Salinas v. City of Houston

In Salinas v. City of Houston, 138 F.4th 822 (5th Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit reviewed a fatal police shooting that followed a vehicle pursuit in Houston. Officers Salazar and Garcia, members of the Houston Police Department’s Gang Division Crime Reduction Unit, were on patrol during a sting operation when they received dispatch information about a vehicle, including the type of vehicle and license plate information.

The officers located a Nissan that partially matched the information they had received. Body-worn camera footage showed that the officers discussed the vehicle information and that they activated their emergency lights. According to the court, when David Anthony Salinas did not stop for about 20 seconds, the officers reported more than once that he was refusing to stop. A high-speed chase followed. The pursuit ended when Salinas crashed into a cement pillar under a freeway overpass. The Nissan had significant front-end damage, a cracked windshield, and a deployed airbag.

After the crash, the officers parked their patrol vehicle next to the driver-side door of Salinas’s car, preventing him from exiting that side. They got out with guns drawn and approached the vehicle. Salinas appeared to be in the passenger area. Officer Salazar stood near the driver-side door, and Officer Garcia stood near the passenger side. Both officers repeatedly ordered Salinas to show his hands. The court counted at least fourteen “hands” or “show me your hands” commands from Officer Salazar and at least fifteen from Officer Garcia. The officers also repeatedly yelled for Salinas to stop reaching.

Salinas’s friend, who was on the phone with him, stated that he heard Salinas say, “Don’t shoot, I am looking for my phone.” The officers did not see Salinas holding a gun. However, the body-worn camera footage showed Salinas moving around in the vehicle, raising and lowering his hands, and reaching in ways that caused his hands to disappear from the officers’ view. After Salinas appeared to reach behind the driver’s seat while leaning over the center console, both officers fired. They fired approximately 11 to 12 rounds. Backup later arrived, and medical aid was rendered.

Salinas’s widow, Brittany Salinas, sued the officers and the City of Houston under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Texas Tort Claims Act, and other theories. The district court dismissed the claims. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit considered the complaint, the attached exhibits, the body-worn camera footage, and the affidavit from Salinas’s friend.

The main issue was whether the lawsuit alleged enough facts to show that the officers violated Salinas’s Fourth Amendment rights. In plain terms, the court had to decide whether the officers had a lawful basis to try to stop and pursue Salinas, and whether shooting him after the crash was an unconstitutional use of excessive force.

The court also had to decide whether the officers were protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity required the court to ask whether the facts, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, showed a constitutional violation, and if so, whether the violated right was clearly established. The Fifth Circuit resolved the case at the first step, concluding that the complaint and attached materials did not show a Fourth Amendment violation.

The court also addressed related claims against the City of Houston. Those claims depended in part on whether there was an underlying constitutional violation by the officers and whether Texas law waived the City’s immunity for the state-law tort claims.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case.

On the stop and pursuit, the court held that the officers had at least reasonable suspicion to detain Salinas. The court did not require proof of probable cause for the initial investigative stop. It relied on the officers’ knowledge of vehicle-identifying information, the partial match to Salinas’s vehicle, the context of the sting operation, and Salinas’s failure to stop after the officers activated their lights. Those facts, taken together, were enough to support a temporary investigative detention.

On the excessive force claim, the court held that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court applied the familiar Graham v. Connor factors, looking at the totality of the circumstances, including whether the suspect was fleeing, whether he posed an immediate threat, and whether he was resisting or evading arrest. The court noted that the facts about the severity of the suspected crime were limited, but it found that the flight and threat factors supported the officers’ use of force.

The practical rule from the decision is that, under these specific facts, officers did not act unreasonably when they used deadly force after a vehicle pursuit and crash where the suspect repeatedly failed to comply with commands to show his hands and stop reaching, and where his hands disappeared from view inside the vehicle. The court emphasized that officers do not have to actually see a gun before using deadly force if they reasonably believe the person is reaching for one. The absence of a visible gun did not make the shooting unconstitutional in this case.

Because the court found no constitutional violation, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also affirmed dismissal of the claims against the City of Houston. The § 1983 municipal liability claim failed because there was no underlying constitutional injury. The Texas Tort Claims Act claim also failed because the alleged negligence arose from the same facts as the intentional use of force, and the TTCA did not waive the City’s immunity in that circumstance.

Salinas v. City of Houston is a pursuit and vehicle-shooting case, but its lessons are narrower than a general rule about all pursuits or all post-crash encounters. The Fifth Circuit’s decision was tied closely to the facts captured on body-worn camera: the officers had vehicle information before the stop, activated their lights, observed a failure to stop, engaged in a pursuit, confronted the driver after a crash, gave many commands, and fired only after repeated reaching movements inside the vehicle.

For officers, the case reinforces the value of being able to articulate the basis for a stop. The court relied on the vehicle information known to the officers, the partial match, the license-plate-related information, the context of the operation, and the driver’s refusal to stop. A stop does not have to begin with certainty, but it does require specific, articulable facts rather than a hunch.

The case also shows how body-worn camera footage can shape the outcome of litigation. The Fifth Circuit considered the videos because they were attached to the complaint, even though the district court had declined to review them at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The videos mattered because they showed the timing, the commands, the suspect’s movements, and the officers’ perceptions during a fast-moving encounter.

For post-pursuit vehicle contacts, the decision supports a practical safety principle: hands matter. The court placed significant weight on the repeated commands to show hands and stop reaching, along with Salinas’s continued reaching inside the vehicle. The ruling does not say that every movement inside a vehicle justifies deadly force. It says that, in the circumstances of this case, after a pursuit and crash, with repeated noncompliance and reaching out of view, the officers’ belief that Salinas might be reaching for a weapon was reasonable.

The decision also cautions against judging force with hindsight. The court evaluated the shooting from the perspective of reasonable officers on scene, during a tense and rapidly evolving encounter. At the same time, the ruling should not be read as a blanket approval of shooting into vehicles or shooting unarmed people. The court’s conclusion depended on the pursuit, the crash, the commands, the reaching movements, and the short time frame captured on video.

For supervisors and trainers, the case is useful for emphasizing documentation and command discipline during high-risk vehicle stops. Clear verbal commands, observable suspect behavior, radio updates, and body-camera evidence all became central to the court’s analysis. For agencies, the municipal-liability portion of the case also shows that failure-to-train or policy claims under § 1983 generally require an underlying constitutional violation, and state-law negligence labels may not avoid immunity when the claim is really based on an intentional use of force.