Eunice Winzer v. Kaufman County, 940 F.3d 900

On April 27, 2013, multiple 9‑1‑1 callers reported an armed man firing shots, pointing a gun at houses, and threatening residents in Kaufman County, Texas.
Deputies Gerardo Hinojosa and Matthew Hinds arrived, observed the suspect fire a round (saw smoke, heard a whizz), but did not return fire because of nearby civilians; suspect moved out of view.
Officers later located the man again, took a defensive position with weapons drawn, and ordered him to drop the gun; he ducked into a tree line and disappeared from sight.
Minutes later, Gabriel Winzer emerged on a bicycle from ~100 yards away; officers shouted commands and, six seconds later, one officer fired; other officers then fired; Winzer was struck multiple times and later pronounced dead.
Post‑shooting evidence included gunshot residue on Winzer and multiple firearms and ammunition found in his residence; the estate sued, raising Fourth Amendment excessive‑force/qualified‑immunity issues and municipal liability for Kaufman County.
The Fifth Circuit treated a petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing and denied rehearing en banc; six judges voted for rehearing, ten against; several judges dissented from the denial, emphasizing qualified immunity and split‑second decisionmaking concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the use of deadly force	Winzer argues force was unreasonable and officers are not protected by qualified immunity	Deputies argue their split‑second use of force was reasonable given reports of an active shooter and immediate perceived threat	Rehearing en banc denied; the panel decision remains in place (denial leaves the lower panel ruling intact)
Whether the record supports that Winzer was the shooter (relevance to reasonableness)	Winzer’s estate challenges the lawfulness of the shooting despite dispute over identity of shooter	County and deputies point to gunshot residue and multiple weapons found in Winzer’s home to justify belief he was the shooter	Rehearing en banc denied; dissenters stressed forensic evidence supports officers’ beliefs but the panel questioned identity of shooter

Cole v. Carson, 935 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (discusses that qualified‑immunity review considers only what officers knew at the time and protects split‑second decisions)
Winzer v. Kaufman County, 916 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2019) (panel opinion at issue and source of dissents emphasizing dangers of second‑guessing officers in split seconds)