The family of a Dallas police officer who was shot and killed at a Home Depot in 2018 and another officer seriously injured alongside him want the Texas Supreme Court to allow a lawsuit against the store, an off-duty officer and the security company that employed him to continue.
A central issue in the case — argued in front of the Texas Supreme Court Thursday — is whether off-duty Dallas police officer Chad Seward was technically on duty before he confirmed a warrant on Armando Luis Juarez, who soon after opened fire on the two officers. The plaintiffs argue Seward shouldn't have tried to detain Juarez for criminal trespass in the first place — and if he did, he should have properly disarmed him.
But those claims against Seward could be dismissed if the high court rules he was acting in his official capacity the whole time and therefore shielded from suit.
Attorney David Walsh — who represented Seward and Point 2 Point, the company that employed him — told justices Thursday employees and off-duty officers can’t be held to on-duty standards.
“That's what their position boils down to, is either we're going to let all criminals steal from us and take our stuff or we're going to detain them, frisk them and handcuff them,” Walsh said. “There's no middle ground in their version of this event.”
Seward was off duty working as a security officer at Home Depot on April 24, 2018, when loss prevention employee Scott Painter asked Seward to issue a criminal trespass warning to Juarez, whom Painter said was acting suspiciously. Seward called police dispatch and police told him Juarez might have an outstanding arrest warrant.
Seward called to ask some on-duty officers for backup, and the two officers — Rogelio Santander Jr. and Crystal Almeida — responded. Once the warrant was confirmed and Almeida went to arrest Juarez, Juarez took a gun from his front pocket and shot Santander, who died at the hospital the next day. Juarez also shot and injured Almeida along with Painter.
Juarez, 36, was named as a defendant in the initial lawsuit but is not part of this appeal. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 2021.
A Dallas Police Department spokesperson confirmed Almeida and Seward are still members of DPD but said the department doesn’t comment on pending litigation.
“The loss of Officer Santander was a tough time for the Department, as it is anytime we lose one of our own,” the department’s statement reads.
Santander’s parents and Almeida sued Home Depot, Seward and Point 2 Point Global Security. They allege the officers reasonably believed Juarez had been searched for weapons already, and Seward didn’t do so. The plaintiffs also say Home Depot and the security company are responsible for Santander's death and the injuries.
Point 2 Point argues Seward was on duty during the incident and therefore acting as an agent of the Dallas Police Department, meaning although he was the private company’s part-time employee, Point 2 Point is not liable for his actions.
But Seward couldn’t have been on duty if he was taking instructions from Painter to deal with Juarez, said Niles Illich, the attorney for Santander’s family and Almeida. Either Seward was on duty and following DPD procedure or acting as an off-duty private officer following Home Depot procedure under Painter’s instruction, he argued.
“At this point, we have objective evidence that shows Officer Seward is acting as an agent, he is acting on behalf of Home Depot,” Illich said. “He is not acting as he would as a Dallas police officer.”
Arthur Smith, the attorney for Home Depot, argued the company is not liable for the shooting or for Seward’s actions, and a principle known as the “firefighter’s rule” protects the company from suit. The legal restriction prevents emergency responders from suing over things that happen in the line of duty.
“Police are supposed to protect the public, and the public policy behind the doctrine is not to discourage people from contacting police and seeking their assistance,” Smith said, “which might occur if they have to independently evaluate, 'is this an emergency? Are they going to be confronting risks that are inherent in the course and scope of their duties?'”
Those arguments were successful in the trial court, but the Dallas-area Fifth Court of Appeals partially reversed the lower court’s judgments.
In a statement to KERA News, attorneys for Santander’s family and Almeida said on their behalf that they hope justices send a message that large retailers should be held accountable for negligence and that officers have the same rights as others to be compensated for harm while responding to a call.
“We also expect the Texas Supreme Court will draw a line limiting governmental immunity to on-duty officers and those off-duty officers performing police duties and not extend such immunity to non-governmental entities that hire off-duty officers to enforce private business policies,” the statement reads.
Got a tip? Email Toluwani Osibamowo at tosibamowo@kera.org. You can follow Toluwani on X @tosibamowo.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
