Attorneys obtained summary judgment in a case in which the plaintiff claimed that he was falsely arrested and in doing so was subjected to excessive force. Plaintiff, a 72 year old man, went to a county courthouse to conduct "research." He had in his possession a tape recorder. Sheriff's deputies reported to the sheriff that plaintiff was going around recording courthouse employees. The sheriff contacted our client, a municipal police officer and advised him of the situation and asked him to respond to the courthouse to investigate. The officer responded as requested and located the plaintiff. He observed the plaintiff with a tape recorder and that he was tape recording their conversation. The officer advised plaintiff that he might be violating the Wiretap Act and after some further discussion plaintiff attempted to leave. The officer attempted to detain him and a struggle ensued in which the officer's hand struck a brick wall which caused his arm to go numb. The officer drew his Taser with his weak hand and warned plaintiff to submit to arrest. Plaintiff replied "go ahead and Tase me." The officer complied and plaintiff was taken into custody.The judge granted summary judgment to the entire complaint, finding that because plaintiff was found guilty of disorderly conduct his false arrest claim failed. The court further found that the officer was entitled to the protection of qualified immunity on the false arrest claim as well. Finally, the court found no basis for the claim that the Borough failed to properly train the officer.