The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the police use of electronic weapons here can be excessive use of force under the federal Constitution.

But because the law on Tasers was unclear at the time, the appeals court ruled that police officers are immune from the excessive-force claims by a Maui woman and a pregnant Seattle woman who were stunned by the weapons in 2004 and 2006.

The decision, however, now places restrictions on the use of Tasers in Hawaii and eight other states in the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, according to attorneys.

The court said the test includes whether the use of the Tasers is necessary to deal with an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others.

The appeals court’s ruling was by a larger "en banc" panel of 11 judges reserved for cases that include issues of "exceptional importance."

"We’re disappointed, obviously, with the outcome," said Honolulu attorney Eric Seitz, who represented the Maui woman, Jayzel Mattos.

But he said they were happy that the court "held that the conduct here was probably unconstitutional and people who are subjected to that kind of treatment have claims, prospectively."

He said the decision now puts law enforcement on notice that they can’t do what they did to his client.

"I think the litigation has been successful to some degree," he said.

Maui Deputy Corporation Counsel Moana Lutey said they were pleased with the ruling that ends Mattos’ lawsuit.

"I think it’s the right decision," she said.

She agreed the decision applies the test on the use of the Tasers, but said Maui police officers have always been trained that the use of the electronic guns must be "reasonable."

The test, outlined in a U.S. Supreme Court decision, deals with the severity of the crime at issue, whether a suspect was resisting arrest and whether the suspect posed a threat to the safety of the officers or others.

Mattos, who was 5 feet 3 inches tall and weighed 120 pounds at the time, was shot by a Taser dart by one of four Maui police officers who showed up at her Wailuku home to protect her following a domestic disturbance call in 2006.

Mattos was charged with harassment and obstructing government operations, charges that were later dropped.

In reviewing her allegations, the appeals court said her offense was "minimal at most" and that she did not pose a threat to the officers.

"Considering the totality of the circumstances, we fail to see any reasonableness in the user of a Taser in dart-mode against Jayzel," the appeals court said in assuming that her allegations were true.

But because the U.S. Supreme Court had not issued a ruling on Tasers and three other federal appeals courts did not find constitutional violations with electronic weapons, the Maui officers are immune from Mattos’ lawsuit, and the case should not go to trial, the appeals court ruled.

The appeals court made a similar ruling for Malaika Brooks, a pregnant woman who was stunned by a Taser three times in her thigh, shoulder and neck by Seattle police after she was stopped for speeding in a school zone in 2004.

The appeals court convened the "en banc" panel to review two three-judge 9th Circuit panels that had earlier ruled the women were not victims of excessive force.

Daniel Gluck, senior staff attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, said Monday’s ruling now makes clear that Tasers can be used only in certain circumstances, notably if there’s a threat to the safety of officers or others.

"We’re pleased that going forward, the court set clear guidelines to honor (constitutional rights)," he said.

He said the organization’s concern has been that Tasers can cause death and should be treated as a "very serious weapon."

Seitz and Gluck said the ruling is also important because it sets parameters on the use of the electronic guns by law enforcement for the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit Nov. 7 to 13.

The officers should not use Tasers unless there is "some immediate threat to the officers’ or someone’s safety," Gluck said.

"I’m sure the city will review the decision and advise officers accordingly," he said.

Michelle Yu, Honolulu police spokeswoman, said police officials reviewed the decision but do not plan to make any changes to their Taser policy at this time.

Appeals Judge Richard Paez wrote the opinion. He was joined by five judges. Four others agreed with only parts of the opinion. Pamela Rymer, the 11th judge on the panel, recently died.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th Circuit, agreed with the outcome of throwing out the claims but disagreed strongly that police violated the Constitution.

Brooks actively resisted arrest, and Mattos refused to get away when police tried to arrest her large, drunken husband, he said.

"My colleagues cast doubt on an effective alternative to more dangerous police techniques, and the resulting uncertainty will lead to more, worse injuries," he said.

"The mistake will be paid for in blood and lives of police and members of the public."

Tasers were first used by Honolulu police in 2002. They and neighbor island police now have hundreds of the electronic guns, which have been used dozens of times a year.

Mattos’ case is the first involving the use of Tasers in Hawaii to reach the 9th Circuit, which many believed would use the two women’s cases to set guidelines on the use of the weapons.