When Can Police Use a Taser? What the Law Requires - Combative Vs Resisting Actions

Resisting vs combative

Background

Ronald Armstrong suffered from bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia and had been off his medication for several days. Sclawreview His sister brought him to a hospital, where the attending doctor deemed him a danger to himself and filed paperwork to have him involuntarily committed though notably, the doctor did not check the box declaring Armstrong a danger to others. Campbelllawobserver

When police arrived, Armstrong's commitment papers were not yet finalized, so officers engaged him in conversation. The parties were calm and cooperative at this point. LLRMI Once the paperwork was complete, Armstrong wrapped himself around a post and refused to budge. After pleading with him for about thirty seconds, officers tased Armstrong five separate times over approximately two minutes. United States Court of Appeals

When Can Police Use a Taser? What the Law Requires - Combative Vs Resisting Actions

After the tasing failed to dislodge Armstrong, two hospital security guards helped the officers pull him from the post. He was then placed face-down on the ground, handcuffed, and shackled. Campbelllawobserver Armstrong was transported to the emergency department, where resuscitation attempts were unsuccessful. He was pronounced dead shortly after admission. LLRMI

Legal Claims

Armstrong's estate sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. vLex The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding it unlikely a constitutional violation occurred but ruling that even if it did, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Sclawreview

The Fourth Circuit's Ruling (January 11, 2016)

The appellate court addressed two questions: whether a constitutional violation occurred, and whether the right violated was clearly established at the time.

On the constitutional question, the court found that Armstrong was not complying with orders but his resistance posed "little risk" to anyone, and officers tried to break the impasse for only 30 seconds before deploying the taser. The court concluded that taser use was not a reasonable or proportional response.

North Carolina Criminal Law The court's key holding was that taser use as a pain compliance tool against a resisting subject is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment unless officers can articulate an "immediate danger" apart from the fact of resistance alone.

On qualified immunity, however, the majority found the officers were protected because the law was "not so settled at the time they acted" that every reasonable officer would have understood the tasing was unconstitutional. But the court made clear this opinion was intended to provide guidance, making qualified immunity much less likely to be available in future cases.

The result: the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers.

Significance and Aftermath

The decision had wide-reaching effects. A subsequent study found that states in the 4th Circuit experienced a statistically significant increase in officer-involved shootings following the Armstrong ruling, while comparison states did not. The concern was that restricting taser use was pushing officers toward more dangerous alternatives.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in October 2016, leaving the Fourth Circuit's restrictions on taser use in place for North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.

In short, it's a landmark case on the constitutional limits of taser/stun gun use by police particularly when dealing with mentally ill individuals who are not posing an immediate threat

How Should Law Enforcement Use Tasers To Reflect Ruling

Based on Armstrong v. Pinehurst and the guidance that emerged from it, here's how law enforcement should approach taser use to stay within constitutional bounds:

The Core Standard

Officers should only use a taser when "confronted with an exigency that creates an immediate safety risk and that is reasonably likely to be cured by using the taser."

In the context of Armstrong v. Pinehurst and use-of-force law, these two terms carry very different legal and practical weight:

Resisting

Resisting refers to a subject who is non-compliant but not attacking. This includes passive or active refusal to cooperate with officer commands without posing a direct physical threat. Examples include:

• Pulling away from an officer's grip

• Going limp or deadweighting

• Wrapping around an object (as Armstrong did)

• Refusing to place hands behind the back

• Verbal non-compliance

The Armstrong court made clear that resistance alone does not justify taser use. The subject is making the officer's job harder, but is not creating an immediate danger to the officer or others. De-escalation, patience, and hands-on control techniques are the expected response.

Combative

Combative describes a subject who is actively threatening or attacking. The subject's behavior creates an immediate safety risk. Examples include:

• Striking, kicking, or biting an officer

• Reaching for a weapon

• Charging or lunging at officers or bystanders

• Fighting back during an arrest in a way that could cause injury

A combative subject does meet the Armstrong standard of "immediate danger," and taser deployment is far more legally defensible in these situations.

 This is the central takeaway from the ruling.

What Does NOT Justify Taser Use

The court made several important points: an arrestee does not create an "immediate safety risk" simply by resisting officers and physically preventing an officer's manipulation of his body. Erratic behavior and mental illness do not necessarily create a safety risk. And officers have a diminished interest in using potentially harmful force when trying to stop a mentally ill individual from harming only himself or herself.

In short, taser use as a pain compliance tool against a resisting subject is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment unless the police can articulate "immediate danger" apart from the fact of resistance alone.

Mental Health Encounters Require Special Care

The court stressed that the diminished capacity of an unarmed detainee must be taken into account when assessing the amount of force to be exerted. The problems posed by an unarmed, emotionally distraught individual who is resisting are ordinarily different from those involved in subduing an armed and dangerous individual who has recently committed a crime.

Officers must also take into consideration any mental health condition of the subject, and training should help officers distinguish between a person who is a danger to himself and one who is a danger to others because not all physical resistance constitutes a threat.

Time and Patience Matter

The court specifically criticized the officers for waiting only 30 seconds before deploying the taser. The court reasoned that while officers had no constitutional duty to stand idly by, there was no urgency during the incident noncompliance with lawful orders justifies some use of force, but the level of justified force varies on the risks posed by the resistance.

Minimize Drive Stun Mode

Since some law enforcement groups have noted that total exposure to electric shock beyond 15 seconds represents a possible safety risk, and since courts seem increasingly sensitive to the delivery of multiple shocks, agencies are advised to restrict the use of drive stuns to situations where they are clearly justified.

Repeated Shocks Are Also Restricted

A companion case, Meyers v. Baltimore County, built on Armstrong to address repeated taser use. The 4th Circuit held that it is excessive and unreasonable to repeatedly administer electrical shocks when an individual is no longer actively resisting arrest.

Practical Policy Changes

In light of the ruling, a public safety guidance summary put it simply: tasers should be used only when there is a serious, imminent threat to the officer, suspect, or public. Many agencies in the 4th Circuit responded by placing tasers higher on their use-of-force continuum meaning other de-escalation techniques, verbal commands, and hands-on methods should be exhausted first before reaching for the taser.

The ruling in Estate of Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst fundamentally changed how law enforcement in the Fourth Circuit must approach taser deployment. At its core, the decision draws a critical distinction between a subject who is resisting and one who is combative. Resistance alone no matter how frustrating or inconvenient does not create the immediate danger required to justify taser use. Combativeness does.

For officers, this means patience and de-escalation are not just best practices they are constitutional obligations. Before reaching for a taser, officers must be able to clearly articulate an immediate safety threat that goes beyond the fact of non-compliance. This standard becomes even more demanding in mental health encounters, where erratic behavior is not automatically synonymous with danger.

For the general public, the Armstrong ruling represents an important legal safeguard a recognition that individuals in mental health crisis deserve a measured response, not a reflexive one. The law does not ask officers to stand idly by, but it does ask them to think before they shock.

William DeMuth, Director of Training

About The Author

William DeMuth, Director of Training

With over 30 years of research in violence dynamics and personal safety, William specializes in evidence-based training with layered personal safety skills for real-world conflict resolution. He holds advanced certifications and has trained under diverse industry leaders including Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and Craig Douglas (ShivWorks), and is the architect of the ConflictIQ™ program. He actively trains civilians, law enforcement, healthcare workers, and corporate teams in behavioral analysis, situational awareness, de-escalation strategies, and physical skills.