Opinion ID: 2452067
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Published excessive force cases

Text: Olson cites to published excessive force cases not involving tasers, [73] relying on Landis v. Cardoza , where a Michigan district court held that it is appropriate to draw a parallel between tasers and pepper spray because [b]oth instruments temporarily incapacitate individuals by causing pain and are intended to permit law enforcement officers to take resisting individuals into custody without having to resort to lethal force. [74] But Landis was decided in 2007, a year after Olson was arrested. Olson also seems to suggest that Hickey v. Reeder may have provided notice. [75] As noted above, [76] that case does involve a taser, but the prisoner in Hickey was not resisting arrest; he was in jail and was tased for refusing to comply with an order to sweep his cell. [77] The Eighth Circuit's holding on the distinguishable facts of Hickey provided no guidance to the officers attempting to arrest Olson. Ultimately, both Olson and Hooper Bay acknowledge that there was a lack of published case law on the objective reasonableness of taser usage prior to December 26, 2006. We agree with the superior court that jurisprudence on claims of excessive force involving [t]asers was either unclear or nonexistent at the time of Olson's arrest. [78]