Admission of Body-Worn Camera Evidence at the Motion to Dismiss Stage in Qualified Immunity §1983 Cases

Introduction

Salinas v. City of Houston, No. 23-20617 (5th Cir. May 23, 2025), presents a § 1983 challenge to the fatal shooting of David Anthony Salinas by Houston police officers during a late-night traffic pursuit. Plaintiff‐Appellant Brittany Salinas, the decedent’s surviving spouse, sued Officers Salazar and Garcia and the City of Houston, alleging Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure and excessive‐force claims, plus related state‐law tort claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The central issues on appeal are (1) whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity when video footage attached to the complaint shows a split-second sequence of commands and shooting, and (2) whether the City of Houston may be held liable under § 1983 or the TTCA for the officers’ conduct.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, holding that: (i) body-worn camera (BWC) footage attached to the Second Amended Complaint may be considered at the motion-to-dismiss stage; (ii) the officers did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment right; (iii) the City of Houston incurred no municipal liability under § 1983; and (iv) sovereign immunity bars the TTCA claim.

Summary of the Judgment

In a unanimous opinion by Judge Higginbotham, the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo the district court’s grant of qualified immunity at the pleading stage. The court first confirmed that under Beroid v. LaFleur and Villareal v. Wells Fargo, a defendant may attach and a court may consider BWC video and affidavits in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion if those materials are “explicitly incorporated into the complaint.” Here, the Salinas complaint included two BWC videos and a witness affidavit.

On the merits, the court found no Fourth Amendment violation. Although the officers engaged in a high-speed chase, the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion: dispatch had provided a car description, the vehicle failed to yield when lights were activated, and the driver crashed into an underpass pillar. After the collision, Officers Salazar and Garcia repeatedly commanded Mr. Salinas to show his hands and stop “reaching.” When Mr. Salinas continued making furtive movements inside the wrecked Nissan—movements that officers could reasonably believe were an attempt to retrieve a weapon—they fired eleven to twelve rounds. Applying Graham v. Connor, the court held that no “clearly excessive or objectively unreasonable” force occurred under the split-second circumstances.

The court further held that the City of Houston could not be liable under § 1983, since no constitutional violation was established and no policy or custom was shown to have caused one. Finally, the court ruled that the TTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to claims arising out of an intentional tort (the shooting), so the City remained immune.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Beroid v. LaFleur (5th Cir. 2023): Courts may consider exhibits (including video) attached to a complaint on 12(b)(6).
Villareal v. Wells Fargo (5th Cir. 2016): Reinforces the principle that attachments incorporated by reference may be judicially noticed in a motion to dismiss.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) & Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007): A complaint survives a 12(b)(6) challenge if it pleads enough facts to state a “plausible” claim for relief.
Pearson v. Callahan (2009): Established the two-step qualified immunity inquiry.
Graham v. Connor (1989): Set forth the excessive‐force factors—severity of crime, immediate threat, active resistance or flight.
Pena v. City of Rio Grande City (5th Cir. 2018): Held that TTCA waiver does not cover claims “inextricably intertwined” with intentional torts.

Legal Reasoning

1. Consideration of BWC footage: The Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that when a plaintiff’s complaint attaches videos or affidavits as exhibits, a defendant on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion can ask the court to consider them. This ensures that courts evaluating qualified immunity motions do not ignore critical contemporaneous evidence of the officers’ conduct.

2. Qualified Immunity – Prong One: Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court asked only whether Mr. Salinas endured an unreasonable seizure or excessive force. Although Mr. Salinas did not pull over and crashed his vehicle, the pursuit was supported by reasonable suspicion derived from dispatch information plus his refusal to stop. After the crash, the officers issued clear warnings—at least thirty commands to show hands and repeated “stop reaching” orders over thirty-eight seconds. When Salinas continued reaching inside the car, the officers reasonably believed he might be arming himself and thus fired their weapons. Under Graham, such split-second judgments amid a potentially armed suspect do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

3. Municipal Liability under § 1983: Because no constitutional violation was proven, the City of Houston could not be held liable. Even if a violation had been shown, plaintiffs must identify an official policy or custom that was the “moving force” behind the violation—something absent here.

4. TTCA and Sovereign Immunity: The court reiterated that the TTCA waives sovereign immunity for negligent acts, but not for injuries arising “in the course of a police shooting,” which is deemed an intentional tort. Consequently, the City remained immune from the TTCA claim.

Impact

Salinas v. City of Houston provides critical guidance on several fronts:

Pleading Stage Video Evidence: Plaintiffs may attach and courts may consider BWC footage and affiliated materials at the 12(b)(6) stage—preventing premature dismissal based on disputed factual narratives.
Split-Second Excessive Force Analysis: Reinforces that courts must view split-second use-of-force decisions from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, even if later review shows no weapon was produced.
Municipal Liability Caution: Reiterates the high bar for imposing § 1983 liability on municipalities—constitutional injury plus a deliberate policy choice.
State-Law Claims and Sovereign Immunity: Clarifies that the TTCA’s waiver does not reach “inextricably intertwined” intentional torts like shootings, insulating cities from post-shooting negligence suits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity: A defense protecting government officials unless they violate “clearly established” constitutional rights. Courts ask (1) did the facts allege a constitutional violation? and (2) was the right clearly established?
Rule 12(b)(6) Consideration of Exhibits: Under Twombly/Iqbal, a complaint survives if plausible facts are pled. When exhibits (videos, affidavits) are “incorporated into the complaint,” the court may consider them without converting a 12(b)(6) motion into a summary‐judgment proceeding.
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause: Reasonable suspicion requires “particular and articulable facts” that criminal activity may be afoot—a lower threshold than probable cause, which demands a fair probability of criminal conduct.
Graham Factors: Courts weigh: (1) severity of suspected crime; (2) immediate threat posed by suspect; (3) whether suspect is resisting or fleeing. The balancing test governs Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims.
TTCA Sovereign Immunity: Texas waives immunity for certain negligent acts by state actors, but not for intentional torts or claims “inextricably intertwined” with intentional wrongdoing, such as police shootings.

Conclusion

Salinas v. City of Houston affirms that, in qualified immunity motions to dismiss, courts may—and should—consider body-worn camera footage and related affidavits attached to the complaint. It underscores that officers making split-second judgments under the tense, uncertain circumstances of a vehicle crash and possible concealed weapon are insulated by the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonable officer” standard. The decision also clarifies the limits of municipal § 1983 liability and reaffirms that Texas sovereign immunity bars TTCA suits arising from intentional police shootings. Together, these holdings will guide lower courts and litigants in framing and defending § 1983 and state‐law claims at the threshold pleading stage.