Page 30 - TPA Journal July-August 2025

fied immunity, we must decide (1) whether a the threat an individual poses to himself may cre-
plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to establish a ate an exigency that makes the needs of law
constitutional violation, and (2) whether the right enforcement so compelling that a warrantless
at issue was clearly established at the time of the entry is objectively reasonable under the Fourth
defendant’s alleged misconduct. Amendment.” “The need to protect or preserve
And we have discretion to determine the order in life or avoid serious injury is justification for what
which we consider those questions. would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or
emergency.” “This need to protect or preserve life
Before delving into their case’s substance, is not limited to instances where violence is
Appellants first request that we upend qualified directed to another person; the need to protect and
immunity outright. This request is, as Appellants preserve life can be just as strong when the vio-
concede, outside our abilities. (“While this Court lence is directed at one’s self.”
cannot abrogate Supreme Court authority on QI, Body camera footage shows that Deputy Gallardo
Plaintiffs raise it now for potential argument in the did not enter until after the shooting. But, even if
Supreme Court.”). “As a panel of this court, how- he did, the 911 call made clear that Steve was sui-
ever, we are bound by the precedential decisions cidal and potentially in possession of a gun, just
of both our court and the Supreme Court.” like the decedent in Rice. Thus, Deputy
Appellants argue that Deputy Gallardo’s warrant- Gallardo’s warrantless entry was objectively rea-
less entry was an unjustified violation of Steve’s sonable because it was prompted by credible
constitutional rights. Appellees assert qualified information that Steve both “was a suicide risk
immunity, responding that Deputy Gallardo never and had the means to act on it.” Deputy
entered the home until after the shooting, and even Gallardo’s entry was clearly in line with Rice, exi-
if he did, Steve’s suicidality created an exigent cir- gent circumstances existed, and no constitutional
cumstance justifying warrantless entry. Even tak- violation occurred.
ing Appellants’ version of the facts as true in the
face of body camera footage demonstrating other- Appellants assert that Deputy Gallardo used
wise, Appellants do not allege facts overcoming excessive force when he shot Steve, and
an exigent circumstance under this Circuit’s deci- Appellees counter that Deputy Gallardo’s use of
sion in Rice v. Reliastar Life Ins., which held that force is protected under qualified immunity.
suicidality “may create an exigency . . . so com- Excessive force claims must establish “(1) injury,
pelling that a warrantless entry is objectively rea- (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of
sonable under the Fourth Amendment.” force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the
“[S]earches and seizures inside a home without a excessiveness of which was clearly unreason-
warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” But the able.” An injury occurred—Deputy Gallardo shot
exigent circumstances exception exists, applying and killed Steve— so the analysis hinges on
when ‘“the exigencies of the situation’ make the prongs (2) and (3). Deputy Gallardo’s use of
needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] force, viewed “from the perspective of a reason-
warrantless search is objectively reasonable under able officer on the scene,” was neither excessive
the Fourth Amendment.” “The Government bears nor unreasonable because “[a] police officer does
the burden of demonstrating exigent circum- not have to permit a suspect to aim his weapon
stances.” before answering the threat.”
Suicidality presents a tragically common example “Reasonableness” is an objective inquiry: one
of exigent circumstances. Rice squarely confront- asks “whether the officers’ actions are ‘objective-
ed the issue of “whether the exigent circumstances ly reasonable’ in light of the facts and circum-
exception to the warrant requirement may allow stances confronting them, without regard to their
for a warrantless entry based on the threat an indi- underlying intent or motivation.” “The ‘reason-
vidual poses to himself.” And Rice “h[e]ld that ableness’ of a particular use of force must be

26 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal