Chacon v. Copeland

What This Case Is About

Chacon v. Copeland is an excessive force case in which two Austin police officers sought qualified immunity after allegedly using excessive force during an arrest. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity, finding that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment.

The Facts

Carlos Chacon searched online for a massage service late one night and called to make an appointment. He drove to the location and discovered it was a motel, not a business. When he arrived at the specified room, the woman inside made it clear she was offering sexual services. Chacon told her the behavior was wrong and illegal and said he would call the police.

A man then began kicking the motel room door and threatening him. Chacon left the room and sought help from the motel manager and security guard. When they were reluctant to assist, Chacon called 911 himself. The threatening man reappeared, reached into his shorts as if grabbing a weapon, and Chacon fled to his car and drove away, calling 911 again.

Officers Eric Copeland and Russell Rose responded. Chacon testified that when officers arrived, he was cooperative and did not resist. Despite this, he alleged the officers used significant physical force against him during the arrest — force that Chacon claimed was completely unprovoked and unjustified given his compliance.

Chacon filed suit under § 1983 alleging excessive force. The officers moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the district court denied the motion.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on interlocutory appeal.

The court applied the Graham v. Connor framework, examining the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether he was actively resisting. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Chacon — as required at summary judgment — the court found that Chacon was not resisting, was not threatening officers, and was not suspected of a violent crime.

Under these circumstances, the officers’ use of significant force was clearly unreasonable under established law. The right to be free from excessive force when compliant and non-threatening was clearly established, and no reasonable officer could have believed the alleged conduct was lawful.

The court emphasized that on interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, it could review only the materiality of factual disputes, not their genuineness. Since the factual disputes were material to the qualified immunity analysis, the appeal was properly denied.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Chacon v. Copeland reinforces several key principles:

• Compliance defeats force. When a suspect is compliant and non-threatening, officers have no justification for using significant force. This principle is deeply embedded in the Graham analysis.

• Qualified immunity fails in clear cases. While qualified immunity protects officers who make reasonable mistakes, it does not protect officers who use gratuitous force against non-resisting individuals. That right is clearly established.

• Interlocutory appeals have limits. Officers appealing a denial of qualified immunity cannot challenge the district court’s finding that a genuine factual dispute exists — they can only argue that the dispute is immaterial to the legal question.

• The plaintiff’s version controls at summary judgment. When there is a he-said-they-said dispute about what happened, the court must accept the plaintiff’s version for purposes of the immunity analysis.

Key Takeaway

If officers used significant force against you while you were compliant and not resisting, Chacon v. Copeland supports your claim. The right to be free from excessive force during a non-threatening encounter is clearly established, and qualified immunity will not shield officers who violate it.