Texas Cop Who Killed Unarmed Man Is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas denied qualified immunity—a legal doctrine that protects local and state government officials from civil liability unless their actions violate a clearly established constitutional right—to Shane Iverson, a former deputy of Rusk County, on May 27. This upholds a previous ruling by Magistrate Judge John D. Love, clearing the way for a civil rights lawsuit to proceed. Iverson fatally shot Timothy Michael Randall, an unarmed 29-year-old, during a traffic stop on September 14, 2022. Randall’s family has filed a federal lawsuit alleging excessive force, unlawful arrest, and emotional distress.

Randall was stopped by Iverson around 12:30 a.m. in Turnertown, Texas, for allegedly running a stop sign. Dashcam footage shows the encounter escalated when Iverson attempted to detain Randall, who tried to flee but was fatally shot by a single bullet that struck his chest. 

Although a grand jury had previously declined to indict Iverson, citing insufficient grounds for criminal charges, Love and now District Judge Jeremy Kernodle have concluded there is enough evidence to question the constitutionality of Iverson’s actions. In particular, Kernodle highlighted video evidence that showed Randall’s open hands raised in surrender as he turned to flee, contradicting Iverson’s claim of being in imminent danger.

Iverson told investigators that after he asked Randall to step out of the vehicle, he “made a ‘furtive gesture’ with his right hand that made him think he might have a weapon.” During a pat-down, Iverson felt a soft, rectangular object in Randall’s pants and, upon squeezing it, detected something small and hard, making him think it might be a mini revolver. It was later revealed to be a meth pipe. 

The accompanying dashcam footage shows that during the pat-down, Randall resists Iverson’s attempts to restrain him while repeatedly saying, “Officer, I don’t have anything on me.” Seconds later, Iverson throws Randall to the ground, which he told investigators he did because he was concerned Randall might reach a perceived weapon. Randall quickly recovers and attempts to flee, but is shot by a kneeling Iverson, who alleged he felt threatened in his compromised position and only fired a single shot in self-defense.

Love disputed Iverson’s story in his January recommendation concerning qualified immunity. Love questioned Iverson’s claim of witnessing a traffic violation from over 1,100 feet away, citing the ambiguity of the dashcam video, reports KLTV, the local ABC News affiliate. There was no evidence of Randall causing bodily injury to Iverson, and his resistance was primarily verbal, with the only physical contact stemming from the officer’s escalating use of force. Randall never threatened Iverson with a weapon, and he had not committed a crime causing serious harm, said Love.

Love also noted Iverson issued his warning simultaneously with the fatal shot, rendering it ineffective. Joseph Oxman, who is representing the Randall family, told NBC News, “I think it’s the worst police shooting I’ve ever seen.”

Iverson’s actions were also criticized by use-of-force experts and former officers like criminology professor David Klinger, who said, “It doesn’t make any sense why he shot the guy.” 

“What really made the defendant’s argument for qualified immunity utterly ridiculous is we have the video of everything that happened,” Oxman tells Reason. “Judge Love said objectively, not subjectively, objectively, a jury could find that Shane Iverson violated the civil rights of Timothy Michael Randall.”

Oxman doesn’t necessarily think the trial will set a precedent for future qualified immunity cases or change current laws. However, he’s hopeful that the jury will “send a big message to law enforcement [that] they better get their act together.”

Qualified immunity expert Benson Varghese agrees, telling Reason that the ruling doesn’t reflect a shift in the court’s approach to qualified immunity, but rather the egregious nature of the case. “We have an unarmed victim with empty hands that were visible to the officer,” Varghese explains. “The officer’s justification for the shooting was weak…we have a clear video that shows the victim fleeing without posing a threat.” Courts, he adds, are increasingly relying on objective video evidence over officers’ subjective beliefs—the exact reasoning used by both Love and Kernodle in denying qualified immunity.

Iverson’s attorney, Robert Davis, the Rusk County District Attorney’s Office, and the Rusk County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to Reason‘s request for comment.

The rejection of Iverson’s qualified immunity claim is a rare and notable victory for civil liberties advocates who’ve long argued that the doctrine shields law enforcement officers who abuse their power from legal repercussions. The trial to determine whether Iverson violated Randall’s constitutional rights is scheduled to begin May 18, 2026. 

The post Texas Cop Who Killed Unarmed Man Is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity appeared first on Reason.com.