Salazar v. Molina, 37 F.4th 278

In the early morning of March 1, 2014, Juan Carlos Salazar led police on a ~5-minute high-speed chase through a residential area, reaching >70 mph on a narrow street.
Salazar stopped, exited his vehicle, dropped to his knees, then lay prone with hands up and legs crossed; he was lying prone five seconds after stopping.
Deputy Juan Molina stopped his patrol car behind Salazar; eight seconds after Salazar stopped, Molina deployed a taser into Salazar’s back.
Video shows Salazar’s body tensed and shook for several seconds; parties dispute whether Molina delivered one 5-second cycle or two cycles totaling ~10 seconds.
Molina removed the probes, handcuffed Salazar, and Salazar was standing and escorted to a patrol car within a minute.
Salazar sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; the district court denied qualified immunity on summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment for Molina.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Molina’s taser deployment was excessive force under the Fourth Amendment	Salazar: he had surrendered (prone, hands up), posed no immediate threat, and any intermediate force was unreasonable	Molina: Salazar had just committed a dangerous felony, had recently fled, was unrestrained and close to officers, so a reasonable officer could doubt the surrender and fear threat/flight	Court: Use of the taser under these facts was reasonable; Graham factors (serious crime, perceived threat, attempt to evade) support Molina
Whether Molina is entitled to qualified immunity (was the law clearly established in March 2014)	Salazar: Fifth Circuit precedent and general excessive-force principles placed Molina on notice that tasing a nonresisting/surrendering suspect was unlawful	Molina: No Supreme Court or controlling-circuit precedent squarely governed these specific facts; plaintiff cited unpublished or distinguishable cases	Court: Plaintiff failed to identify controlling precedent that ‘squarely governs’ these facts; Molina entitled to qualified immunity

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (courts view facts in light of dispositive videotape at summary judgment)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force analysis requires Graham factors and objective-reasonableness standard)
Escobar v. Montee, 895 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2018) (qualified immunity where apparent surrender followed dangerous flight and circumstances justified force)
Lytle v. Bexar County, 560 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2009) (force may become unreasonable when justification has ceased; focus on officer’s reasonable perception)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (clearly established law requires precedent that squarely governs specific facts)
Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 142 S. Ct. 4 (2021) (right is clearly established only when precedent places the constitutional question beyond debate)
City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 142 S. Ct. 9 (2021) (courts must not define clearly established law at a high level of generality)
Morrow v. Meachum, 917 F.3d 870 (5th Cir. 2019) (in high-speed-chase contexts, law must be clear enough that every reasonable officer would know the rule instantly)