Constance Westfall v. Jose Luna
903 F.3d 534
5th Cir.2018Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. officers responded to a trespass/marijuana report at Constance Westfall’s home; officers Trevino, Anderson, and Luna conducted a "knock-and-talk."
- Officers questioned three teenage boys outside; they admitted there was marijuana inside. Anderson entered the home with Westfall’s husband and a teen and retrieved a metal tin with ~2.5 grams of marijuana.
- Westfall (legally blind without glasses) attempted to follow; officers claim she approached aggressively; Westfall alleges Luna body-slammed her to the brick porch, and Luna and Trevino pinned her for about five minutes before handcuffing and arresting her for interference.
- Westfall was transported to a hospital ~30–45 minutes after the takedown; she suffered abrasions, other acute symptoms, and later an L5–S1 herniation. Criminal charges were dropped.
- Westfall sued under § 1983 for false arrest (all officers), excessive force (Luna, Trevino), First Amendment retaliation (Luna), denial of medical care (all officers), and municipal failure to train (City). The district court granted summary judgment/ dismissal on all claims; Westfall appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest — officers had probable cause to arrest Westfall for interfering (Tex. Penal Code § 38.15) | Westfall argues officers lacked authority to search/enter her home (consent was invalid/revoked), so arrest lacked probable cause. | Officers claim they had consent and reasonably believed they had authority; Anderson reasonably relied on other officers’ decisions. | Reversed as to Anderson, Luna, Trevino — genuine fact issues exist about consent/authority and withdrawal of consent, so probable cause is disputed. |
| Excessive force — Luna body-slammed Westfall | Force was excessive given minor nature of offense, no immediate threat, and no flight or resistance; injuries were serious. | Defendants say force was reasonable to restrain a resisting/approaching subject. | Reversed as to Luna — factual disputes on threat, resistance, and proportionality; reasonable jury could find force objectively unreasonable. |
| Excessive force — Trevino assisted in pinning | Trevino contributed to serious injury by adding weight. | Trevino’s conduct caused only de minimis injuries; Luna’s body-slam caused the serious spinal injury. | Affirmed for Trevino — injuries attributable to Trevino were de minimis; qualified immunity applies. |
| First Amendment retaliation — arrest motivated by speech | Westfall contends she was arrested for speaking/questioning officers. | Defendants say arrest was motivated by her conduct (attempt to enter/pursue officers), not speech. | Affirmed for Luna — record does not show adverse actions were substantially motivated by protected speech. |
| Denial of medical treatment — officers deliberately indifferent to medical needs | Westfall asserts delay and refusal to provide immediate care caused harm. | Officers say they summoned EMS within ~30–45 minutes and did not act with deliberate indifference; no substantial harm from delay. | Affirmed for Anderson, Luna, Trevino, Melton, Roberson — delay not so culpable to show subjective deliberate indifference or substantial harm. |
| Failure to train (City) | City’s training allegedly inadequate; single-incident exception applies. | City argues no pattern or deliberate indifference; single-incident exception not satisfied. | Affirmed — Plaintiff failed to plead deliberate indifference or show pattern; single-incident exception not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir.) (probable-cause right against unlawful arrest)
- Brown v. Lyford, 243 F.3d 185 (5th Cir.) (false-arrest requires no probable cause)
- Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307 (5th Cir.) (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Trammell v. Fruge, 868 F.3d 332 (5th Cir.) (applying Graham factors)
- Gates v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d 404 (5th Cir.) (consent to search can be limited or withdrawn)
- United States v. Jones, 239 F.3d 716 (5th Cir.) (knock-and-talk scope and limits)
- United States v. Gomez-Moreno, 479 F.3d 350 (5th Cir.) (knock-and-talk cannot create a show of force that vitiates consent)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence can sharply undermine nonmoving party’s account, but standard is stringent)
- Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914 (5th Cir.) (bystander liability under § 1983)
- Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 880 F.3d 722 (5th Cir.) (qualified immunity resolved per defendant; video/audio may be insufficient to resolve factual disputes)