Firing of officer who stunned nursing home patient was supported by evidence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A police chief and city review board were within their rights to terminate the employment of an officer who repeatedly used a Taser on a 64-year-old nursing home patient. An appellate panel Monday reversed a trial court order that had thrown out the officer’s firing.

Peru Police Chief Steve Hoover recommended dismissal of Officer Gregory Martin for excessive use of force against James Howard, a resident of the Alzheimer’s ward of Miller’s Merry Manor. The city’s Board of Works and Public Safety conducted a hearing and agreed Martin used excessive force and was fired.

Police had been called to the nursing home to assist transporting a patient to the hospital after he became combative toward a roommate and staff, but staff testified Howard had been medicated and somewhat subdued when police arrived. Howard was sitting naked in a chair and staring straight ahead when Martin and another officer arrived, according to the opinion in Peru City Police Department and City of Peru v. Gregory Martin,  52A02-1304-PL-350.

Nursing home staff believed Howard could have been controlled without the use of a Taser, but officers and paramedics, including Martin’s fiancée, disagreed, according to the record. Officer Jeremy Brindle, who accompanied Martin, conceded that he and Martin likely could have gained control over Howard had each grabbed a wrist.

But when Brindle attempted to grab one of Howard’s wrists, he resisted and began “shuffling” toward Martin, who yelled “Taser.” Martin used the Taser device on Howard five times, according to the Taser’s data printout. The record indicates that Howard was exposed to 31 seconds of Taser force in one minute with five separate deployments lasting five to 11 seconds each.

“Chief Hoover recommended Martin’s dismissal due to his opinion that Martin had used excessive force and due to alleged inconsistencies between Martin’s initial report and his statements during the internal investigation,” Judge Mark Bailey wrote for the panel, noting a report said no “touch stuns” were administered.

Martin appealed, and the trial court threw out his firing. Miami Superior Special Judge Richard Maughmer entered more than 100 “reasons that the decision should not be affirmed,” finding the termination unsupported by the evidence and the firing arbitrary and capricious.

But the panel found that the trial court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the city police chief and board and that it disregarded ample evidence that supported the firing for cause. The panel focused on training Martin received that limits someone’s exposure to Taser force, which can be deadly when used for extended periods or in repeated bursts in which the subject isn’t allowed time to comply.  

“Although greater (cumulative) duration than 15 seconds is not absolutely prohibited, the training materials repeatedly reference 15 seconds as an important benchmark,” Bailey wrote. “… Here, the benchmark time was more than doubled – in five applications inflicted upon an elderly naked man in a nursing home, imminently destined for a hospital. Intervals to achieve compliance were very short, with only a two-second interval between the third and fourth deployments. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Howard was handcuffed after the third Taser application.

“In sum, there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision. … The trial court disregarded evidence favorable to that decision, credited the testimony of witnesses that the trial court did not personally hear, and misstated evidence regarding the scope of Martin’s training,” Bailey wrote. “In short, the trial court reweighed the evidence and reassessed the credibility of witnesses. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings, and its decision to terminate Martin for use of excessive force and conduct unbecoming an officer was not arbitrary and capricious.”



  • Katie bar the door!
    Someone has not been paying attention to the comments here. Katie, you cannot say such things about an Indiana judge! Do you want to end up in Room 101 with Paul Ogden?
  • Mistakes
    There are 22 mistakes/inconsistencies in this decision. The biggest inconsistency Judge Bailey errored on is the fact the Mr. Howard was Never handcuffed while tased. Not one person testified to this. Mr. Howard was never tased after handcuffs were applied due to he was restrained at that point in time. Second largest error is Judge Bailey states that Mr. Howard "shuffled" toward police. Testimony proves that Mr. Howard violently attempted to kick, hit and bite all individuals that came into contact with him. This entire order needs to be reviewed with correct information.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?