The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that the totality of circumstances must be evaluated when determining whether a police shooting is justified. This decision emphasizes that it's not just the split seconds before an officer opens fire that should be considered. The ruling stems from a case involving the tragic fatal shooting of a Black man, Ashtian Barnes, in Texas, and this broader standard is likely to facilitate the process for victims to prove allegations of excessive force in court.
The high court revived a lawsuit filed by the mother of Ashtian Barnes, a 24-year-old who was shot by law enforcement officer Roberto Felix Jr. in Harris County, Texas. Barnes was pulled over during a stop for suspected toll violations in the Houston area. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had previously upheld a lower court’s summary judgment in favor of Officer Felix, citing the circuit’s “moment of threat rule.” This rule required assessing whether the officer was “in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in his use of deadly force.”
In a significant shift, the Supreme Court justices sent the lawsuit back to lower courts for reconsideration under a more comprehensive analysis. Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the opinion for the court, stated, “To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment.” This ruling may reshape how courts across the nation evaluate police use of force cases.
The incident occurred in April 2016 when Officer Felix received a radio call indicating that the license plate of Barnes’s vehicle matched one with outstanding toll violations. Unbeknownst to Barnes, who was driving a rental car, he was stopped by Felix. When instructed to exit the vehicle, Barnes attempted to drive away. In a swift reaction, Felix jumped onto the doorsill and fired two shots into the car. Tragically, Barnes was mortally wounded but managed to bring the vehicle to a stop. Notably, only two seconds elapsed between Felix stepping on the doorsill and firing his first shot.
The Supreme Court has established that law enforcement officers can be held liable if they use deadly force without a reasonable belief that an individual presents an imminent threat of harm. Historically, four of the nation’s twelve federal circuits employed the “moment of threat” standard to justify police shootings, while the remaining eight circuits utilized a “totality of circumstances” analysis. The moment of threat standard restricts judges from considering the officer’s actions leading up to the shooting, even when those actions might have contributed to the escalation of the encounter.
While the appeals court ruled in favor of the officer, one judge on the panel, Patrick E. Higginbotham, urged the high court to clarify how judges should assess the reasonableness and constitutionality of deadly force. He pointed out that a routine traffic stop had again ended in the death of an unarmed Black man, highlighting the troubling pattern in such cases. Higginbotham criticized the narrow standard used by the 5th Circuit, arguing that it constrains judges to consider only the “precise millisecond” when an officer deploys deadly force, failing to recognize the broader context of the situation.
The court announced its ruling on Peace Officers Memorial Day, a day dedicated to honoring slain officers, coinciding with National Police Week. During this week, hundreds of officers gather in Washington, D.C. to remember their fallen comrades. While there is no indication that the timing of the ruling was intentional, it underscores the complex relationship between law enforcement practices and community safety.
