Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
Juan De La Cruz resided at the Brixton Apartments and served as a courtesy law enforcement officer for the apartments. Pamela Turner also resided there and was known to have some mental health issues that caused her to be aggressive, but no one involved in this case knew of any specific conditions or her medical history.
While De La Cruz was leaving the apartment complex to respond to an unrelated dispatch call, he saw Turner screaming in the middle of the apartment parking lot. Seeing that she was causing a disturbance in the neighborhood, he searched her name in the police database and discovered that shemhad three active Class B misdemeanor warrants. De La Cruz did not execute the warrants at that time but instead left the complex to respond to the dispatch call.
The dispatch call took about ten minutes and upon his return, De La Cruz spotted Turner walking alongside the border of the property. He drove toward her, got out of his car, and tried to arrest her on the warrants, but she ignored him and walked away. To stop her, De La Cruz grabbed Turner’s arm, but she wrestled out of his grip and again tried to walk away. De La Cruz, in response, drew his X26P taser in probe-deployment mode and fired it at Turner (once the taser is used in probe-deployment mode, it can no longer be fired from a distance. Instead, the taser from then on can be used only in “drive-stun mode,” meaning that, to be used, the taser must be pressed against the person. The stray wires may still emit temporary electric shocks). Turner fell backward onto the sidewalk, having been tased, but did not appear to be fully incapacitated.
De La Cruz then walked over to her and bent down to handcuff her. Turner, however, fought back, leading to a ground struggle that wrapped De La Cruz in the active taser wires. With limited options, De La Cruz attempted to use his taser in “drive-stun mode,” hoping that the shock would incapacitate her enough to handcuff her. But in their struggle, Turner took hold of the taser and tased him in the testicles. In shock, De La Cruz jolted back, unholstered his gun, and fired at Turner. At that time, Turner faced De La Cruz with the taser in hand and was attempting to get up while De La Cruz was wrapped in the live taser wires. Turner died at the scene.
Plaintiffs sued De La Cruz under § 1983 for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. De La Cruz moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity (QI), which the district court granted. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
The district court granted summary judgment for De La Cruz, finding that De La Cruz’s use of deadly force was reasonable and that it did not violate clearly established law. We agree that De La Cruz did not violate any clearly established law and is thus entitled to QI. Because plaintiffs failed to identify any clearly established law that De La Cruz violated, we do not address whether his use of force was reasonable.
The clearly-established-law requirement ensures that officers have fair warning that their conduct violated the Constitution. For a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.
Plaintiffs posit that De La Cruz is not entitled to QI because it is clearly established that a police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. See SCOTUS Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S 1 (1985). Plaintiffs’ reliance on Garner—and only Garner—is misguided. At most, Garner prohibits using deadly force against an unarmed burglary suspect fleeing on foot who poses no immediate threat. That is a far cry from the particular circumstances of this case.
Here, unlike in Garner, the officer used deadly force only after he had been tased, and the taser wires were attached to him, and Turner, who had been actively resisting arrest, was attempting to rise from the ground with the officer’s taser in hand. In other words, Turner was not an unarmed suspect fleeing on foot and who posed no immediate threat to De La Cruz.
Accordingly, even if De La Cruz’s use of force is excessive, he is still entitled to QI.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-20015.0.pdf