I’m a few weeks behind the curve on this incident, but it’s too important not to talk about. Before I get into it, this made me physically ill and very angry.

Incident Summary

On October 2, 2022, a San Antonio Police Officer responded to a disturbance call at a local McDonald’s. After arriving, he saw a vehicle in the parking lot that he believed may have been the same as a vehicle that fled from him the night before but was unrelated to the call for service to which he was responding. The officer then walked up to the driver’s door of the vehicle, pulled it open, and ordered the driver out. The driver, a 17-year-old male, was noticeably startled and inevitably put the car in reverse and began to back out. The officer drew his handgun and fired five rounds toward the driver and an additional volley as the vehicle drove away.

The teenager sustained severe injuries after being struck multiple times and was hospitalized for nearly two months, including several weeks on life-support. By the grace of God, he was able to return home in time to spend Thanksgiving with his family.

Analysis (Opinion)

What the hell was this cop thinking? Reports state that the officer was still in his “probationary” period with the San Antonio Police Department, which indicates he was new to the job and likely fairly young. Not that either of those two things suffices as an excuse for his actions, but it may help explain what happened. As a new officer, it’s easy to get “excited.” For example, when a car flees from a traffic stop, it’s quite common for officers to get tunnel vision on that car and similarly eager if you locate that vehicle later. While I don’t consider myself a veteran officer, I do catch myself taking the actions of folks with whom I am dealing as an affront to me personally. It seems cruel, and it is difficult to do, but it is crucial that officers have the ability to disregard their emotions in the moment to remain objective. Based on the officer’s approach to the vehicle and driver, it’s likely he was in an adrenaline-filled state at the time of the incident, making it incredibly difficult to make reasonable decisions, but that is absolutely no excuse for the actions and decisions he made that night.

There are several what I believe to be egregious violations of the 17-year-old’s Constitutional Rights. Police do not have the authority just to walk up and open someone’s car door or detain individuals without what the courts call reasonable suspicion. According to the FindLaw dictionary, reasonable suspicion is “an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time.” (Emphasis added) The key to reasonable suspicion, as it applies to the incident in question, is the officer must have had reason to believe that the driver of the vehicle was involved in criminal activity at that time, not the day before.

Without establishing reasonable suspicion, Officers can still conduct what is referred to as consensual contact. Consensual contacts are just that, consensual between both parties. If the officer had walked up to the driver’s window and knocked on it to make contact with the occupants, and they rolled down the window to speak, everything would be “peachy-keen.” However, that does not mean the driver has to respond to the officer’s attempt to speak with him, and the officer cannot force the issue without establishing reasonable suspicion to effect detention. Therefore, I believe that the officer violated the driver’s inherent right against unreasonable searches and seizures just by opening the vehicle door without a warrant and without consent.

Beyond the violation of the driver’s constitutional rights, it creates an extremely dangerous situation and unnecessarily escalated the situation. Donut Operator does a great breakdown on this incident, during which he does point out that the officer does appear to get bumped by the open car door as the driver begins to back out. However, if that, in fact, occurred, it is not a circumstance in which a deadly force response is reasonable at all. If that was the reason the officer responded with deadly force, it would likely fall into the category of officer-induced jeopardy, which is a concept that has been taken into consideration by several Federal circuit courts when examining the reasonableness of police uses of force. As police officers, we have to do everything we can, when it is feasible to do so, to ensure that we are not creating a situation that leaves no options other than the use of deadly force, though some situations have no alternative.

Furthermore, the driver’s Constitutional rights were violated again when the officer began firing at him while he was clearly attempting to flee. Regardless of how one may feel about the driver’s decision to flee, the United States Supreme Court is very clear that deadly force may not be utilized against fleeing suspects “unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Conclusion

Incidents like this, warranted or not, reflect poorly on our entire profession, so we have to do better. We have to recruit only the best and brightest (easier said than done right now), and we have to modernize and improve training. This situation was flatly criminal and the Officer, in this case, was not only terminated, but he has also been charged with two counts of aggravated assault. Though the officer did turn himself in and was taken into custody, he has yet to be formally indicted on the charges, which won’t happen until a grand jury convenes to review the case.