Here’s a summary and analysis of the case Nazario v. Gutierrez, No. 23-1620 (4th Cir. May 31, 2024). You can read the opinion by clicking here.
Summary of Facts & Procedural History
• Plaintiff-Appellant is Caron Nazario, an Army officer, who was stopped by officers Joe Gutierrez and Daniel Crocker of the Town of Windsor, Virginia, on December 5, 2020.
• The stop began when Nazario was driving a Chevrolet Tahoe west on US 460 in Windsor. The officers initiated the stop, pulled him over, and the interaction escalated.
• According to Nazario’s claim, during the stop Gutierrez pointed a gun, threatened that Nazario was “fixin’ to ride the lightning, son,” told him “you should be [afraid to exit the vehicle],” sprayed him with OC (pepper spray), knee-struck him, and physically forced him from his vehicle.
• The district court in the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in part, concluding the officers had probable cause to arrest Nazario for misdemeanors under Virginia law (including eluding, obstruction of justice, failure to obey), granted qualified immunity to the officers on several constitutional claims, and allowed a jury to proceed on other claims (illegal search, common-law assault/battery/false imprisonment).
• At trial, the jury found in favor of the officers for the most part; Gutierrez was found liable for a common-law assault claim and awarded $2,685 in compensatory damages.
• Nazario appealed. On review, the 4th Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Specifically:
o The Court held that the officers did have probable cause for at least a traffic infraction and for one misdemeanor (obstruction of justice) but did not have probable cause for the misdemeanors of eluding (Va. Code § 46.2-817) or failure to obey a conservator of the peace (Va. Code § 18.2-464).
o The 4th Circuit reversed the grant of qualified immunity to Gutierrez on Nazario’s Fourth Amendment “unreasonable seizure” claim (i.e., that the seizure was unlawfully prolonged by the threats, force, and conduct) because a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Gutierrez’s threats combined with his gun and force violated clearly established law.
o The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that decision.
Key Legal Holdings
• Probable cause: The Court reaffirmed that, on summary judgment, the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non‐movant. The Court concluded that while there was probable cause for a traffic stop and for one misdemeanor (obstruction of justice), the officers did not have probable cause for the eluding or failure to obey misdemeanors under Virginia law because a reasonable officer would not believe Nazario committed those offenses based on the undisputed facts.
• Qualified immunity & unreasonable seizure: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures. The Court held that an officer’s use of threats of deadly force (and pointing a gun) can contribute to an unreasonable seizure if it measurably prolongs a stop beyond the mission of the traffic stop. The Court found that the law was sufficiently clearly established that such conduct could violate the Fourth Amendment, so Gutierrez was not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.
• Impact of threats/death threats: The Court specifically held that if the officer’s words amounted to “death threats,” then that conduct takes the officer outside the protection of qualified immunity. The Court treated that as a question of fact (whether the words were such threats), such that the jury must decide.
Analysis and Implications
• Significance for law enforcement conduct: The decision highlights that not only physical force but also verbal threats (especially when an officer draws a weapon and says “you’re about to ride the lightning”) may make an otherwise routine stop unlawful if they “prolong” or transform the stop into a coercive seizure. This is particularly useful precedent for plaintiffs in § 1983 cases.
• Mission of the stop & prolongation doctrine: The case reinforces the Supreme Court’s rule (in cases like Rodriguez v. United States) that a traffic stop must be limited to duration necessary to handle the traffic infraction and related mission. Here the Court says the “mission” of the stop must exclude new, coercive threats and force that arise after the initial justification. Because Gutierrez’s conduct arguably extended the duration (or effect) of the stop, the seizure claim survives.
• Qualified immunity narrowing: By refusing to extend qualified immunity when threats of deadly force are made, the Fourth Circuit signals it will not shield officers who escalate stops with verbally menacing conduct. That may reduce qualified immunity barriers in similar future cases.
• Practical advice for officers/defense counsel: Officers must be aware that drawing a weapon and using threatening language (even when arguably lawful) may push a stop into a constitutionally problematic zone. Defense counsel should ensure the record shows a clear, non‐coercive process and that any use of force was objectively reasonable under Graham factors (see Graham v. Connor).
• For plaintiffs and civil rights advocates: The decision offers a clearer path to claim that verbal threats plus firearms can constitute an unreasonable seizure, not just excessive force. The fact issue of whether words plus gestures constitute a “death threat” is important.
• Limitations & open questions:
o The case does not hold that every pulling of a gun is automatically unlawful seizure; rather, context matters.
o The question of eluding remains for the jury: the Court did not decide that Nazario did not commit the misdemeanor of eluding—only that, viewing the facts in his favor, probable cause wasn’t established as a matter of law. So for future litigation, whether a given stop qualifies for prolongation still depends on facts.
o The decision leaves some claims untouched (for example, the illegal search claim against Crocker continues).
o Qualified immunity remains strong in other contexts; the Court’s holding is limited to the specific facts of this stop (gun, threats, escalation) so it doesn’t rewrite qualified immunity law universally.
Bottom Line
Nazario v. Gutierrez is a significant Fourth Circuit decision that tightens the boundary around when a traffic stop morphs into unconstitutional seizure based on officer conduct beyond the traffic violation. The Court shows that officers cannot shield themselves with qualified immunity if their conduct (weapon drawn + threats + force) reasonably could be viewed as prolonging the stop beyond its mission. For civil rights litigants this is a win; for law enforcement it is a cautionary tale.
The Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries, severe burns, commercial plane crashes and commercial trucking crashes nationwide, and especially in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. James E. Girards is a private pilot licensed to fly single- and multi-engine aircraft in both visual and instrument conditions. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.