TASER in the Back

Question

Is it ok or legal to shoot a violator in the back with a TASER?

Accepted Answer

Whether it is lawful to deploy a TASER against a fleeing violator from the back depends on the totality of the circumstances, not the direction the subject is facing at the moment force is used. Under the Fourth Amendment, any TASER deployment constitutes a seizure and is therefore evaluated under the objective reasonableness standard established by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor. That standard requires courts to assess an officer’s actions from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the severity of the crime, whether the individual posed an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether the individual was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

Flight alone is generally insufficient to justify the use of a TASER. Courts have consistently held that mere noncompliance or running away, without more, does not automatically warrant intermediate force. However, when a fleeing subject presents a current or imminent danger to themselves or others, the constitutional analysis changes significantly. Although Tennessee v. Garner specifically addresses deadly force, its core principle—that officers may use force to prevent escape when the suspect poses a significant threat of serious physical injury to others—remains relevant in TASER cases, even though TASERs are classified as intermediate rather than deadly force.

Federal courts have repeatedly recognized that TASER use against a fleeing suspect may be constitutionally reasonable when the officer can articulate a legitimate safety concern beyond simple escape. This includes situations where a suspect is running toward a busy roadway, creating a substantial risk of collision and injury, or toward a school, playground, or other crowded public space where bystanders could be harmed. Courts have also credited circumstances in which a suspect’s apparent intoxication, mental instability, or prior violent behavior increased the likelihood that continued flight would result in injury to the suspect or others.

Importantly, courts do not evaluate TASER deployments based on whether the probe struck the front or back of the subject but instead focus on the reason the force was used at that moment. In Brown v. Giles (Sixth Circuit, 2024), the court reaffirmed that it is not per se unreasonable for officers to deploy a TASER against a fleeing suspect and specifically rejected the argument that tasing a suspect in the back during a foot pursuit automatically constitutes excessive force. The court emphasized that foot pursuits are fluid, rapidly evolving events and that officers are entitled to make split-second decisions under dangerous conditions.

From an operational standpoint, TASER deployments to the back are not only legally recognized but also anticipated by manufacturer training. Axon, the manufacturer of TASER Conducted Energy Weapons, expressly identifies the subject’s back as a preferred target zone when the subject is facing away. Axon training materials explain that the back, particularly when combined with lower-body probe placement, often produces greater probe spread and more effective neuromuscular incapacitation, increasing the likelihood that the TASER will immediately stop the dangerous behavior. Axon guidance further acknowledges that officers will frequently encounter subjects who are moving away from them and trains officers accordingly.

The effectiveness of a TASER deployment to the back is therefore both medically and tactically recognized. Larger muscle groups and improved probe separation increase the likelihood of achieving neuromuscular incapacitation rather than pain compliance, which is especially important when dealing with a fleeing subject who may not respond to verbal commands or lesser force options.

Nevertheless, the legality of a TASER deployment—whether to the front or back—ultimately turns on articulation. An officer must be able to clearly explain why allowing the suspect to continue fleeing posed a foreseeable risk of harm and why intermediate force was reasonable at that moment. Courts are far less deferential in cases where officers cannot articulate a danger beyond mere flight or where the suspected offense is minor and the threat to public safety is minimal.

It is also essential to recognize that use-of-force decisions must always comply with local law and departmental policy, which may impose stricter limitations than constitutional minimums. Even when a TASER deployment is constitutionally permissible, a violation of agency policy can still result in administrative discipline or civil exposure. Accordingly, officers are expected to follow their agency’s use-of-force continuum, training, and reporting requirements in every instance.

In conclusion, it can be lawful to deploy a TASER against a fleeing violator from the back when, under the totality of the circumstances, the subject’s continued flight presents an imminent danger to themselves or others and when the force used is objectively reasonable. The direction of the deployment is not determinative; the articulated threat is. Proper justification, adherence to training and policy, and clear documentation remain critical to ensuring that such deployments withstand both legal and administrative scrutiny.