Draper v. Reynolds’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although being struck by a taser gun is an unpleasant experience, the amount of force Reynolds used — a single use of the taser gun causing a one-time shocking— was reasonably proportionate to the need for force and did not inflict any serious injury. Indeed, the police video shows that Draper was standing up, handcuffed, and coherent shortly after the taser gun stunned and calmed him. The single use of the taser gun may well have prevented a physical struggle and serious harm to either Draper or Reynolds.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gray v. Cummings · Joseph Harper v. Chris Perkins

2. “is a Conducted Energy Weapon that uses propelled wire to conduct energy to a remote target, thereby controlling and overriding the body's central nervous system. The taser gun fires two probes up to a distance of twenty-one feet from a replaceable cartridge. These probes are connected to the taser gun by high-voltage insulated wire. When the probes make contact with the target, the taser gun transmits electrical pulses along the wires and into the body of the target, through up to two inches of clothing.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nelson v. Lott · 574 F. Supp. 2d 1279 - Oliver v. City of Orlando

3. “The deputies clearly had probable cause to arrest [the father] for resisting an officer with violence, ..., so the only issue here is whether the use of the taser guns was unreasonable. At the time the deputies used their taser guns, [the father’s] nose had already been broken, and he sprayed blood when he spoke. [One officer] testified that he believed it was intentional. Although we view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and [the father] testified in his deposition that it was not intentional, we must treat it as though it were because the evidence is that is how it would appear to a reasonable officer at the scene. We have previously held that in a “difficult, tense and uncertain situation” the use of a taser gun to subdue a suspect who has repeatedly ignored police instructions and continues to act belligerently toward police is not excessive force. This was such a situation, and we conclude that [the officer’s] use of his taser gun was reasonably proportionate to the need for force. Because [the officer’s] use of the taser gun while leading [the father] out of the [hotel] in handcuffs was not unreasonable, we do not reach the well-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 996 F. Supp. 2d 1193 - Graddy v. City of Tampa