Tomas Garza v. Fidencio Briones, 943 F.3d 740

In the early morning hours of Aug. 14, 2014, six Laredo police officers confronted Jose Garza at a truck stop; Garza was holding a pistol-like object that appeared to be a handgun.
Officers ordered Garza to drop the weapon; he did not comply and moved the gun around; dashcam video shows Garza raise and point the gun toward Officer Santiago Martinez.
Martinez fired, other officers then fired; the shooting lasted ~8 seconds, 61 shots were fired, 18 struck Garza, and he died.
A security guard (Gonzalez) later told Lt. Rodman that the gun was a BB gun, but Rodman did not verify or relay that information to the other officers before the shooting.
Garza’s administrator sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment to officers on qualified immunity grounds, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers used excessive (deadly) force	Garza’s actions didn’t pose a serious threat; shooting was unreasonable	Officers reasonably believed Garza posed imminent deadly threat when he raised/pointed a gun	Use of deadly force was objectively reasonable; qualified immunity applies
Whether genuine factual disputes (affidavits, stills) precluded QI	Affidavits and still photos create disputes about whether Garza pointed the gun	Dashcam video contradicts plaintiff’s version; video controls over contradicted statements	Video definitively supports officers’ account; no genuine material dispute
Whether unverified tip that gun was a BB gun required different response	Rodman should have relayed Gonzalez’s BB-gun report to prevent shooting	Tip was unverified and short timeframe made reliance unreasonable and dangerous	Reasonable for officers not to act on an uncorroborated tip under the circumstances
Whether number of shots, lack of muzzle flash, or Garza’s headphones made force unreasonable	Sixty-one shots and no clear evidence Garza fired show excess; headphones could explain noncompliance	In a rapidly evolving deadly-threat situation officers may fire until threat ends; no evidence officers knew of headphones or that Garza hadn’t fired	Number of shots not per se excessive; officers reasonably responded to perceived threat; qualified immunity affirmed

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (officers need not stop shooting until the severe threat has ended)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (qualified immunity two-part test)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (QI protects reasonable but mistaken judgments)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (consider only facts knowable to officers at the time)
Ryburn v. Huff, 565 U.S. 469 (2012) (courts must not second-guess on-scene threat assessments)
Bazan ex rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo Cty., 246 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2001) (reasonableness measured at time of incident)
Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2017) (video that blatantly contradicts testimony need not be credited)
Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2006) (officer may reasonably fear serious harm when suspect points firearm or discharges toward officers)
Manis v. Lawson, 585 F.3d 839 (5th Cir. 2009) (elements of excessive-force claim under Fourth Amendment)