In Draper v. Reynolds, what did the court decide about the use of a TASER during a traffic stop?

• A. The one-time shock of a TASER was not excessive force and was reasonably proportionate when the subject repeatedly refused verbal commands and became hostile
• B. The officer should handcuff first
• C. The TASER use is always excessive force
• D. Verbal commands alone would have sufficed

Answer: (A)

When judging use of force, courts look at whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable given the total circumstances at the moment. A single TASER deployment can be reasonable if it is the least intrusive way to gain control when a subject ignores commands and becomes hostile, creating a real safety risk.

In this case, the court held that a one-time TASER shock was not excessive because the driver repeatedly refused verbal orders and escalated to hostility. The stun helped the officer gain control with minimal harm compared to what could have happened with continued resistance or a more forceful approach, balancing safety for the officer, bystanders, and the suspect.

The decision doesn’t say TASER use is always non-excessive; context matters. Verbal commands alone wouldn’t always suffice with clear resistance, and more intrusive actions aren’t required here since the single TASER deployment achieved control. The view that handcuffing first is the default or that TASER use is inherently excessive would not fit the ruling.