When a TASER Becomes Deadly Force: A $100 Million Mistake

The Eleventh Circuit reminds officers that it's not always the weapon—it may be the environment that determines whether force is constitutionally "deadly."

Over the past decade, courts have routinely described conducted energy weapons (CEWs), commonly referred to as TASERs, as intermediate force, not deadly force. That classification has shaped countless use-of-force decisions and training programs.

But as every use-of-force instructor knows, no force option exists in a vacuum. The same tool that presents a relatively low risk in one setting may create a substantial likelihood of death or serious bodily injury in another.

The Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in Edwards v. Grubbs, No. 24-12787 (11th Cir. June 30, 2026), reinforces exactly that principle. While the case also addresses qualified immunity and Monell liability, its most significant training lesson concerns when a TASER deployment effectively becomes deadly force because of the surrounding environment. 

TL;DR

An officer pursued an unarmed fleeing suspect over a roadside guardrail toward a steep embankment leading to a concrete utility structure below. Without warning, the officer deployed his TASER in dart mode, causing the suspect to lose neuromuscular control and tumble down the embankment, suffering catastrophic injuries.

In August of 2022, the parties proceeded to an eight-day trial on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. The jury returned a verdict totaling $100 million in favor of Mr. Edwards: $60 million against the City and $40 million against Officer Grubbs. The $40 million award against Officer Grubbs consisted of $20 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages. Those amounts were later reduced by the trial court.

The Eleventh Circuit held that although a TASER is not ordinarily deadly force, deploying it against a suspect in a dangerous elevated position may constitute deadly force because the foreseeable consequences create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

The Facts

Officer Jon Grubbs attempted to stop Jerry Blasingame, who fled on foot.

During the pursuit, Blasingame crossed a roadside guardrail and continued toward an opening in heavy brush overlooking a steep embankment. At the bottom of that embankment sat a concrete platform containing a metal utility box.

The opinion notes several facts that became important:

• Blasingame was unarmed;

• he had not threatened the officer;

• the officer was not in imminent fear for his safety;

• and no verbal warning preceded the TASER deployment.

Instead, the officer immediately fired his TASER in dart mode, striking Blasingame in the back. The electrical discharge caused involuntary neuromuscular incapacitation, sending him tumbling down the embankment where he struck the concrete utility structure, suffering devastating injuries.

The Court's Analysis

The opinion makes an important distinction that officers should understand.

The court did not announce that TASERs are deadly force.

In fact, it expressly stated the opposite.

"The use of a taser is not per se deadly force." 

However, the court immediately explained why this case was different.

Citing both its own precedent and decisions from other circuits, the court recognized that tasing a person who is in an elevated or otherwise dangerous position carries a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death.

Because a TASER in dart mode is specifically designed to produce neuromuscular incapacitation, an individual positioned on a steep embankment, rooftop, balcony, bridge, retaining wall, or similar hazard may be unable to protect themselves during the resulting fall.

For that reason, the court concluded that the TASER deployment in these circumstances should be analyzed as the equivalent of deadly force.

The Environment Matters

One of the strongest training lessons from this opinion is that force options cannot be evaluated in isolation.

The constitutional analysis depends not only on what tool is used, but where and under what circumstances it is used.

A TASER deployment that may be entirely reasonable on flat pavement could present dramatically different constitutional concerns if the subject is:

• Standing on a rooftop;

• Leaning over a bridge;

• Positioned on a balcony;

• Descending a staircase;

• Climbing a fence above concrete;

• Standing near a retaining wall;

• Walking along a steep embankment;

• Positioned near moving traffic or other deadly hazards.

The foreseeable consequences—not simply the device itself—become part of the Fourth Amendment analysis.

Why This Matters for Training

This opinion reinforces a concept that modern force instructors increasingly emphasize:

Every force option carries environmental considerations.

The officer must evaluate not only whether force is justified, but also whether the likely secondary effects of that force create additional risks.

Those considerations already appear throughout police training.

Officers are taught to avoid deploying a TASER when a subject is:

• operating a vehicle;

• riding a bicycle or motorcycle;

• positioned at significant heights;

• climbing structures;

• near water;

• or otherwise situated where sudden incapacitation could reasonably produce catastrophic injury.

The Fourth Amendment analysis increasingly mirrors those training principles.

The Qualified Immunity Analysis

The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find the force unconstitutional under these facts.

The suspect was fleeing but was unarmed, had not threatened the officer, and was not presenting an immediate threat when the TASER was fired. Those facts, combined with the obvious danger posed by the steep embankment and concrete utility structure, prevented the officer from obtaining qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

An Important Secondary Holding: Body Cameras and Monell

Although the TASER issue is likely to receive the most attention, the opinion also contains an important discussion of municipal liability.

The plaintiff argued that the City should be liable because officers routinely failed to comply with the department's body-worn camera policy.

Evidence showed poor compliance rates and limited discipline.

The Eleventh Circuit nevertheless rejected the Monell claim because there was no evidence connecting those policy failures to a pattern of constitutional violations. Poor policy compliance, standing alone, does not establish deliberate indifference. Plaintiffs must still demonstrate that the municipal policy or custom was the moving force behind the constitutional injury.

For police executives, that portion of the opinion serves as an important reminder that while body camera compliance should absolutely be enforced, Monell liability still requires proof of causation—not simply evidence of imperfect supervision.

Street-Level Takeaways

• A TASER remains an intermediate force option in most circumstances—but not all.

• Officers should evaluate the environment before deploying any force likely to cause involuntary incapacitation.

• Elevated positions and significant fall hazards may transform an otherwise reasonable TASER deployment into force analyzed as deadly force.

• Warning, when feasible, remains an important consideration before employing force capable of producing catastrophic consequences.

• Supervisors should ensure scenario-based training addresses environmental hazards—not merely the mechanics of TASER deployment.

• Body camera policy compliance remains important, but Monell liability still requires proof that policy failures actually caused constitutional violations.

  
  

Final Thoughts

This decision highlights a broader lesson that extends well beyond TASERs.

Courts increasingly examine the reasonably foreseeable consequences of an officer's chosen force option—not simply the label attached to the weapon.

For trainers, this case provides another excellent example that force decisions cannot be divorced from the environment in which they occur. A TASER fired on level ground may present one level of risk. The same TASER fired toward a suspect standing on a steep embankment, bridge, rooftop, or elevated platform may present an entirely different constitutional analysis.

That is precisely why officers must evaluate not only whether force is justified, but also what is likely to happen after the trigger is pulled.

Disclaimer

This article is intended for educational and training purposes only and is not legal advice. Every use-of-force incident is fact-specific and must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances known to the officers at the time. The discussion herein summarizes a judicial opinion and highlights training considerations for law enforcement professionals. It should not be interpreted as establishing policy, creating legal standards beyond those announced by the court, or predicting how other courts will rule under different facts. Agencies should consult applicable federal and state law, current case law, and their own policies when developing operational practices and training programs.