John Yoo resurfaces in 9th Circuit decision. Police inflicting 3 taser shocks on a pregnant woman is OK because it did not rise to the level of pain of a more severe setting of the weapon and while the scars are not insignificant thay are not significant. Wow.
On March 26, 2010, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a very disturbing decision. A pregnant woman was stopped for speeding while taking her child to school. She refused to sign the ticket claiming that she was not speeding and would not admit guilt. The police officer told her it was not an admission of guilt. (Of course, police can lie to obtain evidence and admissions of guilt.) When she refused to exit the car to be arrested she was jolted with a taser three times. This action left permanent scars. Washington law is that failure to sign a ticket is a nonarrestable crime.
The woman sued the officers for using excessive force. The officers claimed immunity.
In a 2-1 decision the 9th Circuit reversed a lower court which found excessive force.
Judge Hall wrote the opinion for the two Reagan appointed justices. For the excessive force charade they must have asked John Yoo to come over to S. F. from Berkeley to help write the following:
"The use of a taser in drive-stun mode is painful, certainly, but also temporary and localized, without incapacitating muscle contractions or significant lasting injury. Brooks said she sustained burn marks and now has scars on her upper arm and thigh, which is certainly not insignificant, but these injuries are far less serious than those inflicted on Bryan by the X26 taser -- excruciating pain ..."
One can imagine the sadistic grin of the torture crowd as they point out the standard is significant lasting injury while noting in the next sentence that the scars are not insignificant; implying some other category of significance that I do not know about and the court did not explain. The pain apparently is relative to some subjective standard. Perhaps Judge Hall knows it when she sees it.
It is a blessing that the baby was born healthy since electric jolts are known to cause pregnancy complications. Perhaps Judge Hall would think differently if the baby had died, or her mother had a premature birth on the spot in response to the electic jolts.
The activist majority further found the reason to arrest her was justified because she was a threat to the officers and the community. I suppose this makes sense if you believe a black woman sitting in a car is a threat, otherwise these hacks made up an excuse.
The dissenting opinion states clearly why this decision is wrong:
"In sum, Brooks committed a trivial, non-violent, and nonarrestable crime. There is no evidence that she posed any threat at all to the safety of the Officers or others. Her resistance was minimal and nonviolent and she was not attempting to flee. The Officers violated departmental standards by using force when they had no authority to effect a custodial arrest."
The decision is here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/...