Reaffirming Qualified Immunity Boundaries: Reasonable Threat Perception in Winkley v. Blackwell

Introduction

Winkley v. Blackwell, No. 24-60244 (5th Cir. May 8, 2025), represents a significant interlocutory decision by the Fifth Circuit on the scope of qualified immunity in deadly‐force cases. Plaintiffs–the Winkley family, wrongful‐death beneficiaries of Isaiah Winkley—sued former Deputy Michael Blackwell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he violated Isaiah’s Fourth Amendment right by fatally shooting him without provocation or justification. The underlying encounter began with a 911 burglary report, progressed through taser deployments, and ended when Blackwell fired four shots at Isaiah, who was holding a six-foot “T-post” and a container of Mentos. Blackwell’s summary-judgment motion based on qualified immunity was denied by the district court on the ground that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether Isaiah posed an immediate threat. This appeal focuses on two issues: the Fifth Circuit’s interlocutory jurisdiction over denial of qualified immunity and the legal standard governing deadly‐force encounters.

Summary of the Judgment

In a per curiam opinion, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The appellate court first confirmed its jurisdiction to review the denial insofar as it raised pure questions of law and involved video evidence that could “blatantly contradict” disputed facts. Receiving the officers’ body‐ and dash-cam footage in the light most favorable to the Winkleys, the panel identified genuine disputes over the critical “immediate threat” inquiry: Was Isaiah raising or advancing the T-post? Was he reaching for a weapon at his waistband? Because the footage did not “utterly discredit” the Winkleys’ version—that Isaiah was attempting to comply when he was shot—the disputes were material under Graham v. Connor. The court then held that the law was “clearly established” by Meadours v. Ermel (5th Cir. 2007), in which facts closely parallel those here led to denial of qualified immunity. Accordingly, the denial of summary judgment was affirmed and the case remanded for trial on disputed facts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Meadours v. Ermel (483 F.3d 417, 424–25 (5th Cir. 2007)): Held that officers were not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity when a mentally disturbed man refused to drop a screwdriver and factual disputes existed as to whether he posed an imminent threat before being shot.
Tennessee v. Garner (471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985)): Established that deadly force is unreasonable where a suspect poses no immediate threat to officers or others.
Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)): Developed the three‐factor test for excessive force—(1) severity of crime, (2) immediate threat, (3) active resistance or flight.
Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)): Permits courts to disregard a plaintiff’s version of events if blatantly contradicted by clear video evidence.
Kisela v. Hughes (584 U.S. 100 (2018)): Demonstrated qualified immunity where officers reasonably believed a woman with a knife posed imminent danger; used for contrast rather than support here.
Other Fifth Circuit decisions (e.g., Allen v. Hays, Salazar‐Limon v. City of Houston) on perception of threat and non‐deadly force warnings.

Legal Reasoning

The panel applied the two‐step qualified immunity framework: (1) did the officer violate a constitutional right? and (2) was that right clearly established? Because the Winkleys bore the burden of showing a genuine dispute of material fact, the court viewed all evidence in their favor. Under Graham’s second factor—whether Isaiah posed an immediate threat—the court examined body‐cam footage and found it “ambiguous” whether Isaiah was raising or pointing the T-post or reaching for his waistband. The testimony that Isaiah’s hands were “occupied” further undercut any reasonable fear that he was about to draw a concealed weapon. Because the footage did not “utterly discredit” the Winkleys’ narrative, the fact issues remained for a jury. Turning to “clearly established law,” the court held Meadours controlling: in similar circumstances—mental health crisis, refusal to drop a potential weapon, unsuccessful use of non-lethal force—qualified immunity was denied. Thus the officers had “fair warning” that deadly force would violate the Fourth Amendment absent an imminent threat.

Impact

Winkley v. Blackwell reinforces several important principles:

Video Evidence and Qualified Immunity: Courts will scrutinize body-cam footage to determine material factual disputes and will not credit an officer’s version if it is “blatantly contradicted.”
Scope of “Immediate Threat”: Law enforcement must reasonably perceive an imminent danger before deploying deadly force; mere handling of an object or lowering of a hand does not automatically justify shooting.
Warning and Non-Deadly Force: The decision underscores the duty to warn and the need to employ less‐lethal means when feasible, particularly against a suspect exhibiting signs of mental distress.
Precedent Value of Meadours: Reaffirms that the Fifth Circuit’s 2007 decision remains a touchstone for qualified immunity in contexts involving mental health crises and disputed threat perceptions.

Going forward, law enforcement training, body‐camera deployment policies, and civil‐rights litigation will be shaped by the court’s insistence on contextual threat analysis and on clear video corroboration before stripping a plaintiff of fact‐finder review via qualified immunity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity: Protects government officials from civil liability unless they violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would know.
Fourth Amendment Seizure & Excessive Force: A “seizure” occurs when physical force or show of authority restrains freedom. Force is “excessive” if it is not objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Graham Factors: 1. Severity of the suspected crime
2. Immediate threat posed by the suspect
3. Suspect’s active resistance or flight
“Blatantly Contradicted” Rule: When clear video evidence conflicts with a party’s factual claims, courts need not accept those claims for summary‐judgment purposes.
Interlocutory Appeal Jurisdiction: Denials of qualified immunity on purely legal grounds can be appealed immediately—even if the case has not reached final judgment—when the appeal turns on legal questions rather than factual ones.

Conclusion

Winkley v. Blackwell reaffirms the delicate balance between protecting officers from suit and preserving Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable deadly force. By applying Graham’s threat‐analysis framework, scrutinizing body-cam evidence, and invoking Meadours as a clearly established precedent, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that fact disputes over perceived danger must go to a jury. The decision clarifies that officers need “fair warning” before using lethal force on individuals in mental crisis who do not demonstrably threaten them or others. In the broader legal landscape, Winkley cements the role of video evidence in civil-rights litigation, strengthens the immediate‐threat requirement, and underscores that qualified immunity cannot be invoked to bypass genuine disputes about what a reasonable officer would have perceived in the heat of an encounter.