Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
On April 27, 2022, the Houston Police Department conducted an operation to find and arrest Jalen Randle to execute three felony warrants stemming from an incident that occurred the month before: aggravated assault of a family member, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and evading arrest in a motor vehicle. The team included Shane Privette. The events leading up to the moment of the fatal encounter are not disputed by the parties. The officers saw Randle get into the passenger side of a Chevy Equinox and proceeded to pursue the car, ultimately engaging immobilization techniques that caused the Chevy to stop. After Randle got out of the passenger side of the Chevy, he turned back and retrieved a closed bag from the car. The critical moments ensued in a matter of seconds after this.
Privette’s body-worn camera footage objectively illuminates the pace of the exchange and sequence of events that followed, although most of the critical images are obstructed by Privette’s arms, when holding his firearm extended. The footage is of the interior of the police car until Privette exits. As he exits, over the course of one second, Privette draws his firearm. In a matter of one to two seconds after that, Privette issues the command to Randle, who can be seen turning, and Privette fires a single shot, fatally striking Randle’s neck on the left side and causing him to fall to the curb instantly. The shot was fired before Privette finished uttering the word “hands.” Privette exclaims, “Oh shit,” and goes towards Randle with his gun drawn. The footage shows a gray bag on the ground near Randle, which the officers later confirmed to contain a firearm. The officers handcuffed Randle and then administered medical aid on site. Randle was rushed to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
In light of the obstruction of the footage, however, additional information was adduced from Privette’s account of the events in his deposition, though the characterization of the events is disputed by plaintiffs. Privette testified that he saw Randle attempt to flee but turn back toward the Chevy and retrieve something from the passenger side. He testified that he issued the verbal command, “Let me see your hands,” because he could see Randle coming out of the car but could not yet see what was in his hands. Additionally, Privette testified that Randle “turned towards” him and Officer Mansker, which is when Privette saw that Randle held a “dark-colored object” at his waist that Privette believed was a firearm.
Plaintiffs brought this claim on behalf of the Randle family on April 25, 2024. Privette moved for summary judgment on the basis that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. The district court granted Privette’s motion for summary judgment. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
Clearly established
The district court, defined the circumstances with great precision:
Whether, in April 2022, it was clearly established that a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by using deadly force against a suspect, when: that suspect is a convicted felon with a history of illegally possessing firearms; has three active felony warrants; the suspect was fleeing from the police, then turns back to reach into the vehicle he has just exited to retrieve an unidentified object from the front passenger side; the suspect then turns to face the officers, holding the object in front of him; one of the officers orders the suspect to show his hands; and that officer shoots the suspect without giving him adequate time to comply with the order.
Taking the district court’s comprehensive encapsulation, we modify it slightly to capture that the suspect had some active felony warrants out for his arrest, but we are not exacting on the number. Moreover, we modify one aspect to make inferences in favor of the nonmoving party: we consider that the suspect was turning, perhaps to flee, not necessarily with intent to face the officers.
Thus, in order to prevail on this prong, plaintiffs must provide supporting caselaw that is factually similar enough to the situation [Privette] faced to have placed the lawfulness of his actions beyond debate.
Plaintiffs principally rely on three cases.
First, plaintiffs anchor on Baker, where our court reversed a grant of summary judgment to the officer on qualified immunity grounds. Baker shares certain facts in common with this case, including an officer who operated off a belief that the decedent was armed. In Baker, the parties disputed whether the officer gave the decedent a warning. Moreover, our court recognized there were numerous factual disputes in Baker and resolved them in favor of the decedent, finding that the “only uncontroverted evidence” was that there was chaos in the surrounding scene and the decedent “at least began to face [the officer],” yet these facts alone did not constitute “compelling reasons to find that [the officer’s] use of force was not excessive as a matter of law.”
Unlike in Baker, it is undisputed that Privette attempted to warn Randle prior to firing his weapon. But, from the body-worn camera footage alone, it is also undisputed that Randle had no time to comply with Privette’s warning, rendering it effectively null. Yet, for the reasons discussed below, this similarity is divorced from the broader context of how the circumstances unfolded. Additionally, and relevant here, plaintiffs do dispute the characterization of Randle’s turn, which was the critical moment that seemingly precipitated Privette’s shot. Plaintiffs argue that Randle was turning to flee rather than turning to actively face the officers as part of any furtive or aggressive gesture, likening the facts of this case to Baker in support of their argument.
Despite similarities, there are critical facts distinguishing Baker from the present case. First, and most probative, the plaintiffs in Baker contended whether the decedent was unarmed during the encounter and provided “sworn testimony of three witnesses” who stated that he “took no threatening action toward” the officer. In contrast, the parties here do not dispute that Randle held an object by his waist, one that he had just retrieved from the car. Thus, aside from Privette’s body-worn camera footage, plaintiffs fall short of providing competent summary judgment evidence to refute the reasonableness of Privette’s perception that Randle was armed.
Further, in Baker, our court gave considerable attention to “the number of shots and the nature of the wounds,” which raised “a serious question as to the reasonableness of [the officer’s] conduct.” Namely, the wounds indicated that the decedent was shot from behind, when he was not facing the officer, therefore calling into question the reasonableness of the use of deadly force. However, based on where Randle was shot, he was not facing away from Privette; thus, the same issue is not the relevant stopping point. Moreover, there are discrepancies between the officers’ knowledge of the decedent at the time. In Baker, the officer had little information and no prior interaction with the decedent, whereas here, Privette operated with knowledge of Randle’s warrants, believing that Randle was likely armed. Accordingly, “because the circumstances of the instant case are materially different” than in Baker, “we cannot conclude that the established law, in that case, would have put [Privette] on notice that his conduct was
clearly unlawful.”
Plaintiffs also cite to Cole, a case that concerned a suicidal teenager who was confronted and fatally shot by officers in the woods. As our court has since explained, the officer violated clearly established law at the time by shooting the teenager, “who—though pointing a gun at his own head—made no threatening movements toward the officers, was facing away from the officers, was not warned by the officers even though there was opportunity to do so, and may have been unaware of the officers’ presence.”
The facts here are distinct. Following the car pursuit, Randle was aware of the surrounding police presence, and as stated above, Randle was not shot from behind. Notably, unlike the suicidal teenager in Cole with no prior convictions or warrants, who did not pose an immediate threat to others except himself, Randle was a convicted felon with outstanding (and firearm-related) warrants, which influenced Privette’s perception.
Similarly, plaintiffs’ citation to Poole is unavailing. There, the circumstances involved an encounter with an individual experiencing a mental-health crisis, and our court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for the officer. In Poole, the plaintiff disputed the critical fact of whether the individual was “visibly unarmed.” After confirming he was, in fact, unarmed on the officer’s body-worn camera footage, we concluded that a jury could find in favor of the plaintiff on this fact. For that reason alone, this case is distinguishable, because again, the dispute does not center on whether or not Randle held an object at all.
Moreover, as the district court aptly pointed out, “unlike Randle, Poole had no known criminal history or a history of possessing a weapon, and he was not wanted for offenses involving violence. Poole was apprehended solely because the police saw him driving erratically and pursued him.”We agree, finding Poole readily distinguishable.
For the foregoing reasons, because plaintiffs have not raised authority that clearly establishes that Privette’s use of lethal force violated the law under the circumstances he was facing, plaintiffs also fall short of their burden to prove that Privette is not entitled to qualified immunity.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20383-CV0.pdf