Take the Fifth

Designated for publication

• U.S. v. Johnson, 24-11115, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • Clement, J. (Elrod, Clement, Haynes) (oral argument), Haynes, J., dissenting; criminal, search and seizure
  • Reversing denial of motion to suppress, and vacating conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • Tony Lee Johnson, a convicted felon on supervised release, was arrested at his home in the Northern District of Texas pursuant to a warrant after failing drug tests and other violations. Officers blocked his vehicle as he backed out of his driveway, with his girlfriend, Beatrice Simmons, in the passenger seat. After arresting Johnson, Officer Pringle conducted a brief, warrantless search of the vehicle’s passenger compartment, finding a loaded handgun in the center console. The district court denied Johnson’s motion to suppress the firearm, concluding that the search was justified under Michigan v. Long as a protective sweep because Simmons posed a potential threat to officer safety. Johnson pleaded guilty conditionally, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
  • Judge Clement, writing for the panel majority, framed the Fourth Amendment question around Long’s protective-search doctrine, which permits a warrantless “protective sweep” of a vehicle’s interior if officers reasonably believe a person present is dangerous and could access a weapon. She explained that because Johnson was already under arrest, he posed no risk of regaining control of the vehicle; the sole justification for the search rested on whether Simmons, who was not under arrest, could have accessed a weapon and threatened officers. Under established precedent, reasonable suspicion requires more than a mere hunch and must be grounded in specific, articulable facts. While Johnson’s gang affiliation, criminal history, and suspicious conduct supported the belief that a weapon might be in the car, there were no contemporaneous facts indicating that Simmons herself was dangerous or likely to retrieve a weapon. The majority stressed that neither her unspecified felony history nor her relationship with Johnson sufficed, absent some indication she acted threateningly or would imminently access the vehicle.
  • Applying the totality of the circumstances, the majority held the government failed to show that Officer Pringle had reasonable suspicion that Simmons was “potentially dangerous” such that a Long protective sweep was justified. Because that constitutional predicate was absent, the warrantless vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment. The panel therefore reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, vacated Johnson’s conviction, and remanded with instructions to suppress the firearm evidence.
  • Judge Haynes dissented, contending that the protective sweep of Johnson’s vehicle was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. She rejected the majority’s requirement that reasonable suspicion must be supported by some additional “contemporaneous” fact beyond the defendant’s circumstances and emphasized that the proper inquiry is the totality of the circumstances and whether a reasonably prudent officer would believe his safety was threatened. Judge Haynes stressed that Simmons’s status as a felon, her close romantic relationship with a suspected gang member being arrested, and Officer Pringle’s seventeen years of experience provided more than the minimal objective justification needed for reasonable suspicion that she posed a danger. Judge Haynes viewed these facts not only as relevant but sufficient to justify the protective search, cautioning that the majority’s approach could unduly constrain officers’ ability to make quick safety judgments in the field.

• Lewis v. Delgado, 24-20484, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Jones, J. (King, Jones, Wilson) (oral argument), qualified immunity
  • Reversing district court’s denial of qualified immunity summary judgment for officer defendants.
  • The Fifth Circuit reviewed a qualified-immunity appeal by Rosenberg, Texas, police officers who had handcuffed Michael Lewis during a high-risk traffic stop after a report of armed suspects. Lewis, who has a dialysis-related forearm stent, alleged that the brief (about six-minute) handcuffing damaged his stent and constituted excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. At summary judgment, the district court denied qualified immunity on the excessive force claim, finding genuine factual disputes about the officers’ knowledge of Lewis’s condition.
  • The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right. The panel explained that even if the officers knew of Lewis’s medical device, there was no precedent showing that briefly handcuffing a compliant individual pursuant to standard procedure during a high-risk stop violated clearly established law. Because the existing case law did not put a reasonable officer on notice that their conduct was unlawful, the court concluded that qualified immunity should have been granted and reversed the denial.

• Perdomo v. League City, 25-40106, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Jones, J. (Jones, Engelhardt, Summerhaye, by designation) (oral argument), qualified immunity, municipal liability
  • Affirming qualified immunity dismissal of excessive force claims.
  • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Yoni Perdomo’s civil-rights and state-law claims against League City police officers and the city itself. Perdomo had sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging that officers used excessive force, falsely arrested him, and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs after he was injured when an officer tackled him. Body-camera footage showed that Perdomo returned to a worksite after losing his job, became frustrated during a police encounter, and twice forcefully slammed his shoulders into an officer. The encounter lasted only about five seconds before Officer Rector tackled Perdomo to the ground, causing him to hit his head on the concrete.
  • The court held that Perdomo’s own allegations were “blatantly contradicted” by the video, which portrayed him as aggressive rather than compliant, and that the officers’ use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The officers had probable cause to arrest Perdomo for felony assault and did not act with deliberate indifference when they immediately summoned medical help. Because Perdomo failed to show a constitutional violation, the city and police department could not be liable under Monell, and his state-law claims were barred by official and governmental immunity.

Unpublished decisions

• U.S. v. Sowe, 25-10821, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.

• One Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 24-30758, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Haynes, Ho, Oldham) (oral argument), insurance, arbitration
  • Affirming denial of insurers’ motion to compel arbitration as “La. R.S. 22:868 expressly prohibits arbitration agreements for insurance contracts covering property located in the state.”

• U.S. v. Mendez-Escobar, 25-50076, c/w 25-50079, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.

• U.S. v. Jeffery, 25-50316, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.

• U.S. v. Estrada-Monzon, 25-50456, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.