Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marwan Qashou was driving with his eleven-year-old child around midnight when San Antonio police officers stopped him and administered a field sobriety test. Qashou admitted that he failed the test but alleged that a permanent back injury caused the failure, that he told the officers about the disability, and that he also told them he did not drink alcohol because of his Muslim faith. The officers arrested him for driving while intoxicated with a minor child in the vehicle.
Qashou requested a blood test, which he alleged was negative, but his complaint did not state when the results became available or allege that any defendant knew of them before the arrest, his appearance before a magistrate, or his release on bond. After the charges were dismissed, Qashou sued the officers, the City of San Antonio, the San Antonio Police Department, and Police Chief William McManus under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other theories. The district court dismissed the action under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The complaint alleged no facts showing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the initial traffic stop. As to the arrest, Qashou’s admitted failure of the field sobriety test supplied a fair probability on which reasonable officers could act and therefore established probable cause at the time of arrest. The later negative blood-test result did not retroactively eliminate that probable cause, particularly because the complaint did not allege that the officers knew the result before arresting him.
The court also held that Qashou failed to plead excessive force because he did not allege that either officer used any force. Without a plausibly alleged underlying constitutional violation, his municipal-policy and failure-to-train claims against the City and Chief McManus necessarily failed. The claims against McManus in his official capacity were also redundant of the claims against the City, while the Police Department was not a suable entity under applicable law.
Key Takeaways
- An admitted failure of a field sobriety test can establish probable cause to arrest for impaired driving at the pleading stage.
- A later negative blood test does not invalidate probable cause that existed when the arrest occurred, absent allegations that officers knew of exculpatory results at the relevant time.
- Municipal-policy and failure-to-train claims cannot proceed without a plausibly alleged underlying constitutional violation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that probable cause is evaluated from the facts available to officers when they act, not through evidence obtained afterward. Plaintiffs challenging an arrest must plead facts addressing the officers’ contemporaneous knowledge and cannot rely solely on later exculpatory test results.
The opinion also illustrates the derivative nature of municipal-liability claims: when the complaint does not plausibly allege that an officer violated the Constitution, related claims against the municipality and officials sued in their official capacities generally fail as well.