Judge Ste wa rt co ncur s in the jud gmen t only. * 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20081

M AR I A ONT I VE RO S , I NDI VI DUA L L Y , A ND AS N EX T FR I EN D O F M O D EST O O N TI VE RO S, DE CEA SED; M ARTH A DU RAN ; M OD ESTO ONTI VEROS J R. ; a n d ERI KA Z AM ORA P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l an t s v. CI TYO F RO SEN BE RG , TEX AS; RO BE RT G RA CI A, CH I EF O F PO LI CE ; a nd DEW AYNE L OGAN, OFF I CER D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c t of Texas

B e fo r e J O N E S , C h i e f J u d g e , a n d , S T E W A R T a n d S O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it * Ju dg es. E D ITH H

. JO N E S , C h i ef Ju dg e: O n S u n d a y, O ctob er 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , po l i ce offi cer L og a n fa tall y sh ot M od esto O nt i ve r o s w hi l e e xe c ut i ng a w ar r antf o r hi s a rre s t
. The pl ai nt i f fs , s ur vivi ng fam i l y m e m be r s , b r o ugh tt he cur r e ntac t i o n unde r 42 U

. S. C. § 1 98 3, a s s e r t i ng United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20081

2 th a t L og a n u sed ex cess i ve f orce an d tha t his action s w ere ratif i ed by the C i ty
w h e n it r e in s ta te d a n d la te r p r o m o te d h im to lie u te n a n t. In a d e ta ile d a n d w e llreasoned opi n i on , t h e di st ri ctcou rt g ra n t ed su m m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of Lt. Logan and t he C i t y, f i ndi ng t hat Lt. Logan had not use d ex c es sive f or c e, t hat th e off i cer w a s altern a ti ve l y e n ti tl ed to qu a lifie d im m u n i ty, an d tha t t h e C i ty
w as not l i able. B ecau se t h e A pp el l an t s hav e fai l ed to rai se a genu i n e i ssue of
ma t e r i a lfa c ts u r r o u n d i n gt h e e v e n t s i n q u e s t i o n , w e a f f i r m. I . B A CK GRO UND I n l i ghto f

t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s t ho r o ugh o pi ni o n, o nl y a s ke t c h o f t he rel evan t evi den ce i s necessary here. O n t h e ni gh t of O ct ober 1 6, 200 4, O n t i veros i n st i gated a f

i gh t w i t h Jam es an d Joel A rel l an o, f ri en ds of G l a firo R o dri gu ez. Af t e r b e i ng s t r uc k b y t he Ar e l l ano s , O nt i ve r o s l e f t t he f i ght , w ar ni ng t hathe
w ou l d com e back w i t h a g u n to k i l lt h e A rel l an os. Th e nex t m orni n g, O n t i veros
w en t t o t h e hou se s h ared by R odri gu ez an d th e A rel l an os, ki cked i n t h e door,
a n d y e l l e d t h a th e w a s g o i n gt o k i l lt h e A r e l l a n o s . Wh e n R o d r i g u e z c a me o u ts id e , O n tiv e r o s h it h im in th e h e a d w ith a re v o lv e r , p u t th e g u n a g a in s t h is
r i bc ag e , a nd p i s t o l

- w hi ppe d hi m i n t he fac e . Ont i ve r o s l e f t a ga i n whi l e r e p e at i ng h i s t h reat t o com e back to ki l lt h e A rel l an os. O nt i ve r o s r e t ur ne d ho m e a nd t e s t

- f i r e d hi s r i f

l e . H e a nd h i s f

r i e nd Fr anc i s c o Lar a w e ntbac k t o R o dr i gue z ’ s hom e w he r e t he y f o und Rodr i que z , t he A rel l an os, an d o th e r m e n outsi de. O n t i veros had both gu n s and a bott l e of
w h i skey. H e again t h reat en ed t o kil l t h e A rel l an os. H e ha n ded t h e ri f l e t o L ara
w h o al so poi n t ed i t at t h e m en . A f t er t h ese t h reat s, O n t i veros an d La ra got back i n to the i r va n an d l eft. R odri gu ez an d the A rel l an os r eported t h ese t h reat s t o t h e pol i ce. A f t er a
m agis t rat e i ssued fel on y w arran t s f or O n t i veros an d La ra, C h i ef of P ol i ce R obert G raci a cl assi f

i ed the w arran t s as h i gh ri sk becau se O n t i veros and L ara h ad been i nvol ve d i n a vi ol ental t er c at i on e ar l i eri n t he day, m ay have be en dr i nki ng,N o. 08- 20081

3 p o s s e s s e d a n d t h r e a te n e d t o u s e a p is to l a n d a r ifle , a n d w e r e b e lie v e d ca p a b le of usi n g t h e w eap on s. G raci a au t h ori zed a S W A T t eam t o ser ve t h e w arran t s. Th e t eam , i ncl udi ng Lo g a n, was b r i e fed o n t he danger ous c i r c um st ance s and w as ad vi s e d t hatt he s us pe c t s m ayno t s pe ak Engl i s h. W h en t h e t eam arrived at O n t i veros’ s m obi l e h om e a bou t 9 p . m . , the d oor
w as aj ar . Ser ge antSey m o ura nd Det e c t i ve Sl at e r w e r e t he f i r s t t o a ppr o ac h t he ho us e a nd y e l l e d, “ Pol i c e , ” i n Engl i s h a nd Sp ani s h. As t he y o pe ne d t he f r o nt door, Sey m ou r could see L ara an d ordered h i m t o com e outsi de. I n st ead , L ara b e g a n t o mo v e d o wn t h e h a l l wa y . S e y m o u r i m m e di a t e l y o r d e r e d t h e S W AT t eam , dressed i n b l ack u n i f orm s w i t h “P O L IC E ” w ri t t en i n bol d w h i t e l et t ers on t he f r o nta nd b ac k, t o e nt e r . La r a w as de t ai ne d i n the hal l w ay . Se ym o ur o bs erved som eo ne c l o s e t he do o r t o t he m as t e r b e dr o o m . W i t h o nl y o ne l i ght t ur ne d o n i n t he m o bi l e ho m e , Se ym o urc o ul d s e e t he s i l ho ue t t e o f fe e t und e rt he bed room door. Lt. Logan w a s th e f our t h m em berof

t he SW A T t eam t o e nt er . H e s aw Lara had been det ai ned and w as t hen i nf or m ed bySeym ourt hat s om eo ne w as i n t he m as t e r b e dr o om . Se ym o urt o l d Lo ga n t o ki c k d o w n t he do o r t o t he be dr o o m . W he n i tdi d no to pe n, Se ym o uri ns t r uc t e d Lt

. Log an t o ki c k i t a ga i n. B ot h m en be l i eve d t hat O nt i ver os w as bl oc ki ng t he door

. Lt. L ogan be l i eve d t hat he ki c ked t he doo r atl eas tt hre e t i m es be f or e i t ope ned s l i ght l y. W hen t he dooropened, L t
. L ogan i l l um i nat ed O nt i ver os w i t h t he t ac t i c al l i ghto n hi s pi s t o la nd s aw hi m a fe w fe e ta w ayhol di ng an o bj e c t o ve r hi s he ad

. O n tiv e r o s m o v e d b e h in d th e d o o r . L t
. L o g a n y e lle d , “L e t m e s e e y o u r h a n d s ,”
s e ve r alt i m e s i n Engl i s h a nd c o nt i nue d t o v i e w O nt i ve r o s o nl y byg l anc i ng arou n d the door w i t h hi s t act i call i gh t
. L ogan t h en bel i eved he saw O n t i veros reachi n g i n t o a b o o ta tc he s tl e ve lf o r w hatLo ga n b e l i e ve d c o ul d b e a w e ap o n. A t t h at poi n t , L ogan f i red t w o shots. Th e di spatch recor d sh ow s t h at an of f i cer c a l l e d i n “ s h o t s f

i r e d ” a t 9 : 0 7 : 2 4 p . m . — a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8 s e c o n d s a f t e r t h e S W ATN o. 08- 20081

4 t e am e nt e r e d t he ho us e . A s ubs e que nts e ar c h o f the b e dr o o m r e ve al e d no
w eap on s. O nt i ve r o s w as t r ans po r t e d t o H e r m ann H o s pi t al w he r e he di e d f r om a g u n s h o t w o u n d

. T h e a u t o p s y r e p o r t s h o w e d t h a t o n e b u ll e t e n t e r e d O n t iv e r o s ’s l e f t a r m a nd c he s ta ta n a ngl e i ndi c at i ng t hathe w as le ani ng f o r w ar d a tt he
w a i st or k n ee l i n g w h en sh ot. A f t er pl aci n g L og a n on adm i n i st rat i ve l eave, t h e R osenb erg P ol i ce D e pa r t m e ntI nt e r nalAf fai r s U ni t , Te xa s Rang e r J e f f C ook, a n d a Fo r t Bend C ou n t y gran d j u ry i n vestig a te d the sh oot i n g. Th e gran d j u ry di d n oti n di ct L ogan , an d R an ger C ook f ou n d n o fau lton L ogan ’ s part
. A s a r esul t , C h i ef G r ac i a al l o w e d Lo ga n t o r e t ur n t o w o r k and l at e r pr o m o t e d hi m t o hi s c ur r e nt
r ank

. O n t i veros’ s s u rvi vors brough t t h e current act i on , seek i n g da m ages u n der 42 U

. S

. C

. § 198 3. Th ey al l eged t h at Lt. L ogan used excess i ve f orce w h en he sh ot O nt i ve r o s and t hatt he Ci t y o f Ros e nbe r g r at i f

i e d t hi s c o nduc t b y r e i ns t at i ng and prom ot i n g L ogan . Th ey h ave a p p e a led f rom t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s adverse
su m m a ry j u d gm en t. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e r e v i e w de no vo t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s g r anto f s um m ar y j udg m e nt , us i ng t he sa m e s t a n d a r d s a s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a n d c o n s i d e r i n gwh e t h e r t h e r e i s a ny g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l fa c t t h a t r e q u ir e s re s o l u t i o n b y a ju r y . Fre e m an v. G ore , 483 F

. 3d 404 , 410 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)

. W h en a defen da n t pl ead s qu a li fied i m m uni t y as an af

f i r m at i ve def

ens e a nd m ove s f

ors um m ar y j udgm enton t hat b a sis , a co u rt m u st d e cid e (1) w h e th e r th e fac ts a ll e g e d or s h o w n b y th e p la in tiff
m ade o ut a v i ol at i on o f a c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght, a n d (2) w het hert hat r i ght w as

“ cl earl y est abli shed ” at t he t i m e o f t he de f e n da n t ’ s al l eged m i scondu ct
. Q u al i f i ed im m u n ity is a p p lic a b le u n l e s s th e d e fe n d a n t’s co n d u c t v io la te d a cle a r ly
e s t ab l i s he d c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ght

. To neg at e a def e ns e of qual i f i e d i m m uni t y andN o. 08- 20081

5 av o i d s um m ar y j udg m e nt , t he pl ai nt i f f n e e d no t pr e s e nt“ ab s o l ut e pr o o f, ” b ut
m u st off

er m ore tha n “m ere all eg a ti on s. ” R ees e v. A n d ers on , 926 F. 2d 494, 499 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). F or s everalyears, t h e Su prem e C ou rtrequi red t h at t h e f i rstof t h ese c r i t er i a— w het herpl ai nt i f fs’fac t s al l ege a c ons ti tu t i onalvi ol at i on— m ustbe d e c id e d a t t h e o u ts e t. S a u cie r v . K a tz , 533 U

. S. 194, 201, 121 S. C t
. 2151, 2156 ( 2001)

. Rec e nt l y, ho w e ve r , t he Cour t r e ve r s e d c o ur s e , ho l di ng t hat “ c o u rt s of ap pea l s s h ou l d be p erm i t t ed to exerci se t h ei r s ou n d d i scr et i on in deci di n g w h i ch of t h e t w o prong s of

t h e qu al i f

i ed i m m u n i t y an al ysi s s h ou l d be ad dres se d f i rst i n l i gh t of

the ci rcu m stan ces in the p a rti cu l a r cas e a t ha n d

. ” Pear s on v. Cal l aha n , ___ U

. S.

___ , 12 9 S. Ct

. 80 8 ( 20 09 )

. The di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s deci si on, rend ered bef

ore Pearson , pri n ci pa l l y ad dressed t h e m eri t s q u e sti on w h et h er L t. L og a n ’ s u se of d ea d l y f orce w a s u n con sti tu ti on a l

. W e see n o rea s o n , p o s tPearson , t o al t er t h at approach here. T o prevai lon th e ir excess i ve f orce cl ai m , t h e pl ai n t i f fs m u stest abli sh

“ ( 1) an i nj ur y ( 2 ) whi c h r e s ul t e d d i r e c t l y a nd o nl y f r o m a us e o f f

o r c e t ha tw as c le a r ly e x c e s s iv e , a n d (3 ) th e e x c e s s iv e n e s s o f w h ic h w a s cle a r ly u n r e a s o n a b le .” Fr e e m an at416 ( quot i ng Ta r v e r v Ci ty o f Edna , 410 F

. 3d 745 , 751 ( 5th C i r. 20 05 ) )

. An o f

f i c e r ’ s us e o f

de ad l y f

o r c e i s pr e s um pt i ve l y r eason able w he n t he off i cer h a s rea son to be l i ev e th a t t h e su sp ect p ose s a t h r ea t of seriou s h a rm to th e of fi cer or to oth er s . Mace v. Ci ty of Pal e s t i ne , 333 F

. 3d 621 , 623 ( 5th C i r. 20 03 )

. The r e as o nab l e ne s s o f t he us e o f

de ad l y f

o r c e “ m us t b e j udg e d f r o m t he perspective of

a reasonab l e of

f i cer on t h e scene, rat h er t h an w i t h t h e 20/ 20 vis i on of hin d sigh t. ” G rah am v. Con n or , 490 U

. S

. 3 86, 3 96– 97 ( 198 9)

. Itis a qu est i on o f o bj e c t i ve r e as o nab l e ne s s “ i n l i ghto f t he fac t s a nd c i r c um s t anc e s c o nf r o nt i ngN o. 08- 20081

E ve n if th e pl ai nt iffs establi shed that th e officer used excessive fo rce (and thu s 1 performe d anu nrea sonablesei zure under theFourth Amen dment), the court would perform an entirelyseparatein quiry applying a differe nt reaso nab le ne s s stan dard. I n order to evalu ateth e “cle arlye st ab li sh edl aw” pron go f th e qu alifi edi mmunityt es t, th e co urtmus t a sk wheth er, at th e ti me of the incident, th e l aw cl early estab lish ed th at s uc h c onduct would violateth e ri ght. This in quiry fo cu se s n ot on th e gen er al st a n dard—wh en may a n of fice r u se deadly force again st a s uspect?—buton the specific circ umstances of the inci dent—c oul d an office r h ave re ason ably interprete d th e l aw toconclu de th at the perceive d threatposedbyth e suspect was sufficient to justifydeadlyforc e? Brosseau v. Haugen , 54 3 U .S. 19 4, 1 99–200 , 12 5 S. C t. 5 9 6(2 0 0 4). Excessive fo rce incidents ar e highlyfact-specific and without ca ses squ arely on point, of fice rsr ec eive th e prot ectionof qu alifi edi mmunity . Id

. at 2 0 1 ; see a lso An derso nv . Creighton , 48 3 U .S. 63 5, 6 38, 107S. Ct. 3034 ( 19 87 ) (“[Q]ualifi ed i mmunity protects all b ut th e pl ainlyinco mp et ent orth os e wh o kn owingly viol ateth e law.”(inte rn al qu ot ationo mitt ed))

. 6 [th e o ffic e r ], w ith o u t r e g a r d to [th e o ffic e r ’ s ] u n d e r ly in gin te n t o r m o tiv a tio n .” Id

. 1 A l t h ou gh ot h er m em bers of t h e SW A T t eam p art i al l y corr oborated L t. L og a n ’ s ve rsion of ev en ts, L t. L og a n i s th e on l y w i tn ess to t h ose ev en ts i m m ed i a tel y su rrou n d i n g the sh oo ti n g. In l i gh t of this, A p p ell a n ts ask u s to
c o ns i de r “ c i r c um s t ant i ale vi de nc e t hat , i f b e l i e ve d, w ou l d t en d t o di s c r e di tt he pol i ce of

f i cer ’ s sto ry, an d consi der w h et h er t h i s evi den ce c ou l d conv i n ce a ra ti on a lfac tf

i n d er th a t th e off

i cer a cted u n rea son a b l y.” O ’ B e r te x r e l

. O ’

B e r tv. V arg o , 33 1 F. 3d 29 , 38

- 40 ( 2d Ci r . 20 03 )

. Eve n s o , w e ag r e e w i t h t he di st ri ct court t h at t h e f

orce u sed by L t
. L ogan , w h en vi ew ed f rom t h e of

f i cer’ s perspect i ve, i n l i gh tof

t h e evi den ce bef

ore t h e court , w as not c l earl y u n reasona bl e. T h e A p p ell a n ts rest th e m aj ority of th eir a rg u m en t on th e sh o r t t im e f r am e c o ve r i ng t he e ve nt s i n que s t i o n, t he l o c at i o n o f O nt i ve r o s ’ s b o o t s , a nd t he posi t i on of

O n t i veros’ s body w h en he w as shot. N on e of these fact s i s di spu t ed byt he Appe l l e e s , y e tno ne c o nt r ad i c t s Lt

. Lo ga n’ s t e s t i m o ny. I ns t e ad , A ppel l ant s ar e a t t em pt i ng t o us e t hes e undi sput ed fac t s t o i m pl y a s pec ul at i ve scen a ri o th a t ha s n o factu a lsu p p ort.N o. 08- 20081

7 A p p e lla n ts m o s t fo r c e fu lly a s s e r t t h a t n o fa c tfin d e r co u ld re a s o n a b ly be l i e ve t hata l lo f

Lo ga n’ s s e l f

- de s c r i be d c o nduc t ha ppe ne d i n e i ghts e c o nds b efore O n ti ve ros w a s sh ot. A l th ou gh R a n ge r C oo k testi fi ed on th e ba sis of h is i n vest i gati on t h at i tw ou l d h ave been “ cl ose, ” he als o sai d that i t w as “ very possi bl e t h at i tcoul d h ave h ap pen ed i n ei gh t sec on ds. ” Log an ’ s r ecoun ting of di scr et e act i on s he t ook i n l ead i n g u p to t h e shooti n g, i n cl u di n g t h e nu m ber of t i m e s he pe e ke d a r o und t he do o r t o s e e O nt i ve r o s a nd t he num be r o f t i m e s he
c al l e d f o r O nt i ve r o s t o s ho w hi s ha nds , i s c o r r o bo r at e d b y t he o t he r o f f i c e r s w ho
w e r e p r e s e n t. N o ta b ly , A p p e lla n ts p r o v id e n o e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e ir skep t i ci sm , an d “att h e sum m ary j u dg m en t st age, w e requi re evi den ce— n ot
a b solu te p roo f, bu t no t m ere all eg a ti on s eit h er.” R ees e v. A n d er son , 926 F. 2d 4 9 4 , 4 9 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). Appe l l ant s al s o poi ntt o w hatt he y be l i e ve i s e vi de nc e o f a c o ve r - up— t he l o c at i o n o f

O nt i ver os’ s boot s a f t e r t he s ho o t i ng. Lt

. Lo ga n s t at e d t hathe searched the room af t er the shooti n g an d f ou n d a si n gl e boot, w h i ch O n t i veros had bee n hol di ng. A di f fer entof

f i c erw ho ent er ed t he roo m l at erbel i eve d t hat h e saw a pairof

boots

. Som eon e els e fo u n d a s econd , bl oody boot i n a cl oset
a c r o s s th e r o o m fr o m w h e r e O n tiv e r o s w a s s h o t. A p p e lla n ts co n s tr u e th is
e vi de nc e t o s ugg e s tt hatO nt i ve r o s w as a c t ual l y t r yi ng t o puto n hi s b o o t s a tt he t i m e he w as sh ot a n d t h at L t
. L ogan m oved t h e sec on d boot t o m ak e hi s vers i on of t h e stor y m ore reason able. A gain, A pp el l an t s of fer n o evi den ce t h at t h e boot
w a s m oved as part of a cover- u p rather t h an an ef f ortt o faci l i t ate em ergency
m edi calt reat m en tat t h e sc en e. I n a n y e v e n t , t h e p r e s e n c e o f a s e c o n d b o o t d o e s n o t m a k e L t . L o g a n ’s
ac t i o ns l e s s r e as o nab l e o r t r us t w o r t hy. App el l ant s do no t a r gue t hata s e c o nd bo o t co nt r ad i c t s t hatO nt i ve r o s : w e nti nt o t he be dr o o m a f t e r Lar a w as de t ai ne d; ap pea red t o be bl ocki n g t h e d oor; m oved ou t of L t
. L ogan ’ s si gh t w h en t h e door
w a s k i ck ed op en ; an d ap p ea red to be rea ch i n g in to a b oo t. T h ese are the fa ctsN o. 08- 20081

R anger C ook starklyexplained the exigencyconfronting Logan: 2

16 If Li eute nant Logan perceive d Mr. Ontiveros’s 17 actions as Mr. Ontiveros puttinghis h and insi de th e b oot 18 do you think it would have b eenn ecessary for 19 Li eute nant Logan to wait until Mr. Ontive ros e xhibited a 20 weaponbefore takin g defen siveaction ? 21 A. Ab solutelynot. 22 Q. An d whynot? 23 A. Bec auseh e will thenbebehin d th e curveon 24 reacting . Actionis alway s - - action alway s be ats 25 reaction

. Pa ge88 1 Q. If Mr. Ontive ros h ad ah andgun in this boo t, 2 would ther e b e anythreatto Li eute nant Logan by 3 Mr. Ontive ros j ust l eaving his h and in the boo t? 4 A. Abso lute ly. 5 Q. An d whyso? 6 A. Becaus e you can shoo t thr ough a boot. If 7 Mr. Ontive ros h ad aweapo n, agun in the boo t, h e co uld 8 simplyfir e through the boo t at Office r Logan. 9 Q. An d do yo u think that it’s likelyth at 1 0 Lie ute n a nt Loga nwo uldh ave h a d enou ghtim e tot ake 11 appropriatesteps to protect himself if he waited until 12 Mr. Ontive ros re move d a han dgun from th e b oot if h e h ad 13 had oneinth ere? 14 A. No. On ce again, actio n beats react ion. If 15 so me one pul ls a gun - - I don’t k nowif you wantme to go 16 intoth at or not b ut

— 1 7 Q. E xpl ainth at fo r u s. 18 A. Action is goin g to b eat reactioneveryti me. 8 t h a t L o g a n fa c e d w h e n he m a d e t h e s p l i t

- s e c o n d de c i s i o n t o u s e d e a d l y f o r c e . At
m o s t, th e p r e s e n c e o f a s e c o n d b o o t m a y s u p p o r t a th e o r y th a t O n tiv e r o s m e r e ly
w as t r yi ng t o put hi s b o o t s o n a s t he po l i c e de s c e nde d o n t he m o bi l e ho m e , b ut h i n d s i g ht a n d s p e c u l a t i o n c r e a t e n o g e n u i n e , ma t e r i a lfa c t i s s u e a s t o h o w a reasona bl e of

f i cer coul d h ave i n t erpret ed O n t i veros’ s act i on s. 2N o. 08- 20081

1 9 Fore x a mp le , if

Ih ave - - if

Ih ave agu nan d myb rain- - 20 I have ma de th e de cisio n to shoot, thenth at messageis 21 go ing

to travel down to mymuscl es and I’ m goin g to 22 shoot . For you to r eactto that - - Ih ave alrea dy 23 started a process. You have torec ogniz e it, th en yo ur 24 brain has to t ellyour muscles to r eact , an d th en yo u’re 25 reacting

to my actions. So action is goin g to b eat Pa ge89 1 reactionsimplybe cau se of the cognitiveel ement 2 involved. 3 Q. Haveyou observe d a trainin g ex ercisewher e 4 onetrainingofficer stands acro ss a room from an 5 office r, forex ample, and the trainin g office r h as his 6 han d down next tohis b odywitha gu n in it and thenth e 7 othe r officer is supposed to r eact ? Haveyou seen that 8 kind of tr aining

exercise ? 9 A. I actu ally participated in that trainingab out 10 thre e wee ks ago. 11 Q. Can yo u explain that in detail, how th at 1 2 tr ainin gse ctio nwo rk s? 13 A. Well, we had simunitio n gu ns. I don’ t kno w if 14 I nee d to explain, b ut it’s gu ns th at look and feel real 1 5 b ut th eydon’tshoo t re al b ull et s. An d lite rally , I 16 stood ther e and pointed agun at the instructor and the 17 instructor had the gu n actu ally pointed to th e groun d an d 18 ju st tol d me to shoot wheneve r h e acted. And I coul d not 1 9 sh oo t himb ef

or e h e sh otme . At b es t, Ic ouldtiehim

. 20 He could b rin g the gu n up, pull the trigge r b eforeI 21 coul d pull the trigge r. I never b eat him, and at best I 2 2 co uldtiehim

. 2 3 Q. I s atiegoo d enou ghinthiswo rk ? 2 4 A

. No , atie , youdie , youknow . 9 Fi nal l y, A ppel l a n ts co nt end t hat t he aut ops y r epo r t dem ons t r at es t hat
w h e n O n tiv e r o s w a s s h o t, h e w a s e ith e r b e n t o v e r , w ith h is h a n d s ra is e d in ap pa rent su rrender as h e a t t em pted t o get on the groun d i n f ront of t h e of f i cer, or he w as al ready on h i s kn ees. N e ith e r L o g a n nor t h e C i t y of R osenb erg di s put e s t hatt he bul l e tt r aj e c t o r y s ho w s O nt i ve r o s w as l e ani ng f o r w ar d a tt he t i m e he w as s ho t
. As t he di s t ri ct cou rt n o t e d, “ e ve n i f O nt i ve r o s w as l e ani ngN o. 08- 20081

10 f o r w ar d .

. . a r e as o nab l e o f f i c e r c o ul d ha ve i nt e r pr e t e d t he t o t al i t y o f hi s a c t i o ns as a r e f us alt o c o m pl y w i t h or de r s . ” The a ut o ps y r e po r t do e s no t c o nt r ad i c tt he
c or r obo r at ed ev i denc e o f O nt i ver os ’ s ac t i ons orLt

. Logan’ s st at em entt hat O n ti ve ros a p p ea red to b e reach i n g i n to th e boo t ou t of th e of fi cer’ s l i n e of si gh t. The i s s ue s r ai s e d b y t he Appe l l an t s d o notc r e at e t he ki nd o f g e nui ne di s put e t hatc an o ve r c o m e s um m ar y j udg m e nt i n e xc e s s i ve f o r c e c as e s i nvo l vi ng po l i c e s ho o t i ngs . The c as e s t o w hi c h Appe l l ant s po i nta r e e as i l y di s t i ngu i s he d. I n B a za n v . H id a lg o Co u n ty , 246 F

. 3d 481 ( 5th C i r. 200 1) , f or i n st an ce, w i t n ess testi m on y d i ff

ere d from th e of

fi cer’ s, a n d th e use of f orce w a s ex p l a i n ed by ev en ts f o r w hi c h c o r r o bo r at i ng e vi de nc e s ho ul d ha ve b e e n a va i l ab l e . I n P in ed a v. C ity
o f Hou st on , 1 2 4 F

. S u p p . 2 d 1 0 3 7 , 1 0 5 5 ( S

. D. T e x . 1 9 9 9 ) , t h e a u t o p s y a nd bl oodstai n an al ysi s c on t radi ct ed t h e off i cer’ s versi on of even t s. A pp el l an t s here,
u n l i ke i n t h ose c ases, of fer onl y t h ei r ow n conj ect u re ari si n g from un di spu t ed fac t s t hat do notm at er i al l y c ont r adi c t Lt

. Logan’ s t es t i m ony. T o t h e contr ary, t h i s c ou rtha s up h el d the u se of d e a d ly forc e w h ere a susp ectm oved out of t h e of f i cer’ s l i n e of

si g h t a n d c ou l d h ave reason ably been in te r p r e te d a s r e a c h in gfo r a w e a p o n . S ee R ees e v. A n d ers on , 92 6 F

. 2 d 49 4 ( 5 th C i r. 199 1) ( ref

u si n g t o f

i n d exces si ve f

orce w h ere t h e susp ect repeatedl y ref u sed to k e e p h a n d s ra is e d a n d a p p e a r e d to b e re a c h in gfo r a n o b je c t); Y o u ngv. C ity of Ki l l een , 775 F

. 2d 134 9 ( 5th C i r. 1 985 ) (up h ol di n g t h e u se of d ead l y f

orce w h en t he s us pe c tr e f

us e d i ns t r uc t i o ns t o exi t the v e hi c l e a nd r e ac he d d o w n t o t he flo o r b o a r d ). G iv e n th is , w e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t “ a n o ffic e r co u ld h ave reason ably bel i eved t h at O n t i veros posed a t h reat of ser i ou s ph ysi calha rm t o hi m sel f

or ot h er of

f i cers ” an d that Lt. L ogan ’ s act i on s w ere r eason able u n der t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s a s h e d e s c r i b e d t h e m. B ec ause w e hol d t hat Lt. Logan di d not vi ol at e O nt i ver os ’ s c ons t i t ut i onal ri gh t s, w e need not det erm i n e w h e th e r L t
. L ogan w ou l d h ave h ad qu al i f i edN o. 08- 20081

11 i m m uni t y o r w het hert he C i t y o f R ose n b erg w oul d have bee n l i abl e had L t. L og a n ’ s u se o f force v i olated the F ou rth A m en d m en t. I I I . C ONC L US I ON F o r th e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is t r i c t c o u r t is A F F I RMED.