Two officers who crashed into drivers during two separate police chases in Austin and Houston were not acting recklessly or in bad faith, and the cities are protected by governmental immunity, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
In doing so, the high court stands behind laws that protect police from being sued for certain actions they take during police work like chases — but it also hinders bystanders’ ability to get legal relief if they’re endangered in the process.
Austin police officer Michael Bullock and his colleague Brandon Bender chased down a vehicle that sped away after police heard gunshots in a southwest Austin neighborhood in 2018. Bender made a right turn to try to cut off or at least get closer to the suspect. Bullock, who was behind him, hit his brakes but could not avoid crashing into Bender, then Noel Powell, an uninvolved driver waiting at a stop sign in a gray minivan.
In 2019, Houston officer Ricardo Corral also tried to make a right turn while chasing a man during a prostitution sting, whom he and his partner later suspected was driving a stolen car. Corral made a wide turn from the middle lane, hit the curb, then crashed into Ruben Rodriguez and a passenger sitting in a truck at a stop sign.
The victims in both cases sued the cities of Austin and Houston, respectively.
In the Austin opinion, the high court ruled Bullock was not acting recklessly during the chase by being inattentive, failing to control his speed or failing to follow Bender at a safe distance, as Powell's attorneys argued. Even if Bullock was inattentive, speeding and following too closely behind Bender, his actions would only amount to negligence, not recklessness, the court found.
“Officer Bullock was expressly assigned to the chase, authorized to pursue it, and stayed in contact with his supervisors throughout it,” Justice Evan Young wrote on behalf of the court. “He also drove with his lights and siren activated during the chase. These actions affirmatively demonstrate Officer Bullock’s ‘intent to minimize potential harm,’ not his intent to ignore or exacerbate the possible risks posed by a car chase.”
Because the court found Bullock was not reckless, the city of Austin is protected by governmental immunity for his actions under the emergency exception of the Texas Tort Claims Act.
In the Houston case, justices ruled Corral was "acting in good faith" when making his wide right turn despite the crash. Things like speeding and making drastic turns while driving are par for the course in police chases, the court found.
Justices backed the city of Houston’s argument and officer testimony that showed any reasonable officer could have made the same decision.
“While it should go without saying, it bears emphasizing that what may be unreasonable in one context could be justifiable in another, especially in the heat of a high-speed pursuit when officers must make split-second decisions under intense pressure,” Justice John Devine wrote for the court.
Corral had stated he “hit the curb due to the brakes not working,” which the majority of a lower appeals court interpreted to mean Corral’s brakes were defective and the parties would have to prove whether he knew about it and was therefore reckless.
But the Texas Supreme Court dismissed that idea and ruled Corral simply meant his brakes didn’t stop him from crashing into Rodriguez’s car, not that they were defective, pointing to a later clarification in Corral's testimony.
The court dismissed both lawsuits with Tuesday’s rulings. The city of Houston did not have any comment on the court's ruling. The city of Austin applauded the Texas high court's ruling in a statement.
"The City is pleased with the ruling from the Texas Supreme Court, which recognizes the difficult decisions officers must make in responding to emergency situations," the statement reads. "We thank the Court for its time and careful consideration of the legal arguments made in this case.”
Attorneys for Powell and Rodriguez did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The rulings strengthen legal protections carved out for police officers and cities to prevent the government and employees from being punished for conduct intended to protect the public. Getting too specific with rulemaking for police chases is something law enforcement officials say they try to avoid.
However, as Young wrote, the outcome of Powell’s suit shows the law’s consequences for plaintiffs like him, who have few options for legal recourse if they are roped into police chases as a bystander.
“Any of us might find ourself in Powell’s shoes; the very nature of emergency responses is that they are unpredictable,” Young wrote. “Perhaps the current rules best serve the interests of the State as a whole. Or perhaps some other system allowing recovery—even if only to a highly circumscribed degree—for those without fault who are injured as a result of emergency responses would be better.”
But that’s up to the Legislature to decide, not the court, Young added.
In a concurring opinion on Rodriguez’s case, Justice Brett Busby specified that the court’s opinion should not be interpreted as condoning a police chase under those circumstances — that is, alleged solicitation of prostitution, which was a misdemeanor at the time. Some Texas police departments do not authorize chases for low-level, nonviolent crimes.
High-speed chases, Busby pointed out, pose dangerous and sometimes fatal risks to the police, the suspect and the public.
“Incurring those risks may be reasonable and justifiable to stop fleeing suspects who pose a danger to our communities,” Busby wrote. “But unless there is an accompanying reasonable suspicion of potential harm or danger, violent behavior, or other criminal activity, the need to apprehend a suspected nonviolent misdemeanant is unlikely to support official immunity for initiating an urban high-speed pursuit with all the risks such a pursuit entails, especially when information is at hand to later apprehend and identify the suspect.”
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.
