Police officers have a bit more leniency under the law when it comes to use of force. And they do need it. In part to deter civilians from becoming vigilantes and acting like they can just decide the police aren’t doing their job and so will do it for them. But the more critical reason for that is, of course, in part of their role to protect the public at large.
No one individual is entitled to individual police protection. Instead society at large is entitled to the protection of the police in general by way of their role to enforce the laws and apprehend those breaking them.
But officers absolutely can and have gone too far. One such case is that of Roberto Felix, a police officer accused of doing just that when he shot and killed Ashtian Barnes.
On April 28, 2016, Felix pulled over Barnes on suspected highway toll violations. During the stop, Felix ordered Barnes out of the vehicle. Which an officer can at any time during a stop lawfully order a person to exit their vehicle, and they don’t need to articulate a reason to do it. And the person being ordered out of the vehicle must comply.
Instead of complying, though, Barnes attempted to take off. In response, Felix grabbed onto the window sill of the vehicle, drew his service weapon, and fired. Two shots hit Barnes, killing him.
Now in that additional leeway granted to law enforcement officers, including in the use of deadly force, they still have to justify their actions. They can’t just shoot someone without reason. So the question in this instance is, obviously, why? What caused Felix to fire on Barnes?
Unfortunately, though, the United States District Court and Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit foreclosed any inquiry into that with the Fifth Circuit’s “moment of threat” rule. In short that requires addressing just one question: was the officer “in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in his use of deadly force”? Any event before that doesn’t matter. Only the moment of the shooting matters.
Yeah… no.
There is absolutely no way a civilian would be able to make that kind of defense, so it absolutely should be unavailable to law enforcement. And today, the Supreme Court of the United States made that the case. Unanimously.
The key issue with relying on the “moment of threat” rule is it forecloses any inquiry into any preceding events. Meaning… context is thrown out the window. The “totality of the circumstances” that comes into play in a civilian case where someone is claiming self defense. And now the “totality of the circumstances” will apply to all law enforcement officers.
This is both good and bad for law enforcement. For one, it’ll hold law enforcement to much the same standard as civilians when it comes to deadly force. They do still have more leniency under the law, since they are charged with defending the public as part of their duty to enforce the law and apprehend those breaking it. But in vacating the “moment of threat” standard at the Fifth Circuit for the greater “totality of the circumstances” standard that likely… everyone else presumed was the standard for reviewing law enforcement actions, it means the totality of their actions come into play, not just the few seconds before “shots fired”.
For Felix, this means he now has to fully explain why he shot and killed Barnes.
I’ve written before that law enforcement officers treat each traffic stop as if it could be their last. And this is not without reason. The number of individuals who hostily engage law enforcement – and, let’s be honest, a disproportionate number of those individuals are black – is very unreasonably high. That said, that alone does not give law enforcement officers clearance to use any force they want. Instead they still must act reasonably.
While their next traffic stop easily could be their last, they can’t go into that traffic stop with the presumption it will be. If a law enforcement officer fires on a civilian, they must be able to justify their actions, must be able to articulate what gave them reason to believe the individual they shot – whether or not the individual died as a result – was a threat of great harm or death to themselves or the public at large.
Doing this requires examining the “totality of the circumstances”, which the Supreme Court of the United States also emphasized as “no time limit”.
The case today was Barnes v. Felix, No. 23-1239, 605 US ___ (2025).
