Argueta v. Jaradi, 86 F.4th 1084

Background

June 25, 2018: Galveston Officer Derrick Jaradi shot and killed Luis Argueta after Argueta exited his car and ran toward a vacant lot; Jaradi fired two shots about five seconds after Argueta left the vehicle.
Dashcam and bodycam footage are low-light and partially obscured; video shows Argueta running with his right arm pressed to his side and does not clearly show the firearm during flight; the gun is visible in Argueta’s right hand after he falls.
Plaintiffs (Argueta’s family and estate) sued Jaradi for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment; the district court denied Jaradi’s summary-judgment motion on qualified-immunity grounds, identifying four genuine factual disputes.
On interlocutory appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo, treating video evidence as allowing review of the genuineness of some disputed facts.
The Fifth Circuit majority held that Argueta’s furtive gesture (keeping his right arm pressed to his side while armed) made deadly force objectively reasonable and that plaintiffs failed to show a clearly established violation; the court reversed and rendered judgment for Jaradi.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Could Jaradi see that Argueta held a weapon when he shot?	Argueta: footage does not clearly show a gun before the shooting; a jury could find Jaradi did not see the weapon.	Jaradi: Argueta kept his right arm unnaturally pressed to his side while armed, a furtive gesture justifying force even if the gun was not visible.	Held: Material but immaterial — even assuming Jaradi did not see the gun, the furtive gesture justified deadly force.
Did Argueta’s flight pose a threat to officers/public?	Argueta: fleeing toward an empty lot while turning away reduced any threat; minor traffic violations do not justify deadly force.	Jaradi: concealing his right arm while armed created an immediate threat; threat assessment is a legal question for the court.	Held: Threat assessment is a legal question; on these facts the court concluded the gesture supported a reasonable belief of danger.
Did Argueta make a threatening motion (e.g., raise the gun)?	Argueta: no visible threatening motion on video; a jury could find he never reached for or showed the gun.	Jaradi: no sudden raise was necessary; clutching the arm while fleeing is tantamount to a furtive reach.	Held: Whether he raised the gun is immaterial — furtive concealment sufficed to justify force.
Did officers warn Argueta before firing?	Argueta: no warning was given; warnings are required when feasible per Tennessee v. Garner and Fifth Circuit precedent.	Jaradi: even without a warning, precedent does not clearly establish that deadly force following a furtive gesture is unlawful.	Held: Lack of warning is immaterial here because there is no clearly established law that a furtive-gesture-based shooting without warning violates the Fourth Amendment.

Key Cases Cited

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can resolve genuineness of factual disputes)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (warning required before deadly force when feasible)
Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston, 826 F.3d 272 (furtive reach toward waistband can make deadly force reasonable)
Poole v. City of Shreveport, 13 F.4th 420 (video showing a suspect’s empty hands can preclude qualified immunity)
Batyukova v. Doege, 994 F.3d 717 (upholding force where suspect reached toward waistband despite no warning)
Manis v. Lawson, 585 F.3d 839 (movement out of officer’s sight suggesting reaching for a weapon can justify force)
Cole v. Carson, 935 F.3d 444 (warning is a key element when feasible in deadly-force analysis)