Page 155 - Texas police Association Peace Officer Guide 2017

never heard anyone yell “police, search warrant.” Camp contends the police were
yelling loudly and it was difficult to discern the words they were yelling.

It is undisputed that Camp was compliant with the officers’ instructions throughout the raid.
After the shooting, the officers quickly secured the premises, handcuffed Cass, and began
administering first aid. Paramedics arrived within minutes, but Cass succumbed to his wounds.
In the following hours, APD officers obtained separate warrants for Abilene Gold Exchange and
the neighboring business, and conducted a thorough search of the premises. Camp was arrested
for unlawful possession of a firearm, and was later indicted for not paying approximately $150 in
state taxes for purchases made over the internet. Appellants argue that APD has harassed and
intimidated parties and witnesses to the shooting in an effort to cover up its misconduct.

Cass’s widow, children, and mother sued the City of Abilene, along with Smith and Standridge
in their individual capacities, alleging under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that: (1) Smith and Standridge
retaliated against Cass for speaking out against the proposed ordinance in violation of the First
Amendment; and (2) Smith and Standridge used excessive force when they “unlawfully arrested,
assaulted, used force against, seized and detained Cass without probable cause, or reasonable
suspicion that any violation or crime had been committed” and “Smith’s actions in undertaking
the unnecessary raid and doing so without announcing his position as a police officer are
objectively unreasonable” in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The district court granted Smith and Standbridge’s summary judgment motion in full and
determined that Appellants’ excessive force claim failed because Smith’s use of force was a
reasonable response to Cass’s drawing his gun on Smith and Standridge was uninvolved in the
shooting. (Standbridge was not present at the time) The district court agreed that “the style and
manner of executing the search warrant” was not “the wisest plan,” but that it was “at best
negligent conduct and cannot form the basis of a constitutional violation.” Finally, the district
court rejected Appellants’ First Amendment retaliation claim because there was no evidence that
Smith was aware of Cass’s protected speech when obtaining and executing the warrant and
because Standridge, who was aware of the speech, was uninvolved in the decisions relating to
the warrant.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity
to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights. A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: “(1) that the official
violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the
time of the challenged conduct.” The second prong is satisfied only if “the state of the law at the
time of the incident provided fair warning to the defendants that their alleged [conduct] was
unconstitutional.”

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 150 2017 Edition