Alexander v. City of Round Rock

What This Case Is About

Lionel Alexander was staying at a hotel in Round Rock, Texas, when he was pulled over by Officer Marciano Garza for what Garza perceived as “suspicious activity”—Alexander had briefly gotten out of his car to look for a stray cat. When Alexander provided his driver’s license but declined to answer questions, officers forcibly removed him from his vehicle, pinned him face-down on the ground, and placed a knee or boot on his neck. He was ultimately arrested, with Garza initially telling him it was for uttering an expletive in violation of the Texas disorderly conduct statute, though Garza’s formal police report stated the arrest was for resisting a search under Texas Penal Code § 38.03(a). Alexander sued the officers and the City under § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The Facts

Alexander returned to his hotel from a grocery store around 9:15 p.m. and noticed a stray cat in the parking lot. He stopped his car, got out, and looked around in the grass for the cat, intending to feed it. When he couldn’t find it, he got back in his car to move it closer to his hotel room. A police car was in the lot, but Alexander assumed it was unrelated to him.

Officer Garza activated his emergency lights and pulled Alexander over. Garza approached and told Alexander he was “curious” about what Alexander had been doing. Alexander handed over his driver’s license but informed Garza he would not answer questions. Garza radioed for backup, citing “noncompliance.”

While waiting for backup, Garza told Alexander to keep his hands on the steering wheel and continued questioning him. When Sergeant Brunson, Sergeant Connell, Officer Staggs, and other officers arrived, Garza asked Alexander to exit the car. Alexander asked why, and Garza responded, “Because I asked you to.” Before Alexander could finish explaining that he didn’t believe he was legally required to exit, the officers pulled him from the car and pinned him face-down. One officer pressed a boot or knee on the back of Alexander’s neck as his face was “mashed into the concrete.” At least three officers piled on top of him.

The officers handcuffed Alexander and sat him on a curb. Garza asked, “Are you ready to talk to me now?” Alexander refused, using an expletive. The officers then shackled his legs. Alexander sustained injuries to his mouth and body, along with emotional and psychological injuries. He had not physically resisted at any point.

Garza informed Alexander he was under arrest for uttering an expletive in public, which Garza claimed was a violation of the Texas disorderly conduct statute. However, in his formal police report, Garza wrote that Alexander was arrested for resisting a search in violation of Texas Penal Code § 38.03(a). The officers searched Alexander’s person and vehicle, finding nothing illegal or suspicious. He was taken to the Round Rock police station and then to Williamson County Jail, where he remained for approximately twenty hours. No criminal charges were brought.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court reversed the dismissal of Alexander’s unlawful detention claim, finding that the facts alleged did not support reasonable suspicion for the stop. The court also reversed the dismissal of Alexander’s false arrest claim, holding that on the facts alleged there was no probable cause to arrest for resisting a search under Texas law, since the statute requires the use of force and Alexander was entirely passive.

The court further reversed the dismissal of Alexander’s excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment, finding that the officers’ use of force was objectively unreasonable at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Applying the Graham v. Connor factors, the court considered the severity of the crime at issue (at most, a minor misdemeanor), whether Alexander posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers (he did not—he was seated in his car and never physically resisted), and whether he was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee (he was not).

However, the court affirmed dismissal of Alexander’s First Amendment retaliation claims. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because it was not clearly established that an individual has a First Amendment right to refuse to answer an officer’s questions during a Terry stop. The court also rejected the Fifth Amendment retaliation claim because the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is a trial right that was not implicated here since Alexander was never tried.

Alexander waived his appeal as to any claims against the City of Round Rock by failing to brief those arguments on appeal.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

This case is significant for several reasons:

Force must match the threat. Where a suspect is not physically resisting and poses no immediate danger, the use of significant force—pinning someone face-down, pressing a knee on their neck, piling multiple officers on top of them—can constitute excessive force even at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch. An officer who observes a person briefly looking around a parking lot and then getting into a car does not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop—the person is simply going about their business.

Passive non-cooperation is not “resisting.” Under Texas law, resisting arrest or search under Penal Code § 38.03(a) requires the use of force against a peace officer. Simply refusing to answer questions or questioning an officer’s authority does not satisfy this requirement.

Retaliation claims face hurdles. The court held that it was not clearly established that an individual has a First Amendment right to refuse to answer an officer’s questions during a Terry stop, making retaliation claims on that basis difficult to sustain.

Key Takeaway

When officers use significant physical force against a person who is not resisting, not fleeing, and not suspected of any serious crime, the Fourth Amendment is likely violated. This case also demonstrates that arrests must be supported by probable cause—passive non-cooperation does not constitute “resisting” under Texas law. However, First Amendment retaliation claims based on refusing to answer police questions face significant qualified immunity hurdles because the right to silence during a Terry stop has not been clearly established as a First Amendment right.