Creech Poole v. City of Shreveport, 13 F.4th 420

In March 2017, Cpl. Jon Briceno pursued Brian Poole after a low-speed driving incident; Poole stopped, exited his truck, and reached into the truck bed.
Dashcam footage shows Poole’s hands empty and visible, he turned away and began to reenter the truck when Briceno fired six times, striking Poole four times.
Poole later pleaded guilty to Aggravated Flight from an Officer; his estate sued Briceno and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and state tort claims.
The district court denied Briceno qualified immunity, identifying three factual disputes a jury must resolve: whether Briceno warned Poole, whether Poole was turned away, and whether Poole’s hands were visibly empty.
The district court also held Heck did not bar the § 1983 claim because the shooting occurred after Poole had stopped driving.
The Fifth Circuit, on interlocutory review, affirmed the denial of qualified immunity and the district court’s Heck ruling, concluding that if a jury finds the facts in Poole’s favor, clearly established law was violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of qualified immunity	If jury finds no warning, Poole turned away, and hands empty, shooting violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights	Officer says he feared threat, testified he could not see hands; video doesn't show his precise vantage	Affirmed: material fact disputes remain; if resolved for Poole, clearly established right was violated
Materiality of three factual disputes (warning; turned away; empty hands)	Each fact is material: warning required when feasible; turning away reduces threat; visible unarmed status negates deadly-force justification	Disputes immaterial because officer perceived threat and video doesn’t conclusively show what officer saw	Affirmed: all three disputes are material to excessive-force analysis
Use of dashcam video on interlocutory review (Scott exception)	Video supports plaintiff and can be considered to assess whether a factual dispute exists	Video angle insufficient to prove what officer actually saw	Court considered the video under Scott and agreed it is probative but did not resolve disputed facts—jury must decide
Applicability of Heck to § 1983 claim	Poole’s conviction for fleeing does not invalidate an excessive-force claim based on conduct after the flight ended	Heck bars § 1983 claim because it would impugn the conviction for aggravated flight	Affirmed: Heck does not bar the claim because the § 1983 claim is temporally and conceptually distinct from the flight conviction

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only if officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (videotape may be used to resolve factual disputes on appeal when it blatantly contradicts plaintiff’s account)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claim barred if judgment would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (qualified immunity shields officers unless conduct violates clearly established federal right)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (interlocutory appeal permitted when district court denies qualified immunity)
Cole v. Carson, 935 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2019) (warning must be given, when feasible, before deadly force)
Roque v. Harvel, 993 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2021) (suspect turning away reduces immediate threat assessment)
Waller v. Hanlon, 922 F.3d 590 (5th Cir. 2019) (use of deadly force against an unarmed, nondangerous suspect is unreasonable)
Manis v. Lawson, 585 F.3d 839 (5th Cir. 2009) (courts may accept officer testimony when no countervailing evidence exists)