Mattos v. Agarano

What Happened

This landmark Ninth Circuit en banc decision consolidated two cases involving police use of Tasers. In the Washington component — Brooks v. City of Seattle — Malaika Brooks, a seven-months-pregnant woman, was stopped for speeding in a school zone in 2004. When she refused to sign the traffic ticket (mistakenly believing signing was an admission of guilt), three Seattle police officers used a Taser on her three times in dart mode — on her thigh, arm, and neck — while she sat in her car. She was not violent, not fleeing, and posed no threat to anyone.

What the Court Said

The Ninth Circuit, in an en banc opinion, held that the use of a Taser in dart mode constitutes a “serious” use of force under the Fourth Amendment’s Graham v. Connor framework. The court found that Tasering a non-violent, non-fleeing person who posed at most a minor safety risk was objectively unreasonable. However, the court also ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident in 2004.

Why This Case Matters

Mattos v. Agarano is one of the most important Ninth Circuit decisions on Taser use by police. It clearly establishes, going forward, that officers cannot use Tasers as a pain-compliance tool against people who are not dangerous or fleeing. For pro se litigants in Washington and other Ninth Circuit states, this case provides strong authority for excessive force claims involving Tasers, stun guns, or similar “intermediate” force weapons. While the officers in this particular case received qualified immunity, the court’s ruling put all officers on notice that Taser use against non-threatening individuals violates the Fourth Amendment — meaning future cases involving similar facts should survive qualified immunity defenses.