Monday, October 04, 2010

Mattos v. Agarano (9th Cir. - Oct. 4, 2010)

It's a straightforward "Why'd you tase me, bro?" case that the Ninth Circuit resolved back in January.  It's a per curiam opinion holding that the officers had qualified immunity.  No dissent.  Fact-specific.  No way it's getting taken en banc, right?


We'll see who gets drawn on this one.  We probably know one vote -- Chief Judge Kozinski's -- already, since he was on the panel.  The other two were Judges Bybee and Callahan.  Apparently the views of those three with respect to when it's okay to tase someone may not be entirely representative of the Ninth Circuit as a whole.

Who knew?