Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Moment of Threat Test
The Supreme Court has previously held that when a police officer uses deadly force, he violates the Fourth Amendment when the force used is not “objectively reasonable.” To determine the reasonableness of the force, the Supreme Court requires an assessment of the “totality of the circumstances.” The Fifth Circuit developed a narrower test that only required consideration whether the circumstances existing “at the moment of the threat” triggering the use of deadly force were reasonable. If the officer could reasonably think himself “at risk of serious harm,” that fact alone concludes the Fifth Circuit’s analysis. In a rare unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s test.
The case before the Supreme Court stemmed from the use of deadly force by Deputy Constable Roberto Felix of Harris County Precinct 5 when conducting a traffic stop on a highway outside Houston in April 2016. Deputy Constable Felix received a radio alert about an automobile on the road with outstanding toll violations. He spotted the car, pulled it over, and encountered the driver, Ashtian Barnes. Deputy Constable Felix asked Barnes for his license and proof of insurance. Barnes responded that he did not have his license with him and that the vehicle was a rental in his girlfriend’s name.
Barnes told Deputy Constable Felix that he may have identification in the trunk. Deputy Constable Felix directed Barnes to open the trunk. Barnes complied and also turned off the car. Deputy Constable Felix told Barnes to exit the car. Barnes opened the door but did not exit. Barnes instead turned the ignition back on. Deputy Constable Felix unholstered his gun. The car began to move forward, and Deputy Constable Felix jumped onto the doorsill. With Deputy Constable Felix’s head above the car, he had no visibility into the car. Deputy Constable Felix shouted, “Don’t fucking move!” He then fired two shots inside the vehicle. Barnes was hit. Two seconds elapsed from when Deputy Constable Felix stepped on the doorsill and shot Barnes.
Barnes died from the gunshot wound. His mother, Janice Barnes, sued Deputy Constable Felix on her son’s behalf under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Deputy Constable Felix violated Barnes’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force. Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s moment of the threat test, the district court granted summary judgment to Deputy Constable Felix. The district court identified the moment of the threat as the two seconds before Deputy Constable Felix shot Barnes. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the court of appeals affirmed, stating that the test only required consideration whether the officer was “in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in [his] use of deadly force” and any prior events leading up to the shooting were “not relevant.”
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether in resolving Fourth Amendment excessive force claims, courts may apply the moment of threat test. It held that they cannot because the rule constricts the proper inquiry into the “totality of the circumstances.” The Supreme Court stated that there is no “easy-to-apply legal test” or “on/off switch” when analyzing the totality of the circumstances. It demands attention to the facts and circumstances relating to the incident as known to the officer. This includes the severity of the crime prompting the stop, the actions of the officer conducting the stop, and the stopped person’s conduct. The Supreme Court stated that the totality of the circumstances inquiry has no time limit and earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded. Because the moment of threat rule prevents attention to the context and conflicts with the Supreme Court’s instruction to analyze the totality of the circumstances, the unanimous Court rejected it.
The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case to be analyzed under the totality of the circumstances.