Apparently law enforcement is willing to fight any restrictions on the use of Tasers. And they will take this fight to the state Supreme Court. Here is an excerpt from an article about the police winning a case concerning using a Taser on a 7 month old pregnant woman, once again because of a traffic violation. Even though they won, the police made the decision to take the case to the Supreme Court ostensibly for emphasis. The police will not brook any interference with their use of Tasers on citizens of their choice. They are not one bit ashamed of Tasering pregnant women, quite the opposite. Seemingly they believe using a Taser on cranky late term pregnant women, especially pregnant women of color, is not only warranted but exactly what the government should order:
TASERS. Not just a last resort alternative to lethal force, but also for use on unruly schoolchildren, rowdy sports fans, a person “acting strangely” at a theme park (that one died), suspects in handcuffs at police stations, tourists who don't speak English and can't understand what police are telling them, college students who don't produce identification on command and pregnant women who are driving 32 mph in a 20 mph zone.
"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals let the officers off the hook for the incident, finding that while the force they used was excessive, they couldn't be held accountable “because the law on the question was not clear in 2004.” And then a strange thing happened: the cops, after winning, appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which will decide shortly whether to hear the case.
Why appeal a case the cops had basically won? According to the Times, it was because the decision “put them and their colleagues on notice that some future uses of Tasers would cross a constitutional line and amount to excessive force.” Tasers have become such an integral tool in forcing citizens to comply that police agencies consider constraints on their use to be a bridge too far – a fight worth taking to the highest court in the land.
The city of Seattle filed a brief with the court asking that it not hear the case. City attorneys criticized what they called the cops' “sky is falling” take on the decision, adding that “three applications of a Taser in drive-stun mode in less than a minute on a pregnant woman who does not pose a safety threat” is the kind of excessive force that is likely to lead to liability for the city.
The most telling part of the story may be the unexamined assumption that police, faced with a very pregnant, nonviolent, non-threatening woman, had to resort to some sort of force to deal with the situation. In an ostensibly neutral news story, Adam Liptak wrote, “The situation plainly called for bold action.” One judge, dissenting from the ruling, said that Brooks had invited the assault by being “defiant” and “deaf to reason.” He added that the cops “deserve our praise, not the opprobrium of being declared constitutional violators. The City of Seattle should award them commendations for grace under fire.”
But the cops weren't “under fire” – they were simply dealing with a confused citizen and they were unable or unwilling to resolve the situation without violence. (Another dissenting justice claimed that “tasing was a humane way to force Brooks out of her car.”)"