Case Brief # 2 (232)

The Estate of Ronald H. Armstrong
Type of case
This case deals with the question of decisions taken when carrying out an arrest. It is concerned with the amount of force police officers apply when arresting individuals under different circumstances. The case questions the amount of force that was forcible by the use of arresting tools, in this case, the Taser. The amount of force in particular according to the circumstances that were present during the arrest is brought to question that later yielded unexpected results (Samaha, 2017).
Facts of case
The court discussed the amount and level of force that was applied by Officer Gatling who used a Taser several times to arrest Ronald H. Armstrong who was a mentally ill person. It was based on qualified immunity grounds as the methods resulted in the death of the arrestee. The arrestee’s sister, Jinia Armstrong Lopez, took the case to court after believing that the police officers had inflicted unreasonably excessive force and pain to her mentally ill brother who had escaped from the hospital after being frightened.
The examining doctor had issued involuntary commitment papers after carrying out evaluations on him and established him as a danger to himself. The court confirmed that Armstrong had been off his medications for five days and had started injuring himself before his attempted arrest. The doctor had failed to mention whether he was a threat to others too as it would have affected the choice of force that was used during his arrest (Samaha, 2017).

The court also put into a record that the police from the village of Pinehurst had applied graduated levels of strength and acted after the involuntary papers had been issued.
Legal issue
The legal issue that the court was tasked to answer was the type and procedure of force that should be applied to different individuals during arrest should there be any presence of resistance of arrest. Primarily, in this case, was the use of Tasers as a way of arresting a resistant individual who was Armstrong (Samaha, 2017). The reasons for a Taser was addressed and stipulated that it should not be used as a pain compliance tool to subdue a resisting subject. The court concluded that the police used unreasonably excessive force to seize Armstrong, as it was not established whether he posed an immediate danger to those around him including the police officers.
Holding and Decision
As Armstrong did not attempt to flee seizing but rather rendered himself stationary by hugging a pole, he did pose a danger to the police officers. The use of a Taser by the police as witnessed by the sister proved that they applied excessive force. It is because he was a mentally ill person, well outnumbered and a danger to himself only as mentioned by the examining doctor. The use of the Taser in that situation no matter the mode it was set was a violation of the fourth amendment as the resistance offered by the subject did not highlight a risk of immediate danger. They also stated that the non-violent physical resistance did not warrant the use of a Taser, as it did not create a threat to the officers’ safety. The court favored the Police actions based on qualified immunity.
Rule
The court stipulated that the future use of a Taser would now be subject to the Fourth circuit’s pronouncement as its purpose is injurious and severe no matter the mode it is set. It is now the controlling law on the use of pain and forces compliance techniques (Samaha, 2017).

ReferenceSamaha, J. (2017). Criminal procedure. Place of publication not identified: Wadsworth.