10-1612 U.S. v. Norris

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
Search warrants; execution

Use of a taser does not render execution of a search warrant unreasonable.

“Officer Young’s actions were reasonable. Mr. Norris not only exhibited behavior consistent with an intent to discard evidence, he also engaged in actions that suggested he was reaching for a weapon. At this point, Officer Young had every reason to be concerned for his own safety, that of the other officers and that of Mr. Norris’s acquaintances. Both the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals have recognized that, in conducting a search, officers may take reasonable steps to minimize the risk of harm to themselves and to others. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702-03 (1981); Bills v. Aseltine, 958 F.2d 697, 704 (6th Cir. 1992) (stating that ‘implicit in the authority conferred on police officers by a valid warrant is the authority to secure the premises to be searched in order to minimize the risk of harm to the officers’). Our colleagues in the Eleventh Circuit have held explicitly that an officer’s single use of a taser to subdue a suspect, who repeatedly had refused lawful orders of the police, was a ‘reasonably proportionate’ response where failing to use the taser could have resulted in an escalation of violence. See Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir. 2004). We believe that Officer Young’s actions are justified on these grounds. Mr. Norris had displayed an unwillingness to accede to reasonable police commands, and his actions suggested an intent to use violence to fend off further police action. Consequently, we agree with the district court that Officer Young’s use of his taser was reasonable under the circumstances.”

Affirmed.

10-1612 U.S. v. Norris

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Barker, J., Ripple, J.

Full Text