Kennedy v. City of Arlington, Texas, 2026 WL 293322 (5th Cir. 2026)
Police training is hard. It is supposed to be hard. Recruits are pushed physically and mentally to prepare them for the street. But difficulty is not the same thing as a constitutional seizure.
Marquis Kennedy sought employment as a police officer with the City of Arlington, Texas. He passed his physical exam and enrolled in the academy. During a mandatory training block known as “Gracie Survival Tactics,” recruits participated in high-intensity defensive scenarios. During the training session, according to the complaint, Kennedy complained of fatigue, thirst, and lightheadedness. He was not given breaks or water and he continued participating, allegedly because he feared failing and having to repeat the training.
Timely legal analysis on law enforcement-related cases: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
During the final scenario, Kennedy signaled distress. Instructors continued the exercise until he could no longer proceed. Afterward, he requested an ambulance. He was assisted to a break room, later suffered cardiac arrest, and died two days later. The autopsy listed cardiac arrest, likely due to underlying atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
His widow sued, alleging excessive force, substantive due process violation, deliberate indifference to medical needs, bystander liability, and municipal liability. The trial court dismissed the case.
The Fourth Amendment applies when the government seizes a person — when there is intentional governmental restraint of freedom of movement. Training is not a seizure. The court held there was no plausible allegation that Kennedy was restrained in the constitutional sense. He voluntarily enrolled in the academy. Participation in a mandatory training exercise, even one that is difficult, does not constitute a constitutional seizure.
Compulsion in training is not the same as seizure in the Fourth Amendment sense. A recruit who feels pressure to perform does not equal constitutional restraint.
The Constitution regulates government power over citizens — not the internal structure of employment training. That distinction mattered. The plaintiff argued that continuing the exercise despite signs of distress violated substantive due process. Substantive due process protects against government conduct that “shocks the conscience.” The court of appeals found no such conscience-shocking conduct here. The allegations described demanding training — not intentional harm or reckless abuse of power. Hard training, even arguably flawed training, does not automatically become constitutional misconduct.
The court also held there is no constitutional duty of medical care during voluntary academy training. In contrast, there is a constitutional duty to provide medical care to people in custody — prisoners, detainees, arrestees — because the state has restricted those individuals’ ability to care for themselves. But Kennedy was not in custody; he was an employee in training. The court held there is no constitutional duty of medical care in an employment context. The Constitution does not federalize workplace safety standards. That is the role of state tort law, employment law, or regulatory frameworks — not § 1983.
The court also said that without an underlying constitutional violation, there can be no bystander liability and no municipal liability.
The Constitution does not convert workplace tragedies into federal civil rights violations. Federal civil rights law is not OSHA. It is not HR policy. It is not a negligence statute. It governs constitutional restraints on government power; not every tragic outcome involving a government employee.
“Seizure” has a specific meaning. Compulsion in training is not the same as seizure in the Fourth Amendment sense. A recruit who feels pressure to perform does not equal constitutional restraint.
Yes, police training should be safe and professional. Agencies should examine practices when tragedy occurs. But tragedy does not equal § 1983 liability. Courts repeatedly remind litigants of this principle. Not every injury caused by a government actor is a constitutional violation. Some cases belong in state court, some belong in administrative review, and some belong in internal policy reform. Not all belong in federal civil rights litigation.
- Tip Sheets
