Roque v. Harvel

What This Case Is About

Roque v. Harvel is a significant Fifth Circuit case addressing police use of deadly force against a suicidal person during a mental health crisis. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity, holding that a jury should decide whether the officer’s continued use of force — firing multiple shots after the initial shot — was objectively reasonable.

The Facts

On May 2, 2017, the Austin Police Department received two related 911 calls. Jason Roque called to report a shirtless Hispanic man “just going crazy” with a black pistol — “all up in the air and whatnot.” Jason was describing himself but didn’t disclose that to the operator. His mother, Albina, then called 911 while crying and pleading with Jason, telling the operator her son wanted to kill himself.

Dispatch first classified the calls as “Gun Urgent” but changed the classification to “Attempted Suicide.” Multiple officers, including Officer James Harvel, responded. Officers positioned themselves about 75 yards from Jason’s house. Jason was pacing the sidewalk in front of his home.

Jason was armed with a pistol and was in clear emotional distress. Officers attempted to communicate with him. The critical question concerned what happened during the shooting itself — specifically, whether Jason’s actions after the first shot justified continued firing. The plaintiff’s evidence suggested that after the initial shot, Jason was no longer posing an immediate threat, yet Harvel continued to fire.

Jason was killed. His parents, Albina and Vincente Roque, sued Harvel under § 1983 for violating Jason’s Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

The first shot may have been justified: The court acknowledged that officers responding to a suicidal person with a firearm face an extraordinarily difficult situation. The initial use of force may have been reasonable given that Jason was armed and in crisis.

Continued firing is the issue: The court held that a reasonable jury could find that the officer’s continued firing — after the initial shot — was objectively unreasonable. If the initial shot neutralized the threat (Jason fell, dropped the weapon, or was otherwise no longer dangerous), continuing to fire would constitute excessive force.

Clearly established law: The right to be free from deadly force when not posing an imminent threat was clearly established. While officers are given “allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments,” there comes a point where “the reasonableness rope ends.”

Mental health context: The court noted the particular challenges of encounters with suicidal individuals, where the person’s intent is self-harm rather than harm to officers. This context is relevant to the reasonableness analysis.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

• Each shot is evaluated separately: Officers may be justified in firing the first shot but not subsequent shots. If the threat was neutralized after the initial use of force, continued firing can be excessive.
• Suicide calls require different approaches: When dispatch classifies a call as “Attempted Suicide,” officers are on notice that the person is in mental health crisis. This classification is relevant to the reasonableness analysis.
• “The reasonableness rope ends”: This memorable phrase from the opinion captures the principle that even in the most difficult circumstances, there are limits to permissible force. Use this language in your briefing.
• Distance matters: Officers were 75 yards away. At that distance, the immediacy of the threat is different than at close range — allowing more time for assessment and less-lethal alternatives.
• Surviving qualified immunity at summary judgment is significant: If your case gets past summary judgment, it means the court has found genuine disputes about whether the officer’s conduct was reasonable — which significantly improves your settlement and trial prospects.

Key Takeaway

Even in the incredibly difficult context of a suicidal person armed with a firearm, officers are not entitled to unlimited use of deadly force. A jury may evaluate each shot independently, and if the threat was neutralized after the initial shot, continued firing may violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit’s holding that “the reasonableness rope ends” is a powerful tool for plaintiffs challenging ongoing use of force after the threat has passed.