Belligerence, Blood Draws & Body Cams: Why Amanda Wood’s Lawsuit Failed

Wood v. Bexar County, No. 24-51006 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025)

Summary

Holding: The U.S. Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal of all claims brought by Amanda Wood against Deputy Gereb and Bexar County. The court found the officer had probable cause to arrest her for DWI, and that the alleged constitutional violations — including excessive force, retaliatory arrest, and malicious prosecution — were either unsupported by evidence or barred by qualified immunity.

Importance: This case clarifies that refusal to perform field sobriety tests, when combined with other signs of intoxication, can establish probable cause. It also reinforces the principle that profane, uncooperative, and erratic behavior captured on body camera footage can override competing testimony.

Limits: Officers must still have objective facts to justify their stops and arrests — but subjective motives, lack of tickets, or minor injuries from handcuffing don’t automatically create liability. Allegations alone — without evidence — won’t overcome qualified immunity.

Facts

Around 2:00 AM on August 4, 2019, Amanda Wood and her husband were driving in Bexar County, Texas, after leaving her grandmother’s birthday party. According to Deputy Joe Gereb, Wood was speeding (60 in a 45), failed to maintain her lane, and exhibited erratic driving behavior.

When Deputy Gereb stopped the car, he smelled alcohol and noted Wood’s glossy eyes, slurred speech, and belligerent tone. Wood refused field sobriety testing and invoked her right to film the encounter. Gereb handcuffed her and placed her in the back of his patrol car, awaiting a DWI unit officer, Deputy Brent Bible.

Wood’s version differs. She claims she wasn’t drinking or driving erratically, that she was harassed with “too personal” questions, and that the arrest was based solely on her refusal to cooperate. She alleges her arms were violently twisted during the arrest and that Gereb deleted the video from her phone (which was never recovered).

What followed is all on video:

• Wood was profane, hostile, and erratic during her interaction with Deputy Bible.

• She slurred her words, repeated that she didn’t consent to anything, and yelled obscenities.

• At jail, she actively resisted officers during a court-ordered blood draw.

• It took five officers to restrain her. She repeatedly called them “f**king f*gots,” “retards,” and “b***hes.”

A court-approved warrant allowed for the blood draw. Despite her resistance, the officers completed the draw without injury. Toxicology showed a blood alcohol level of 0.019 three hours post-arrest. An expert estimated she was likely between 0.05 and 0.11 at the time of driving — near or above the legal limit. The DWI charge was eventually dropped, and Wood filed a civil rights lawsuit.

Issues

1. Did Deputy Gereb violate the Fourth Amendment by arresting Wood without probable cause?

2. Did her arrest constitute First Amendment retaliation for filming police?

3. Did the officer lie in the warrant affidavit (Franks claim)?

4. Did the blood draw and handcuffing rise to the level of excessive force?

5. Was Bexar County liable under Monell for any of the above?

6. Were her evidentiary objections properly handled?

Court’s Decision (Holding)

The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all defendants. It held that:

• There was probable cause for the arrest based on objective signs of intoxication and refusal to cooperate.

• Wood failed to show any clearly established law was violated.

• Her First Amendment, malicious prosecution, and excessive force claims lacked legal merit or evidentiary support.

• Bexar County was not liable under Monell because there was no constitutional violation to begin with.

Reasoning

1. Probable Cause & False Arrest

The court noted that refusal to perform sobriety tests, combined with signs of intoxication (slurred speech, belligerence, and the strong smell of alcohol), gave Deputy Gereb probable cause to arrest. Even if Wood later tested below 0.08, the totality of the circumstances supported the decision at the time.

2. Retaliatory Arrest (First Amendment)

Because there was probable cause, the court applied Nieves v. Bartlett, which bars First Amendment retaliation claims unless the plaintiff proves similarly situated individuals weren’t arrested. Wood failed to do that — and her husband wasn’t a valid comparator because he wasn’t driving.

3. Franks v. Delaware Claim

Wood accused Deputy Gereb of falsely stating that she smelled like alcohol and was swaying. But the court found the smell was undisputed, and even removing the other statements, probable cause still existed. No Franks violation.

4. Excessive Force

Wood alleged unnecessary force in handcuffing and "torture" during the blood draw. The court found:

• No injury from the handcuffs = no excessive force claim.

• Jail video confirmed she was combative and physically resisting.

• Force used to restrain her for the court-authorized blood draw was reasonable and proportional.

5. Monell Claims Against Bexar County

Because no constitutional violations occurred, no municipal liability could follow. Even if policies existed that Wood disagreed with, there was no underlying violation to link them to.

6. Evidentiary Rulings

Wood objected to videos, affidavits, and reports. The court dismissed these objections as procedural misunderstandings or irrelevant, affirming the evidence was admissible at the summary judgment stage.

Street Takeaways (for Law Enforcement)

• Refusal to cooperate with field sobriety tests, when paired with observable indicators of intoxication, can support probable cause.

• Video footage can make or break a case — especially body-worn or jail surveillance video.

• Warranted blood draws are enforceable, even against combative subjects — but must be carried out reasonably and documented clearly.

• Belligerence and profanity are not enough to trigger civil liability unless excessive force is used in return.

• Just because charges are dismissed doesn’t mean a constitutional violation occurred — qualified immunity still applies.

• Franks claims require not just false statements in warrant affidavits, but ones that affect probable cause — and that’s a high bar.

Disclaimer

This post is for training and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Officers should consult agency policies and legal counsel when applying case law to real-world scenarios.