Harmon v. City of Arlington

What This Case Is About

Officer Bau Tran of the Arlington Police Department fatally shot O’Shae Terry after climbing onto the running board of Terry’s SUV as Terry attempted to drive away during a traffic stop for expired registration. Terry’s estate and a passenger sued under § 1983. The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that Tran reasonably perceived a serious threat of physical harm while clinging to the side of the fleeing vehicle and that no clearly established law prohibited his use of deadly force under those specific circumstances.

The Facts

An Arlington police officer pulled over O’Shae Terry and passenger Terrence Harmon for driving an SUV with expired registration. The officer smelled marijuana and said she needed to search the vehicle. While the first officer verified Terry’s information, Officer Tran arrived and waited with the occupants. Tran asked them to lower the windows and shut off the engine. Terry initially complied.

After some small talk, Terry began raising the windows and reaching for the ignition. Tran immediately shouted “hey, hey, hey, hey,” clambered onto the SUV’s running board, and grabbed the passenger window with his left hand. Terry fired the ignition and shifted into drive. About one second after the car lurched forward, Tran drew his weapon, reached through the passenger window past Harmon’s face, and fired five rounds, striking Terry four times.

Terry lost control, the SUV jumped a curb, and Tran was knocked off onto the street, where the rear tires nearly hit his limbs. Harmon gained control of the vehicle and stopped it. Terry did not survive.

Dashcam and bodycam footage captured the entire encounter.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal on multiple grounds. On the constitutional violation question, the court found Tran’s use of deadly force was not excessive. Applying the Graham v. Connor factors, the court focused on the threat of harm: Tran was clinging to the side of an accelerating SUV, a position that posed an obvious danger of falling into traffic or being run over. The court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that Tran could have simply stepped off the running board, citing the principle that the Fourth Amendment does not permit Monday-morning quarterbacking.

On clearly established law, the court found no case holding that an officer clinging to a fleeing vehicle could not use deadly force. The plaintiffs cited Lytle v. Bexar County and Tennessee v. Garner, but the court found both distinguishable. Lytle involved shooting at a vehicle from a distance; Garner involved shooting an unarmed fleeing burglar on foot. Neither addressed an officer hanging onto a moving vehicle.

The court also rejected passenger Harmon’s excessive force claim and the Monell claims against the city, holding that without a predicate constitutional violation, municipal liability cannot exist.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Harmon demonstrates how the Fifth Circuit applies the qualified immunity framework in vehicle-related deadly force cases. Several key lessons emerge:

1. Officers on fleeing vehicles face a recognized threat. Courts consistently find that an officer clinging to a moving vehicle reasonably perceives a threat of serious physical harm.
2. The “clearly established” prong is demanding. Even if you can argue the force was excessive, you must find a case with substantially similar facts where the court denied immunity. General principles from Garner or Graham are usually not specific enough.
3. Video evidence dominates. When video is available, courts rely on it rather than the plaintiff’s characterization of events. If the video “blatantly contradicts” the complaint, the court adopts the video’s version.
4. No underlying violation means no Monell claim. If the officer’s conduct was reasonable, the city cannot be liable regardless of its policies.

Key Takeaway

When an officer clings to a fleeing vehicle, courts in the Fifth Circuit will almost always find the use of deadly force objectively reasonable — the officer faces an obvious threat of serious harm from falling or being run over. To challenge such a shooting, you would need to show either that the officer was never actually on the vehicle or that the threat had clearly dissipated before the officer fired. The qualified immunity doctrine’s demand for highly specific precedent makes these cases exceptionally difficult for plaintiffs.