Traylor v. Yorka

What This Case Is About

Marcus Traylor was at a Dallas bar when a bouncer grabbed him from behind and brought him to the ground. Off-duty Dallas Police Officer Gideon Yorka, who was working private security in full uniform, then entered the bar, picked Traylor up, and escorted him outside. What happened next is hotly disputed: Traylor says Yorka shoved him into the street and punched him without provocation; Yorka says Traylor became aggressive and combative. Traylor sued under § 1983 for excessive force, unlawful arrest, and fabrication of evidence. The Fifth Circuit addressed qualified immunity on all three claims.

The Facts

On February 16, 2020, Traylor and friends attended Clutch Bar and Restaurant in Dallas. Traylor’s group ordered bottle service, and Traylor consumed two or three glasses of champagne over an hour. At some point, Clutch security asked the group to leave because one friend had fallen asleep. When Traylor stayed behind to pay his tab, a bouncer grabbed him from behind and took him to the ground.

Officer Yorka and another DPD officer were working off-duty private security at Clutch in full uniform. After being informed of the disturbance, Yorka entered the bar and found Traylor with a bloodied mouth being restrained on the floor by bouncers. Yorka picked Traylor up by the arm and escorted him outside, detecting alcohol on Traylor’s breath.

Outside the bar, the parties’ accounts diverge sharply. According to Traylor, he cooperated as Yorka walked him past a crowd and then shoved him into the street. Traylor says Yorka then struck him in the face without provocation. According to Yorka, Traylor became aggressive, pulled away, and assumed a fighting stance, prompting Yorka to strike him and place him under arrest. Yorka charged Traylor with public intoxication and assault on a peace officer.

Traylor alleged that Yorka fabricated details in his arrest report, including false claims about Traylor’s level of intoxication and aggressive behavior, in order to justify the arrest and use of force.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.

On the excessive force claim, the court granted Yorka qualified immunity. Applying the Graham v. Connor factors, the court considered that Yorka had just encountered Traylor involved in a physical altercation inside the bar, that Traylor had been drinking, and that the situation outside was chaotic with a crowd present. Even under Traylor’s version of events, the court found that existing precedent did not place the unconstitutionality of Yorka’s conduct “beyond debate.”

On the unlawful arrest claim, the court also granted qualified immunity. It found that Yorka had arguable probable cause to arrest Traylor for public intoxication based on Traylor’s admitted alcohol consumption, his bloodied appearance from the altercation, and Yorka’s detection of alcohol on his breath.

On the fabrication-of-evidence claim, the court reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Yorka. While acknowledging that fabrication of evidence can support a § 1983 claim, the court found that Traylor had not shown that Yorka’s allegedly false statements in the arrest report were the proximate cause of his continued detention, as the grand jury’s indictment served as an independent intermediary.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Off-duty officers in uniform are still state actors. When police officers work private security in their official uniforms and exercise police powers—making arrests, using force—they act under color of state law and can be sued under § 1983.

Arguable probable cause defeats unlawful arrest claims. Even if an officer’s stated reason for arrest is disputed, if the totality of circumstances gives the officer “arguable probable cause”—that is, a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed—qualified immunity applies.

Fabrication-of-evidence claims face high hurdles. To succeed, you must show not only that the officer fabricated evidence but that the fabrication was the proximate cause of your continued detention—the independent intermediary doctrine (such as a grand jury indictment) can break the chain of causation.

Chaotic scenes benefit officers on qualified immunity. When force is used in a fast-moving, confusing situation—like a bar fight with crowds—courts are more likely to find that an officer’s split-second judgment was objectively reasonable.

Key Takeaway

When off-duty officers in uniform use force and make arrests during chaotic situations like bar altercations, overcoming qualified immunity is difficult. Even if the plaintiff’s account differs significantly from the officer’s, courts will consider the totality of circumstances—including the plaintiff’s apparent intoxication, prior physical altercation, and the volatile environment—in assessing whether the officer acted reasonably. Fabrication-of-evidence claims require showing that fabricated statements, rather than independent judicial processes, caused the plaintiff’s harm.