Case ID: f-appx_630/html/0357-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tate Ryan GRESHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Vincent FISCHER; Howard E. Williams, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-50642
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 20, 2016.
    Michael Mowla, Cedar Hill, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Joanna Lippman Salinas, Esq., Fletcher, Farley, Shipman & Salinas, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment only.
    
   PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by the judge. With the clear posture of what Officer Fischer saw on this occasion, his behavior was objectively reasonable. This is the qualified immunity officers are given by the law. With the benefit of possible view today of this affair, and with more thought by the law enforcement officials, a different conduct in some respect could be called for. Nonetheless, today we must say that Officer Fischer’s conduct was objectively reasonable. It means that injured parties cannot argue and litigate about what happened or how they saw the same event.

When officers come upon a disturbance as did this officer after 1 a.m. at Aspen Heights Apartments, it is their duty to get the attention of the people then and determine what must be done to obtain peace and legal obedience. It is the right and duty for the officer to take control, to direct the movement or speech of those present as required to reach that peace and legal conduct.

Counsel and the Plaintiff here need to understand this. Judge Yeakel pointed out this law, as he did to explain why no claim can be made against the City of San Marcos or Chief of Police without evidence of any policy that was the moving force behind any constitutional violation.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.