PAGE 8 A second case, Robinette v. Barnes, involving a canine bite and hold which led to a death is also instructive.i  The court outlined the facts of the case as follows: “Shortly after midnight on July 10, 1984, the ‘K-9’ team of Barnes and Casey was summoned to the Superb Motors car dealership in Nashville, Tennessee. A burglar alarm inside the building had been activated. According to the district court, by the time Barnes arrived at the dealership, ‘officers already on the scene had located a point of entry, a broken glass door, and had seen a suspect inside the building [...]

PAGE 7 The jury’s finding in Heston raised the issue of TASER™ International’s liability exposure where it is claimed that there was a failure to warn end users of potential dangers: “With respect to Defendant TASER™, the Jury found that on February 19, 2005, Salinas police officers subjected Robert C. Heston to a prolonged deployment from TASER™s; that Defendant TASER™'s failure to warn of the risks associated with a prolonged deployment was a substantial factor in causing the police officers to administer a prolonged deployment; and that as a consequence of the prolonged deployment, Robert C. Heston suffered acidosis to [...]

PAGE 6 PRODUCT LIABILITY As apparent from Heston, the legal dilemma from a products liability perspective is different than the law enforcement liability under the Constitution.  The jeopardy that a manufacturer may face for failing to warn the end users of dangers associated with their product can lead to awards against that manufacturer including punitive damage awards.  As anyone knows some of these cases reach such ridiculous points that manufacturers begin issuing far-reaching warnings that should be obvious to anyone.  Imagine, McDonalds, as a distributor of coffee, following a lawsuit, placed a warning on their cups indicating that the coffee was dangerous [...]

PAGE 5 In this case, appellee has conceded that when Oliver struggled to free himself from Officer Burk in the street, he at least arguably placed himself and Officer Burk in some danger, and therefore, under the rationale of Draper, the use of an initial, single TASER™ shock to calm the suspect may have been justified. Here, however, the force used against Oliver did not end there. The officers did not merely shock Oliver once and then attempt to engage him, arrest him, or "Baker Act" him. Rather, again viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Oliver, the first [...]

PAGE 4 Oliver did not speak before Officer Fiorino pulled out her TASER™ gun and asked Oliver what the problem was. Oliver responded to Fiorino's questions, saying "they're shooting at me" several times, and pointing across the street. Fiorino told Oliver to calm down and tell her what was going on. Oliver attempted to walk away; Fiorino asked him to stay and talk. According to Fiorino, Oliver then began to walk quickly toward her. In response, Fiorino raised her TASER™ [sic] gun and told Oliver to step away from her. Oliver complied. Fiorino observed that throughout this encounter, Oliver was [...]

PAGE 3 Deputy Rackard asked [Buckley] several times to stand up. [Buckley] did not do so. The deputy then attempted to lift [Buckley] to his feet; but [Buckley] remained limp and did not stand. After repeatedly and plainly warning [Buckley] that a TASER™ [sic] device would be used (to which [Buckley] shouted, "I don't care anymore -- tase me") and after giving [Buckley] some time to comply, the deputy discharged the TASER™. The TASER™ was used for approximately five seconds in the "stun gun" mode. The deputy applied the ECD's electrodes directly to [Buckley]'s clothed back and chest. After Deputy [...]