The U.S. Supreme Court is sending a chilling message to gun owners when it comes to encounters with police: comply or die.
In refusing to hear an appeal in Argueta v. Jaradi, the Supreme Court is allowing a lower court ruling to stand, which threatens to erode Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable use of force by police for all citizens who exercise their Second Amendment rights or who are just mistakenly thought to be carrying a gun. In urging the Court to hear the case, The Rutherford Institute had warned that allowing the Fifth Circuit’s ruling to stand could contribute to a rise in the number of incidents in which police officers shoot and kill armed citizens who pose no threat. For instance, among those shot by police in recent years merely for possessing a gun during an encounter with police were Roger Fortson, a Senior Airman with the U.S. Air Force, who was killed at his apartment in Florida; Philando Castile, who was shot during a traffic stop in Minnesota; and Andrew Scott, who was killed during a late-night “knock and talk” by police carried out at the wrong address.
“No one should have to choose between their constitutional rights or give up one right to exercise another,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “With every ruling handed down, it becomes more apparent that we live in an age of hollow justice where the courts have become fixated on siding with government agents rather than with safeguarding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.”
In Argueta v. Jaradi, a police officer killed an 18-year-old by shooting him in the back, allegedly without warning, based on the officer’s suspicion that he had a gun merely because of the way he ran away from a questionable traffic stop. According to allegations in the lawsuit, around 3:00 a.m. on June 25, 2018, Luis Argueta drove with his girlfriend to a convenience store in Galveston, Texas. Police officer Jaradi and his partner pulled into the parking lot and observed Argueta in the store and then driving out of the parking lot. The officers later saw Argueta driving and claimed that the car lights were off and that Argueta rolled through several stop signs before the officer’s dashcam started recording. But dashcam video then shows that Argueta’s lights were on and that he stopped at all stop signs and moved at a moderate speed. Police followed Argueta for a few blocks before turning on their emergency lights. Argueta quickly exited the car and ran away toward a vacant lot across the street. Only Argueta’s left side was visible to the officers, and he kept his right arm pressed against his side. Within seconds, Officer Jaradi shot Argueta twice in the back without warning, suspecting that Argueta was holding a firearm because of how he ran. Jaradi’s partner said he didn’t know why Jaradi shot Argueta, who died on the scene.
Argueta’s family filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Jaradi. Although the district court denied Jaradi’s motion for qualified immunity, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of Officer Jaradi. In calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and deny qualified immunity for the officer, The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief arguing that keeping one’s arm and hand from view while running, without any other indication of a threat, does not objectively suggest a person is armed and dangerous to justify the use of deadly force.
Paige H. Sharpe, Anand Agneshwar, Kirby Mayo, and Lauren S. Wulfe of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP advanced the arguments in the Argueta v. Jaradi amicus brief.
