The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a pivotal case concerning police immunity and the use of deadly force, stemming from a 2016 incident in Houston, Texas. The case involves Harris County Constable Roberto Felix Jr., who fatally shot 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes during a traffic stop over unpaid tolls. The central issue before the Court is whether to assess police conduct based solely on the “moment of threat” or to consider the “totality of the circumstances” leading up to the use of force.
On April 28, 2016, Officer Felix pulled over Barnes, who was driving a rented Toyota Corolla flagged for outstanding toll violations. During the stop, Barnes was unable to produce a driver’s license or proof of insurance and suggested they might be in the trunk. Felix claimed to detect the smell of marijuana, though no drugs were found in the vehicle. When Felix ordered Barnes to exit the car, Barnes began to drive away. Felix then jumped onto the driver’s door sill and, perceiving a threat to his safety, fired two shots, resulting in Barnes’ death.
Barnes’ mother, Janice Hughes, filed a lawsuit alleging that Felix used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Lower courts, including the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed the case, focusing solely on the immediate threat Felix perceived during the incident. However, during recent Supreme Court arguments, justices questioned whether a broader evaluation of the circumstances should be applied. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that the “two-second rule is not the law,” indicating a potential shift toward considering the events leading up to the use of force.
The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by early summer, could significantly impact how excessive force claims against law enforcement are evaluated. A ruling favoring the “totality of the circumstances” approach may pave the way for more lawsuits against officers, potentially altering the legal landscape of police accountability. Conversely, maintaining the “moment of threat” standard could uphold existing protections for officers, emphasizing the split-second decisions they often must make.
