Maui County has disclosed it paid $40,000 last year to settle a federal lawsuit filed by a Maui woman who was shot by a Taser gun by one of four police officers in 2006 at her Wailuku home.
The attorneys agreed to keep the settlement confidential, but Maui County released the figure after the Star-Advertiser sought the amount under the state open-records law.
The case, which was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, in effect sets nationwide standards for the use of Tasers, the plaintiff’s attorney says.
Maui police went to the residence of Jazel Mattos late Aug. 23, 2006, after a domestic disturbance call, but maintained she was trying to prevent her husband’s arrest when the officer shot the 120-pound woman with the electric gun.
Mattos, who is 5 feet 3 inches tall, said she crumpled to the floor in pain similar to childbirth. The mother of seven said she couldn’t move or open her eyes but heard herself scream.
She was charged with harassment and obstruction of government operations, but the charges were later dropped.
Her lawsuit was one of two cases decided in 2011 by a 10-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled that Mattos’ claims of excessive use of force amounted to an allegation of federal constitutional violations.
The court found Maui officers were immune from the claims because the law on the use of Tasers wasn’t clear at the time.
By holding that Mattos’ claims alleged constitutional violations, the decision essentially placed restrictions on the use of the weapon by law enforcement officers, said Mattos’ lawyer, Eric Seitz.
Maui County sought a review of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court declined to hear the case.
Mattos’ lawsuit was sent back to Hawaii on her other related claims. Her lawyers and Maui County reached the settlement and dismissed the suit in early December.
Moana Lutey, Maui deputy corporation counsel, would not comment on the case because of the confidentiality agreement.
The state Office of Information Practices, which administers the state open-records law, issued published opinions in 1989 and 2010 supporting the disclosure of settlement agreements involving taxpayer dollars once the case is concluded, even if the parties agree to keep the amount confidential.
Maui County Council agendas showed that the Mattos settlement came up for approval earlier in October, but did not list the amount.
When the Star-Advertiser sought the amount from Council Chairman Danny Mateo, he replied by email that the matter was handled in private executive session.
He said he consulted with the Maui corporation counsel, who suggested that the newspaper make a formal request to his office.
After the newspaper sought the settlement terms from Corporation Counsel Patrick Wong under the state open-records law, his office released this month a copy of a $40,000 check dated Nov. 26 to Seitz.
Seitz had refused to disclose the amount earlier because of the confidentiality agreement, but talked about the case last week because he contends the confidentiality provision is moot since the figure has been disclosed.
He said Maui lawyers insisted on the confidentiality.
Seitz said he agreed to the settlement because it would have been difficult and extremely costly to pursue the litigation, on which he took a huge financial loss.
He said his clients were disappointed that the settlement didn’t cover his firm’s costs and amount of time spent on the case.
Seitz said Mattos received $20,000 of the settlement and offered to take less, but Seitz said he refused.
He estimated the costs were more than $30,000 and that the amount of his firm’s attorney fees was more than $200,000.
But he said the case had been worth pursuing because even though the suit’s claims against the officers were dismissed, the appeals court ruling clarified the law.
Law enforcement officers won’t be able to claim immunity in the future because they now have a court decision that sets standards on the use of the Tasers, Seitz said.
Those standards include considerations such as whether the person is resisting arrest, the seriousness of the offense and other levels of force that police might use to subdue the person.
Seitz also pointed out the high court’s refusal to review the decision.
"It is basically the existing law for the entire country," he said.
