On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Cantu v. Austin Police Dep’t[i], which is instructive regarding the use of deadly force, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The relevant facts of Cantu, taken directly from the case, are as follows:
Paul Cantu was “suicidal and suffering from mental distress” when the Austin Police Department (APD) encountered him on January 29, 2019. APD Sergeant Michael Joseph located Cantu’s car off-road in a grassy field while responding to a service call around 1:40 a.m. that morning. Joseph parked behind the car and shined his spotlights on it. Cantu exited the driver’s seat with a handgun drawn and aimed at the officer. Joseph drew his own weapon and exited his cruiser to engage Cantu. His body-camera footage shows that Joseph repeatedly ordered Cantu to drop the gun and to “get on the ground.” Cantu ultimately knelt; he did not drop the gun, pointing it to his own head. For the next six minutes, Joseph urged Cantu to drop the gun, to no avail.
Joseph called for backup, saying there was a gun and requested a ballistic shield. At about 1:45 a.m., APD Officer Luis Alberto Camacho, III arrived and took a position “to provide lethal cover.” About a minute later, APD Officer Robert Mattingly arrived with the ballistic shield and began to position it by Joseph’s cruiser. As Mattingly did so, Cantu stood up and pointed his gun towards Joseph and Mattingly, the two officers who fired sixteen rounds at Cantu over the ensuing two-to-three seconds. Cantu was struck five times and fell to the ground on his back. For the next two minutes, the officers ordered Cantu to show his hands and place them on his stomach. Body-camera footage shows Cantu complied.
Once he followed their instructions, the officers approached and handcuffed Cantu. APD Officers Jacob Beirowski and Julian Pardo-Martin began administering first aid before Cantu was transported to a hospital where he was later pronounced dead.[ii]
Cantu’s parents (the plaintiffs) sued the officers involved, and the Austin Police Department, for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and for failing to accommodate a disability under the ADA. The officers and the city filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the district court, dismissing the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs only appealed the dismissal related to excessive force and ADA claim against Officers Camacho and Mattingly.
The court first examined the excessive force claim. The court stated
To prevail on an excessive-force claim, a § 1983 plaintiff must establish: “(1) an injury (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly unreasonable.” “An officer’s use of deadly force is presumptively reasonable when the officer has reason to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious harm to the officer or to others.” “The question is one of ‘objective reasonableness,’ not subjective intent, and an officer’s conduct must be judged in light of the circumstances confronting him, without the benefit of hindsight.[iii]
The court of appeals noted that the district court held that Officers Camacho and Mattingly acted reasonably in response to the threat posed by Cantu. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that Cantu was incapacitated after the first shot, therefore, the fifteen subsequent shots were excessive force. However, the court of appeals noted that the plaintiffs provided no evidence that Cantu was incapacitated after the first shot. In fact, they noted that the video showed entire sixteen shots were fired within 2-3 seconds. The court of appeals stated
[The officers] response in a “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving” situation was not “clearly unreasonable.” We agree with the district court that the officers’ use of force was not objectively unreasonable and Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their son’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated.[iv]
Therefore, regarding the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, the court of held that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment. As such, they affirmed the grant of summary judgment on this claim.
The court of appeals next examined the claim under the ADA for failing to accommodate. The court stated
[T]he law in this circuit is unequivocal: The ADA ‘does not apply to an officer’s on-the-street responses to . . . incidents, whether or not those calls involve subjects with mental disabilities, prior to the officer’s securing the scene and ensuring that there is no threat to human life.[v]
The plaintiffs argued that, since Cantu was “the only person in field,” the scene should have been considered “secure,” thus the ADA would apply. The court disagreed and stated
To require the officers to factor in whether their actions are going to comply with the ADA, in the presence of exigent circumstances and prior to securing the safety of themselves, other officers, and any nearby civilians, would pose an unnecessary risk to innocents.[vi]
Thus, the officers were also in the field. Further, Cantu was brandishing a weapon at them; therefore, the scene was not secure. As the court stated, to require the officers to make such a determination “in the presence of exigent circumstances and prior to securing the safety of themselves, [and] other officers” would present and unnecessary risk.
Therefore, the court of appeals held the officers were not required to accommodate Cantu’s mental illness. Thus, they affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the ADA claim.
Note: Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases. This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.
____________________
[i] No. 24-50397 (5th Cir. January 17, 2025 Unpublished)
[ii] Id. at 2-3
[iii] Id. at 5-6 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added)
[iv] Id. at 6
[v] Id. at 7 (emphasis added)
[vi] Id. (emphasis added)
