Short v. West
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22141
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Short, an El Paso Police Department officer cross-deputized as a 34th Judicial District narcotics task force member, operated in Hudspeth County during a December 4, 2008 operation.
- HCSD deputies surrounded Short and other task force officers, blocked their path, and threatened arrest unless they complied, prompting Short’s detention during an investigatory stop.
- Sheriff West, Hudspeth County Sheriff, ordered deputies to locate and round up the task force officers and escort them to the Fort Hancock substation for inspection.
- Lopez, an EPPD supervisor, presented EPPD identification; Wilson, HCSD lieutenant, failed to scrutinize it and nonetheless commanded the task force to accompany him, contrary to the officers’ preferences.
- Short and Tevis were detained, escorted to the Fort Hancock substation, questioned, and later informed they were free to leave; West later stated the operation was ‘fucked up now.’
- Short filed a §1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment violations; the district court granted Hudspeth County summary judgment but denied West’s summary judgment on qualified immunity, finding disputed facts about knowledge and authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Short was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes | Short argues he was seized when surrounded and detained by HCSD deputies. | West contends no seizure occurred because Short retained control of his vehicle and weapon, and no physical contact was made. | Seizure found; surrounding and coercive conduct supported detention. |
| Whether West's actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law | West knew or should have known Short was a genuine EPPD officer and acted unreasonably in detaining task force members in Hudspeth County. | West did not reasonably relate the detention to the circumstances and could rely on post hoc considerations; factual disputes precluded immunity. | No clear error; actions not reasonably related to the initial investigation; qualified immunity not established. |
| Whether the district court erred by engaging in post hoc analysis or considering West's subjective motivations | Court improperly reviewed subjective intent to determine reasonableness. | Subjective intent may inform objective reasonableness when it bears on knowledge of authenticity and lawfulness. | Post hoc review permissible where it informs objective reasonableness; district court properly considered relevant evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (multifactor inquiry for whether seizure occurred)
- United States v. Chavez, 281 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2002) (no single factor determinative in Fourth Amendment analysis)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) (reasonableness of investigative stops; two-part analysis)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes framework for investigatory detentions)
- Sanchez v. Swyden, 139 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 1998) (subjective intent irrelevant to objective reasonableness)
- Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2007) (objective reasonableness assessment informed by information available to defendant)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-step qualified immunity framework; court may address prongs in order)