In Barnes v. Felix, published May 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court reversed summary judgment granted to the defendant police officer in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case. The defendant officer pulled a suspect's car over for outstanding toll violations. During the stop, the suspect stated he did not have his license with him, and that the car was a rental in his girlfriend's name. The suspect rummaged through papers in the car, despite orders to stop doing so. The officer commented he smelled marijuana. The suspect said he had identification in his truck. The officer told the suspect to open the trunk from his seat. He did so, and turned off his ignition. The officer ordered the suspect out of the car. Instead, the suspect started the car again. The officer unholstered his gun. As the car moved forward, the officer jumped onto the car's doorsill. He twice ordered the suspect not to move. WIth no visibility into the car, he fired two shots inside. The suspect was killed. Between the car starting and when iit stopped, five seconds passed. Two seconds passed between the officer jumping on the windowsill and the first shot. The decedent's mother alleged the officer violated the 4th Amendment by using excessive force. The district court granted the officer summary judgment, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, by applying the 5th Circuit's approach of analyzing officers' use of lethal force: looking only at the situation existing "at the moment of threat" that sparked the fatal shooting. That moment was two seconds before the first shot. Since the officer was on the windowsill of a moving vehicle, the threat to the officer at that point justified use of deadly force. Any prior events leading up to the shooting were irrelevant.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the "at the moment of threat" approach. The touchstone of whether use of force violated the 4th Amendment is whether the use was reasonable. Whether police force was reasonable requires analyzing the totality of circumstances. Determining reasonableness demands careful attention to the facts and circumstances relating to the incident, as then known to the officer. The totality of the circumstances inquiry into a use of force has no time limit. While the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often be what matters most, earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones. Considering prior events may benefit either party in an excessive-force case. The moment-of-threat rule conflicts with the instruction to consider the totality of circumstances. The court must look at any relevant event coming before the moment of risk. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the lower court to apply the proper standard.
A concurring opinion by one justice, joined by three others, asserted that when analyzing the reasonableness of an officer's conduct at a traffic stop, particularly where the driver has suddenly pulled away, courts must appreciate the dangers and risks officers and the community at large face.
Leave a Reply