Page 23 - TPA Journal July-August 2025
P. 23

Facts of  Barnes (from the Supreme Court opin-       Procedural History, (from the Supreme Court
        ion):                                                opinion, citations omitted):


        “On the afternoon of  April 28, 2016, Roberto        “Barnes’s mother, Janice Barnes, sued Felix on
        Felix, Jr., a law enforcement officer patrolling a   her son’s behalf.  The suit, brought under  42
        highway outside Houston, received a radio alert      U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that Felix had violated
        about an automobile on the road with outstanding     Ashtian Barnes’s Fourth  Amendment rights by
        toll violations. Felix soon spotted the car, a Toyota  using excessive force against him.
        Corolla, and turned on his emergency lights to ini-
        tiate a traffic stop.  The driver,  Ashtian Barnes,  The District Court granted summary judgment to
        pulled over to the highway’s shoulder.               Felix. The court explained that to prevail on her
                                                             claim, Mrs. Barnes needed to show that Felix’s
        Parking his own car just behind, Felix walked to     use of force was “objectively unreasonable.”. In
        the Corolla’s driver-side door and asked Barnes      the usual excessive-force case, the court noted, the
        for his license and proof of insurance. Barnes       inquiry into reasonableness would involve consid-
        replied that he did not have his license with him,   ering a variety of circumstances.  But when an
        and that the car was a rental in his girlfriend’s    officer has used deadly force, the court continued,
        name.  As he spoke, Barnes rummaged through          “the Fifth Circuit has developed a much narrower
        some papers inside the car, causing Felix to tell    approach.”  Then, a court could ask only about the
        him several times to stop “digging around.” Felix    situation existing “at the moment of the threat”
        also commented that he smelled marijuana, and        that sparked the fatal shooting.  The District Court
        asked if there was anything in the car he should     identified that moment as “the two seconds before
        know about. Barnes responded that he might have      Felix fired his first shot,” when he was standing on
        some identification in the trunk. So Felix told him  the doorsill of a moving vehicle.  At that moment,
        to open the trunk from his seat. Barnes did so,      the court found, an officer could reasonably think
        while also turning off the ignition. All that hap-   himself “at risk of serious harm.”  And under the
        pened (as a dashcam recording of the incident        Fifth Circuit’s rule, that fact alone concluded the
        shows) in less than two minutes.                     analysis. The court explained that it could not con-
                                                             sider “what had transpired up until” those last two
        Then things began moving even faster. With his       seconds, including Felix’s decision to jump onto
        right hand resting on his holster, Felix told Barnes  the sill.  Although a “more robust examination”
        to get out of the car. Barnes opened the door but    might have aided in assessing the reasonableness
        did not exit; instead, he turned the ignition back   of the shooting, the court was “duty bound” by
        on. Felix unholstered his gun and, as the car began  “Circuit precedent” to “limit[ its] focus” to the
        to move forward, jumped onto its doorsill. He        “exact moment Felix was hanging onto Barnes’s”
        twice shouted, “Don’t fucking move.” And with        moving car.’
        no visibility into the car (because his head was
        above the roof), he fired two quick shots inside.    The [5 th  Circuit] Court of  Appeals affirmed,
        Barnes was hit, but managed to stop the car. Felix   explaining that it too was “[b]ound” by “this
        then radioed for back-up. By the time it arrived,    Circuit’s moment of threat doctrine.”   Under that
        Barnes was dead.  All told, about five seconds       rule, the panel agreed, the “inquiry is confined to
        elapsed between when the car started moving and      whether the officer[ ]” was “in danger at the
        when it stopped. And within that period, two sec-    moment of the threat that resulted in [his] use of
        onds passed between the moment Felix stepped on      deadly force.”  Any prior events “leading up to the
        the doorsill and the moment he fired his first       shooting,” including actions the officer took, were
        shot.”                                               simply “not relevant.”   And here, as the District
                                                             Court found, the “precise moment of the threat”


        July - Aug 2025          www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140                         19
   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28