Taser Abuse in Oklahoma

Under 10th Circuit precedent, taser use is excessive when applied to individuals who are not actively resisting, are already restrained, are complying with commands, or after the suspect is subdued. Repeated or prolonged taser cycles are particularly suspect. Courts apply the Graham v. Connor 'objective reasonableness' standard.

Tasers can be lethal, especially for individuals with heart conditions, those under the influence of drugs, people in excited delirium, and those subjected to prolonged or repeated shocks. Tasers can cause cardiac arrest, falls resulting in head injuries, burns, and rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown). Over 500 people have died after taser deployment in the U.S.

Drive stun is when officers press the taser directly against the body without firing probes. It causes intense localized pain but doesn't incapacitate. Courts view repeated drive stuns as punitive rather than to gain compliance—essentially using pain as punishment. The 10th Circuit has found prolonged drive stuns can constitute excessive force.

Not automatically. Passive resistance or mere failure to comply does not justify taser deployment. Under 10th Circuit law, officers must weigh the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses a threat, and whether active resistance exists. Tasing someone for simply not putting their hands behind their back, without more, may be excessive.

Multiple taser cycles are a significant factor in excessive force analysis. Each cycle delivers a 5-second shock. Courts have found that repeated tasing—especially 3, 5, or more cycles—when the suspect is already incapacitated or compliant, demonstrates excessive force. We analyze taser download data showing exact number and duration of cycles.

Yes. Under the 'eggshell plaintiff' doctrine, officers take victims as they find them. If a taser caused cardiac arrest due to a heart condition, the officer and department may be liable for the full extent of injuries. The question is whether taser use was reasonable, not whether the victim was particularly vulnerable.

Modern tasers (like Axon/TASER devices) record detailed data: time/date of deployment, number of cycles, duration of each cycle, battery levels, and sometimes video through integrated cameras. We subpoena this 'taser download' data, which often contradicts officer reports about how many times they deployed the weapon.

Excited delirium is a controversial condition officers cite when suspects die after taser use. Many medical organizations don't recognize it as a legitimate diagnosis. We challenge this defense by examining whether the taser itself caused or contributed to death, and whether officers ignored signs of medical distress after tasing.

Potentially. If the taser malfunctioned or Axon (formerly TASER International) failed to adequately warn about dangers, a products liability claim may be viable. We evaluate whether litigation against the manufacturer should supplement the Section 1983 claim against the officer and department.

Compensatory damages cover medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, scarring/burns, cardiac injuries, and psychological trauma. If the taser caused death, families can recover wrongful death damages. Punitive damages may be awarded against officers who used tasers maliciously or recklessly.

We work with medical experts (cardiologists, pathologists) to establish causation. The taser download data showing deployment timing, combined with autopsy or medical records showing cardiac events or rhabdomyolysis, creates the evidentiary foundation. We also analyze whether officers ignored warning signs of medical distress.

In Oklahoma, Section 1983 claims have a 2-year statute of limitations from the date of injury. However, evidence like body camera footage and taser download data may be deleted after shorter retention periods. Contact us immediately to preserve critical evidence.