constitutional violation.8Justia. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 In Taser cases, that often means a deficient use-of-force policy, inadequate crisis-intervention training, or a pattern of tolerating excessive Taser deployments without discipline.
The Monell claim is harder than the claim against the individual officer, but it matters financially. Officers rarely have the resources to pay a large judgment. Cities do.
Damages and Attorney’s Fees
A prevailing plaintiff can recover compensatory damages for medical bills, lost earnings, physical pain, emotional distress, and humiliation. Even where the physical injury is limited, the psychological impact of being tased, especially during a mental health crisis, can support a substantial award. Punitive damages are available when the officer’s conduct was malicious or showed reckless indifference to your rights. Courts also have discretion under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 1988 – Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights That fee-shifting provision is what makes civil rights lawyers willing to take these cases on contingency.
Filing Deadline
Section 1983 has no filing deadline of its own. Federal courts borrow the personal injury statute of limitations from the state where the incident occurred.10United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Section 1983 Outline In most states, that deadline runs two or three years from the date of the incident, though it varies. Missing it permanently bars the claim regardless of its merits, so talking to an attorney promptly matters.
Qualified Immunity and Why It’s Weaker Now
Officers sued for excessive force almost always raise qualified immunity. The doctrine shields government officials from personal liability unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time. Even if a court agrees the force was unconstitutional, the officer walks if no prior case with sufficiently similar facts put them on notice.
“Clearly established” does not require an identical prior case, but courts apply the standard with teeth. In the Taser context, timing has mattered a lot. When the Mattos and Bryan incidents occurred in 2005 and 2006, no federal appellate court had squarely addressed Taser deployment as excessive force. The Mattos court found a constitutional violation but still granted the officers qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established when the encounter happened.7FindLaw. Mattos v. Agarano (9th Cir. 2011)
After those decisions were published, the picture changed. Officers within the Ninth Circuit can no longer plausibly claim they didn’t know that tasing a non-threatening, non-resisting person was unconstitutional. For anyone tased after Bryan and Mattos, the qualified immunity defense is significantly harder for the officer to win.
The ADA as a Second Avenue in Mental Health Cases
Beyond Section 1983, encounters involving mental health crises may also trigger federal disability law. Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, public entities including police departments are barred from discriminating against people with disabilities in their services and programs. Department of Justice guidance issued in response to a 2022 executive order specifies that agencies must make reasonable modifications to their standard practices when necessary to avoid disability-based discrimination.11U.S. Department of Justice. Guidance for Emergency Responses to People with Behavioral Health or Other Disabilities
In practice, that can mean sending armed officers trained only in traditional law enforcement to handle a psychiatric emergency, and then having them tase the person when they fail to comply, may violate federal disability law in addition to the Fourth Amendment. The DOJ has emphasized through consent decrees with individual departments that agencies must develop adequate community-based crisis services and that failing to do so can itself violate the ADA’s integration mandate. The pattern of how a department responds to mental health calls, not just a single officer’s decision, can be challenged as systemic discrimination.