Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sergeant Shane Iversen stopped Timothy Randall in Rusk County, Texas, for allegedly failing to stop at a stop sign. During the encounter, Iversen ordered Randall from his vehicle and began a pat-down. After feeling an object in Randall’s pants, Iversen attempted to move Randall’s hands behind his back. The encounter escalated into a physical struggle in which Iversen threw Randall to the ground and then suplexed him.
Randall rose and, according to evidence that could support the estate’s account, turned to flee with his open palms near chest level. Iversen fired once, fatally striking him. The object Iversen had felt was later identified as a meth pipe in a soft glasses case. Randall’s estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied Iversen summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and Iversen filed an interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. At this stage, the court could review whether the factual disputes identified below were material to qualified immunity, but it could not decide whether those disputes were genuine unless video evidence conclusively contradicted the estate’s account. The dashcam footage did not conclusively establish Iversen’s contention that Randall rushed toward him before the shooting.
Viewing the disputed facts in the estate’s favor, a jury could find that Iversen shot a visibly empty-handed suspect who was fleeing, posed no immediate threat, and had engaged only in nonviolent resistance amid rapidly changing commands. A jury also could find that no reasonable officer would have mistaken the object felt during the pat-down for a weapon. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, shooting a visibly unarmed suspect who is moving away from everyone at the scene violates clearly established law. Because those factual disputes were material to qualified immunity, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to resolve them and expressed no view on the facts or ultimate merits.
Key Takeaways
- An interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal generally permits review of the materiality of disputed facts, not whether the evidence genuinely supports those facts.
- Video controls at summary judgment only when it blatantly contradicts a party’s account; the footage here did not conclusively show whether Randall fled from or rushed toward Iversen.
- Accepting the estate’s version, shooting a visibly unarmed, nonthreatening suspect who was moving away could violate a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the narrow scope of appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals. An officer cannot obtain appellate resolution of factual disputes merely by characterizing them as legal questions when those disputes determine whether the officer faced an immediate threat.
The ruling does not establish that Iversen used unconstitutional force or that he is liable. It leaves those factual and merits questions for later proceedings, including potential determination by a jury.