Padilla v. Mason

What This Case Is About

Padilla v. Mason examines the use of force during a traffic stop when a suspect resists a pat-down search. The Texas Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for two DPS troopers on both federal qualified immunity and state official immunity grounds, even though the plaintiff — a Border Patrol agent — suffered a spiral fracture of her arm.

The Facts

On November 17, 2000, Ivonne Padilla, a United States Border Patrol agent, and her fiancé Rafael Ramirez, also a Border Patrol agent, went to a nightclub in El Paso. Both consumed alcohol. Around 2 a.m., DPS Trooper Peter Mason pulled their car over for speeding. Ramirez, who was driving, admitted he had been drinking.

Mason asked if someone else could drive. When he learned Padilla had also been drinking, Mason decided to test whether she was capable of driving — but didn’t explain his purpose. He asked Padilla to exit the vehicle and perform a field sobriety test. Padilla became upset and argumentative because she wasn’t the driver and didn’t understand why she was being tested. Mason used an “angry, condescending tone” that made her fearful.

Due to Padilla’s demeanor, Mason asked whether she had her service weapon. When she hesitated, Mason feared for his safety and decided to conduct a pat-down. As Mason reached for her elbow to turn her around, Padilla pulled away and brought her arm up toward his head, saying “You will not arrest me.” Mason quickly secured her in an arm bar. During the struggle, Mason heard a “pop” — Padilla had suffered a spiral oblique fracture of her humerus bone requiring surgery and a metal plate.

What the Court Decided

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for both troopers on all claims.

Qualified immunity: The court engaged in a two-part test: whether Padilla alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and whether the officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable. Padilla physically resisted the pat-down by pulling away and raising her arm toward the officer’s head, stating “You will not arrest me.” At that point, a reasonable law enforcement officer would have believed he had probable cause to arrest Padilla for resisting arrest and was authorized to use force to secure the arrest.

Official immunity under Texas law: The court found Mason acted in good faith under the Telthorster standard. A reasonably prudent officer, under the same or similar circumstances, could have believed that conducting a pat-down search was necessary and that the use of force to gain physical control of Padilla was justified after she resisted.

Padilla’s status as a law enforcement officer did not change the analysis. The court focused on the objective circumstances: an intoxicated person with access to a service weapon who physically resisted a pat-down.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

• Resistance changes the calculus: Once you physically resist, even briefly, officers are permitted to use proportional force to gain compliance. If you pull away or raise your arm, officers will cite this to justify the force they used.
• Injuries alone don’t prove excessive force: A serious injury (broken bone) does not automatically mean the force was excessive. Courts evaluate the officer’s actions against the level of resistance and the perceived threat.
• Context of the pat-down matters: If an officer has a reasonable basis to fear you may be armed — as Mason did when Padilla hesitated about her weapon — the pat-down is lawful and resistance to it justifies force.
• Document your compliance: If you want to preserve an excessive force claim, comply with officer commands and document that compliance. Physical resistance, even instinctive or minor, gives officers legal cover for their response.

Key Takeaway

When you physically resist a lawful pat-down — even instinctively — officers may use proportional force to gain compliance, and resulting injuries will be attributed to your resistance rather than excessive force. The Graham factors weigh heavily against excessive force claims when the suspect was actively resisting a search justified by officer safety concerns.