Bibbs, et al v. City of Lubbock, TX, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-11011
PATRICIA BIBBS; EZIL BIBBS;
HAMPTON UNIVERSITY; VANETTA KELSO,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CITY OF LUBBOCK, TX; ET AL,
Defendants,
MIKE OVERLAND, Individually
and in his official capacity,
Defendant-Appellee
_______________
No. 99-11379
_______________
PATRICIA BIBBS; EZIL BIBBS;
HAMPTON UNIVERSITY; VANETTA KELSO,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS; ET AL,
Defendants,
CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS;
KEN WALKER, Individually and in his
official capacity as Police Chief;
DAVID HOUSER, Individually and in his official capacity;
KEITH JOBE, Individually and in his official capacity;
McNEILL, Individually and in his official capacity;
OFFICER HEARRON, Individually and in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court

-- 1 of 2 --

* District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting
by designation.
** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
For the Northern District of Texas
(5:99-CV-193-C)
November 28, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges, and KENT*, District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:**
This case arises from an unfortunate incident in which members
of the Lubbock Police Department arrested persons who proved to be
innocent. With the benefit of briefs and able oral argument, we
are persuaded that the judgment entered below should be affirmed
for essentially the reasons stated by the trial court.
We add only the observation that police officers enjoy
qualified immunity from liability for money damages. This legal
protection reflects the fundamental principle that the officers
should not be mulcted in damages for law enforcement decisions a
reasonable police officer might make given the facts as they then
appeared to be – even though later their decision proves to have
been a mistake. Our recognition of this protection does not imply
that we approve of the officers’ decisions. Mistakes were made and
acknowledged.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --