Ordonez v. Gonzalez

What This Case Is About

Ordonez v. Gonzalez addresses when deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment, specifically when officers shoot a suspect who is moving away and no longer poses an immediate threat. The Fifth Circuit denied qualified immunity, holding that the right not to be shot while fleeing without posing an imminent danger was clearly established.

The Facts

Officers in the Rio Grande Valley responded to reports of a disturbance. When they encountered the suspect, a confrontation ensued. The critical dispute centered on the moments immediately before the shooting — the plaintiff’s evidence indicated the suspect was moving away from the officers and was not presenting an imminent threat of serious harm at the time they opened fire.

The officers argued they reasonably perceived a threat, but the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff told a different story: by the time deadly force was deployed, the immediate danger had passed.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit denied qualified immunity, applying the Graham factors from Graham v. Connor: the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest.

The court held that even granting the officers the benefit of the doubt regarding the initial confrontation, the evidence created a genuine dispute about whether the suspect posed an immediate threat at the moment of the shooting. The right to be free from deadly force when not posing an imminent threat was clearly established — officers cannot use lethal force against a person who is retreating and no longer dangerous.

The court emphasized that the reasonableness inquiry focuses on the specific moment force was applied, not on the suspect’s earlier behavior. A suspect’s prior actions do not give officers a blank check to use deadly force indefinitely.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

• Timing matters in excessive force cases: Courts evaluate the threat at the precise moment force was used, not based on the suspect’s earlier behavior. If the threat had subsided by the time the officer fired, the force may be unconstitutional.
• Retreating suspects deserve protection: When a suspect is moving away and no longer poses an immediate danger, deadly force is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
• Clearly established law exists on this point: The right not to be shot while posing no imminent threat is well-established in the Fifth Circuit, making it harder for officers to claim qualified immunity.
• Factual disputes preclude summary judgment: When the parties disagree about what the suspect was doing at the moment of the shooting, those disputes must go to a jury.

Key Takeaway

Officers cannot use deadly force against a suspect who is moving away and no longer poses an immediate threat of serious harm. The Fourth Amendment evaluates the reasonableness of force at the precise moment it is applied, and the right to be free from lethal force when not posing an imminent danger is clearly established law that defeats qualified immunity.