Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Houston police picked up a probationer, Ryan Baxter, whom they found intoxicated. Baxter admitted to purchasing crack cocaine earlier in the evening, so he offered to tell the officers about his dealer in exchange for his release. Though it was against department regulations to act on a tip from a probationer without first contacting the probation authority, the officers had Baxter call his dealer and set up a buy. Their first attempt failed when the dealer did not answer the door to his apartment when Baxter knocked. In a second attempt, several officers entered the dealer’s apartment without a warrant. As the officers went further into the apartment, one officer accidentally shot another officer in the back. This set off a gun battle that resulted in the shooting death of the dealer’s brother, Pedro Oregon Navarro. No drugs were found in the apartment or in Navarro’s system. A gun was found near Navarro’s body. An internal investigation at the police department concluded that six officers had violated several department general orders and they were fired. The officers were not, however, indicted for murder. Navarro’s estate and family filed a federal civil rights suit against Houston and also raised claims under the state Wrongful Death and Tort Claims Acts. The federal court granted summary judgment to the city in the civil rights case, but the state law claims were eventually dismissed without prejudice. The trial court on the state law claims granted the city’s plea to the jurisdiction. HOLDING:Affirmed. Looking at the Tort Claims Act, the court finds that a governmental entity does not waive its sovereign immunity for a personal injury or death if those claims arise out of an intentional tort. While Navarro’s family says that officers were negligent and that the proximate cause of Navarro’s death was the accidental shooting of one police officer by the other. The court disagrees, finding the ultimate focus of the estate’s claim to be on the shooting of Navarro. Despite the alleged negligence in shooting the officer, the pleadings demonstrate that the officers intended to shoot Navarro because they believed, albeit incorrectly, that he was armed and dangerous. Although the officers may not have intended their initial actions, they did intend the ultimate injury: shooting Navarro. OPINION:Keyes, J.; Radack, C.J., Keyes and Bland, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.