Salas v. Carpenter

What This Case Is About

The family of Juanita Hermosillo, a Tarrant County courthouse clerk who was taken hostage and killed by her ex-husband, sued Sheriff Don Carpenter under § 1983 for the failed rescue operation. The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of summary judgment, holding that no constitutional claim had been stated and that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity.

The Facts

Juanita Hermosillo worked as a clerk in a Tarrant County Justice Court. In 1982, she began dating Manuel Cabano, who had worked for the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department. They married in 1988, but their relationship deteriorated and by 1989 they lived separately. On July 24, 1989, Hermosillo reported to the District Attorney’s office that Cabano was sexually molesting her two daughters from a previous marriage. She hid from Cabano for the rest of the week, staying with a friend and not going to work. On July 31, Justice of the Peace Ashmore told Hermosillo to return to work the next day. Cabano had not yet been arrested on the sexual assault complaint.

On August 1, 1989, Cabano entered Judge Ashmore’s offices at the courthouse with two guns. He took Hermosillo and Judge Ashmore hostage but soon released the judge. The Fort Worth Police Department dispatched its SWAT team and hostage negotiators. Both the Fort Worth Police and the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department responded. Sheriff Don Carpenter commanded the sheriff’s department’s efforts. The rescue operation failed, and Hermosillo was killed by Cabano.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment. The court found that no claim for deprivation of constitutional rights had been stated. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not generally impose an affirmative duty on the government to protect individuals from harm inflicted by private actors. While there are narrow exceptions—such as when the state has a special relationship with the victim (like a prisoner) or has created the danger—the court found that neither exception applied here.

The court emphasized that a public official enjoys qualified immunity from suit, not just from liability. Even assuming some constitutional duty existed, the sheriff’s decisions during the hostage crisis were the type of discretionary judgments that qualified immunity is designed to protect.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

No general duty to protect. The government generally has no constitutional obligation to protect you from harm caused by private individuals. This is a fundamental limitation on § 1983 claims. The Due Process Clause is a limitation on state power, not a guarantee of protective services.

Failed rescue operations are generally not actionable. If police attempt to rescue you but fail, the failure does not automatically constitute a constitutional violation. Law enforcement officers must make difficult tactical decisions under extreme pressure, and those decisions are protected by qualified immunity.

State-created danger is narrow. To establish a constitutional claim when the government fails to protect you, you typically must show either a special custodial relationship or that the state affirmatively created or increased the danger you faced—a high bar that failed rescue efforts generally do not meet.

Key Takeaway

The Constitution does not guarantee that police rescue operations will succeed. When law enforcement officers make tactical decisions during a crisis—even decisions that prove tragically wrong—those judgments are generally protected by qualified immunity unless the officers’ conduct shocks the conscience or violates a clearly established constitutional right. The Due Process Clause limits government power; it does not require the government to protect every citizen from every private act of violence.