Qualified Immunity and Probable Cause: McClain v. Delgado Clarifies False Arrest Standard in DWI Stops

Introduction

McClain v. Delgado is a Fifth Circuit decision issued March 20, 2025. It addresses the scope of qualified immunity in a §1983 false‐arrest suit arising from an on‐the‐road drunk driving stop. The plaintiff, Texas Game Warden Joshua McClain, sued Officer Dustin Delgado after Delgado arrested him for driving while intoxicated. McClain’s blood and toxicology tests later proved negative for alcohol or drugs, and the County Attorney declined prosecution. He then brought claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment on the malicious‐prosecution claim but denied it on the false‐arrest claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact about probable cause and test administration. Delgado appealed the denial of qualified immunity on the false‐arrest count. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that no reasonable officer would doubt that Delgado had probable cause based on McClain’s observed lane departures and field sobriety test results.

Summary of the Judgment

The court first confirmed its jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity under the collateral‐order doctrine. It then summarized the stop and arrest:

In March 2020, Delgado saw McClain’s truck “jerk” to the right shoulder and cross a solid white line several times.
Delgado conducted three standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk‐and‐turn, one‐leg stand) and observed six of six possible HGN clues and two of eight walk‐and‐turn clues, though none on the one‐leg stand.
Trooper McKay confirmed Delgado’s HGN findings on arrival.
At the hospital, blood and drug tests returned negative, and no DWI prosecution followed.

McClain argued that Delgado lacked probable cause and thus violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument in a per curiam opinion, holding:

Delgado had reasonable suspicion to stop McClain for erratic driving.
He developed probable cause to arrest once the field sobriety tests pointed strongly toward intoxication.
No reasonable officer could conclude otherwise, so McClain failed to carry his burden to show a constitutional violation or that the law was clearly established against Delgado.

Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the false‐arrest claim.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Cunningham v. Castloo (983 F.3d 185, 5th Cir. 2020) – Collateral‐order doctrine allows interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity denials.
Brown v. Callahan (623 F.3d 249, 5th Cir. 2010) – Burden shifts to plaintiff to show a genuine fact issue defeating qualified immunity.
Loftin v. City of Prentiss (33 F.4th 774, 5th Cir. 2022) – In false arrest suits, plaintiff must show no reasonable officer would have made the arrest.
Carnaby v. City of Houston (636 F.3d 183, 5th Cir. 2011) – When video exists, courts view disputed facts “in the light depicted by the videotape.”
United States v. Estrada (459 F.3d 627, 5th Cir. 2006) – Terry‐stop standard of reasonable suspicion applies to traffic stops.
District of Columbia v. Wesby (583 U.S. 48, 2018) – Probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity.
Crostley v. Lamar County (717 F.3d 410, 5th Cir. 2013) – Reasonable mistakes of fact do not defeat qualified immunity if the officer’s conclusion was objectively reasonable.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the familiar two‐prong qualified immunity test:

Constitutional violation: McClain asserted a Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest. To prevail, he had to show Delgado lacked probable cause. The court found no genuine dispute that: (a) inappropriate driving provided reasonable suspicion for the stop; and (b) failing multiple standardized sobriety tests supplied probable cause to arrest.
Clearly established law: It long has been settled that an arrest unsupported by probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. Because no reasonable officer could doubt the probative value of McClain’s test performance, the court held the law was clearly established.

On both prongs, McClain failed to carry his burden. His challenges to the test administration, officer credibility and affidavit details did not create a triable issue precluding summary judgment. Qualified immunity thus barred his false arrest claim.

Impact

McClain v. Delgado reinforces several key rules:

Reliance on standardized field sobriety tests can supply probable cause even if post‐arrest tests are negative.
Officers performing scientifically validated tests and recording their findings are presumptively reasonable when they observe multiple indicators of impairment.
Plaintiffs in §1983 false‐arrest cases face a steep burden to show that “no reasonable officer” would have concluded probable cause existed.

Future litigants will cite McClain to support summary dismissal of false arrest suits arising from DWI stops where field‐sobriety evidence is clear. Courts will scrutinize whether plaintiffs truly dispute material facts or merely contest an officer’s credibility.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity: A doctrine shielding government officials from damages liability unless they violate “clearly established” rights.
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause: Reasonable suspicion justifies a brief investigatory stop; probable cause is a higher standard, requiring a fair probability of criminal activity, and justifies arrest.
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs): A battery of three roadside tests—horizontal gaze nystagmus (eye movement), walk‐and‐turn, and one‐leg stand—designed by NHTSA to detect alcohol impairment.
HGN Test: Observes involuntary jerking of the eyes when looking to the side. Six “clues” indicate impairment.
Summary Judgment in Qualified Immunity: When officials plead immunity, plaintiffs must identify genuine disputes of material fact on both elements—violation and clearness—to proceed to trial.

Conclusion

McClain v. Delgado delivers a clear message: officers who conduct validated field sobriety tests and document multiple indicators of impairment are entitled to qualified immunity if they effect a DWI arrest—even if subsequent chemical tests are negative. This decision further cements the high bar that plaintiffs must clear to overcome immunity in Fourth Amendment false‐arrest suits. By clarifying that the absence of post‐arrest evidence does not negate probable cause established at the scene, the Fifth Circuit fosters consistency and predictability in the policing of intoxicated driving.