Guest Post By Itiel Wainer – Barnes v. Felix (2025)
My sincere gratitude to David Oscar Markus and John R. Byrne for
allowing me to submit this guest post. In it, I briefly examine the Supreme
Court’s recent ruling in Barnes v. Felix, one of
two SCOTUS cases that were the focus of the 2025 Gibbons National Criminal
Procedure Moot Court Competition. My teammate, Sydney Stark, and I were honored
to represent the University of Miami School of Law at that event. You can read
Sydney’s discussion of the competition’s other issue here. I also want to extend a heartfelt thank you to our exceptional
coaches, Adam Stolz, Esq. and Luis Reyes, Esq. whose support continues to be
immeasurable.
Barnes v. Felix is SCOTUS’ latest opinion on excessive force
cases and reinforces that there are no short cuts for considering the “totality
of the circumstances” when evaluating whether one’s use of deadly force was
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The case arises from a routine traffic
stop that turned fatal. The police officer, Roberto Felix, pulled over Ashtian Barnes
in a rental car for unpaid toll violations. When, moments later, Barnes tried
to speed away, Felix drew his weapon, stepped onto the moving vehicle’s
doorsill, and within seconds fired two shots, killing Barnes. The body camera
footage of the incident is available here for those who wish to personally witness the encounter.
Barnes’ mother filed suit under § 1983 against
Officer Felix for using excessive force against her son in violation of his
Fourth Amendment rights. The district court ultimately granted the officer
summary judgment. It did so under a theory that the court’s reasonableness
inquiry of the officer’s conduct must be limited to the precise moment an
objectively reasonable officer would have perceived a threat. In effect, the
court limited its “reasonableness” inquiry to the two seconds before Officer Felix
fired his gun and did not consider other factors, like the officer’s decision
to jump on the moving car or the basis for pulling over Barnes being mere toll
violations.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed on appeal,
explaining that the circuit has adopted a “moment of threat doctrine,” which
narrows the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry in deadly force cases. Interestingly,
the judge who authored the majority opinion also filed a separate concurrence
criticizing the doctrine, arguing that the moment of threat doctrine conflicts
with the totality of the circumstances standard that has long governed Fourth
Amendment reasonableness.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to
address the validity of the moment of threat doctrine and the supposed circuit
split on the doctrine. Yet, in both his briefing and oral arguments, the
respondent, Officer Felix, declined to defend the moment of threat doctrine. Instead,
Felix argued that the moment of threat doctrine, as defined by the Fifth
Circuit, does not actually exist. Felix pointed to a circuit split over whether
courts may consider an “officer-created danger” as part of the totality of the
circumstances as the real issue in the case. He framed the Fifth Circuit’s moment
of threat doctrine, to the extent it exists, as a shield against an
officer-create danger theory: that Officer Felix’s decision to jump onto
Barnes’s car rendered Felix’s subsequent use of force unreasonable.
In a succinct, nine-page unanimous opinion
penned by Justice Kagan, the Court rejected the moment of threat doctrine. The
Court clarified that while “the situation at the precise time of the shooting
will often be what matters most,” there is no hard and fast time limit on the
totality of the circumstances inquiry. Thus, the Court explained, the moment of
threat doctrine applied by some courts directly contradicts the mandate that trial
courts examine the totality of the
circumstances. Because the Fifth Circuit’s time-restricted analysis foreclosed
scrutiny of Officer Felix’s decision to leap onto Barnes’ car, the Court
declined to consider his officer-created-danger argument and left that question
open for another day—i.e., whether an officer’s use of force could be
deemed excessive if the officer’s conduct “unjustifiably” creates or escalates
a situation that leads to a deadly confrontation, even if the force used was
objectively reasonable at the time it was deployed.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. Felix is a narrow holding
clarifying that the totality of the circumstances inquiry has no temporal
restriction. Ordinary principles of relevancy and causation likewise guide the
analysis, further necessitating a result that continues to afford leeway to trial
courts in conducting such a fact-specific, contextual inquiry. The narrow
holding is also one way to avoid the morass of whether the moment of threat doctrine
even exists. Nevertheless, by sidestepping the officer-created danger question,
the Court left the most significant question unanswered for the time being.