Tammy Cass v. City of Abilene
814 F.3d 721
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Marcus Cass, co-manager of Abilene Gold Exchange, spoke publicly against a proposed Abilene ordinance requiring precious-metal dealers to hold purchases; Chief Standridge led support for the ordinance. Five days later, APD executed a warrant at the business to inspect records for reporting violations.
- Detective Chris Smith obtained the warrant after reviewing Leads Online entries showing delayed or missing reports; the warrant authorized search of physical and electronic records.
- APD decided to execute the warrant as a rapid, armed entry (raid) for officer safety; officers wore body armor, one uniformed officer led the entry, and Smith entered wearing unmarked black body armor and sunglasses with his badge on his hip.
- Video shows Smith’s gun extended as he approached a back office; Cass emerged from that office, drew his holstered handgun, perceived Smith as an unmarked armed intruder, and was shot by Smith within seconds. Cass died of his wounds.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Smith and Chief Standridge claiming First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment excessive/unreasonable-force claims; the district court granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity; plaintiffs appealed only the individual-capacity dismissals against Smith and Standridge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Standridge can be liable for retaliation or excessive force | Standridge supported the ordinance and was implicated in a climate of hostility that led to the raid | Standridge was absent (in San Antonio) and had no role in procuring or executing the warrant | Affirmed: Standridge entitled to qualified immunity; no evidence of personal involvement |
| Whether Smith’s procurement of the warrant was impermissible retaliation for Cass’s protected speech | Smith sought the warrant as retaliation for Cass’s City Council opposition | Smith had probable cause based on delayed/missing Leads Online reports | Affirmed: probable cause existed; qualified immunity for obtaining warrant |
| Whether Smith’s tactical shooting of Cass was excessive use of deadly force | The raid and lack of announcement created a dangerous situation; shooting was unnecessary | Smith reasonably perceived an immediate threat when Cass drew a gun and thus acted objectively reasonably | Affirmed: shooting reasonable under Fourth Amendment; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether the manner of executing the warrant (surprise tactical raid) violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights | Execution was unreasonable and created foreseeable deadly risk; constituted a separate Fourth Amendment violation | Even if execution was unreasonable, plaintiffs must show the unlawfulness was clearly established at the time | Affirmed in part: a juror could find the execution unreasonable, but plaintiffs failed to show the violation was clearly established, so qualified immunity bars relief against Smith |
Key Cases Cited
- Tiblier v. Dlabal, 743 F.3d 1004 (5th Cir.) (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Haverda v. Hays County, 723 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (nonmovant must be credited at summary judgment; view facts in nonmovant’s favor)
- LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2007) (nonmovant must produce specific facts to avoid summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when video evidence exists, courts view facts in light depicted by the videotape)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (clearly established law must be defined with specificity; avoid high-level generalities)
- Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2002) (probable cause or reasonable belief in probable cause defeats a retaliation claim)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force governed by Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (force judged from perspective of reasonable officer on scene)
- Harris v. Serpas, 745 F.3d 767 (5th Cir.) (excessive-force inquiry confined to threat perceived at moment of shooting)
- Ramirez v. Knoulton, 542 F.3d 124 (5th Cir.) (officers entitled to immunity when shot a suspect who posed an immediate threat)