Page 24 - TPA Journal July-August 2025

was the “two seconds” when Felix was clinging to they may show why such an officer would have
a moving car. Because Felix could then have rea- perceived the same conduct as innocuous. The his-
sonably believed his life in danger, the panel con- tory of the interaction, as well as other past cir-
cluded, his decision to shoot “did not violate cumstances known to the officer, thus may inform
Barnes’s constitutional rights.” the reasonableness of the use of force. … A court
deciding a use-of-force case cannot review the
We granted certiorari to address whether, in totality of the circumstances if it has put on
resolving Fourth Amendment excessive-force chronological blinders.
claims, courts may apply the moment-of-threat
rule just described. We hold they may not because In a concurring opinion in the Fifth Circuit case,
that rule constricts the proper inquiry into the Judge Higginbotham (who also authored the panel
“totality of the circumstances.” opinion) expressed “concern” with the Fifth
Circuit’s moment-of-threat doctrine. He thought
Discussion (excerpted from the Sup. Ct. opinion): that rule inconsistent with this Court’s directive to
assess the reasonableness of an officer’s use of
A claim that a law enforcement officer used exces- force, including deadly force, by “look[ing] to the
sive force during a stop or arrest is “analyzed totality of circumstances.” Under the totality
under the Fourth Amendment.” The “touchstone approach, Judge Higginbotham wrote, a court
of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’ ” as could consider not just the “precise millisecond”
measured in objective terms. So the question in a when an officer deploys force, but everything that
case like this one, as this Court has often held, is “ha[d] transpired up until” that time. And with
whether the force deployed was justified from that wider focus, Judge Higginbotham would have
“the perspective of a reasonable officer on the found that Felix’s shooting of Barnes was unrea-
scene,” taking due account of both the individual sonable.“
interests and the governmental interests at stake.
There is no “easy-to-apply legal test” or “on/off Analysis (by the ed.):
switch” in this context. Rather, the Fourth
Amendment requires, as we once put it, that a The Supreme Court rules that the “moment
court “slosh [its] way through” a “factbound of threat” analysis of the Fifth circuit is too narrow
morass.” [Which] demands “careful attention to to apply to Fourth Amendment force cases to
the facts and circumstances” relating to the inci- determine reasonableness and, rather, requires a
dent, as then known to the officer. review of the “totality of the circumstances”
which includes events and officer actions leading
Most notable here, the “totality of the circum- up to the use of force.
stances” inquiry into a use of force has no time This is expected and consistent with the previous-
limit. Of course, the situation at the precise time ly existing law in other circuits and in the Supreme
of the shooting will often be what matters most; it Court.
is, after all, the officer’s choice in that moment Does this help in the defense of force cases?
that is under review. But earlier facts and circum- That depends upon the facts of the individual
stances may bear on how a reasonable officer case as some circumstances will support a find-
would have understood and responded to later ing of a threat justifying the force used and oth-
ones. Taking account of that context may benefit ers will not. (Reporting lesson: always docu-
either party in an excessive-force case. Prior ment all facts leading up to the use of force which
events may show, for example, why a reasonable might bear upon the threat justifying the force.)
officer would have perceived otherwise ambigu- The Supreme Court recognizes that lower Courts
ous conduct of a suspect as threatening. Or instead must continue to wade through a “fact-bound

20 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal