On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the closely watched case of Barnes v. Felix and in doing so reiterated its “totality of the circumstances” analysis under Graham v. Connor (see full decision below).
The result was not surprising since most federal circuit courts follow this analysis when determining the reasonableness of a police officer’s use of force. A minority of four circuits — Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth — employ a “moment of threat” rule that limits review of an officer’s use of force to the precise moment the officer perceived a threat, thereby disregarding preceding actions. Justice Kagan’s opinion notes that the latter analysis “cannot thus ‘narrow’ the totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry, to focus on only a single moment.” The opinion further states, “no rule that precludes consideration of prior events in assessing a police shooting is reconcilable with the fact-dependent and context-sensitive approach we have prescribed.”
What does this mean for the police officer on patrol and those investigating officer-involved use of force? For many, the training and applicable case law remain unchanged. The Court’s decision speaks to those four circuit courts of appeal that take a narrower approach in assessing use of force constitutional claims under the federal civil rights statute 42 USC §1983. Police officers are also guided by state statutory law and department guidelines for use of force encounters. Some state statutes specifically address pre-seizure actions leading to the use of force. For example, in Connecticut, section 53a-22(c)(2) of the General Statutes describes the following considerations when evaluating use of deadly force: whether (A) the person upon whom deadly physical force was used possessed or appeared to possess a deadly weapon, (B) the peace officer or an authorized official of the Department of Correction or the Board of Pardons and Paroles engaged in reasonable de-escalation measures prior to using deadly physical force, and (C) any unreasonable conduct of the peace officer or an authorized official of the Department of Correction or the Board of Pardons and Paroles led to an increased risk of an occurrence of the situation that precipitated the use of such force.
The latter subsection (C) refers to conduct that may be referred to as “officer created jeopardy,” which is an issue the Supreme Court did not specifically address in its Barnes v. Felix decision because it was not considered in the lower courts and was not presented on review to the Supreme Court. Petitioner Felix attempted to frame an additional issue as to “whether or how an officer’s own ‘creation of a dangerous situation’ factors into the reasonableness analysis.” Justice Kagan wrote that because the issue was so “time-bound” in the lower courts, the question of whether Constable Felix stepping onto the doorsill of Felix’s car necessitated the need to use deadly force was not considered in the analysis.
The facts of the case
The precipitating incident launching this case before the Supreme Court was an April 28, 2016, daytime car stop of Ashtian Barnes’ vehicle on a roadway outside Houston. A report of outstanding toll violations linked to the vehicle’s plate number prompted the stop.
Constable Felix spotted the car, activated his emergency lights, and Barnes pulled over to the left shoulder of the roadway. Felix pulled in behind Barnes’ Toyota Corolla, approached the vehicle on the driver’s side, told Barnes why he was stopped and asked for his license and proof of insurance. Barnes did not have his license with him and told Felix the vehicle was a rental in his girlfriend’s name.
During the stop, Barnes rummaged around the inside of the car looking for paperwork and Felix told him to stop doing so while also stating that he smelled marijuana. Constable Felix then asked Barnes if there was anything in the car to be concerned about and Barnes responded by saying his license might be in the trunk of the car. Felix asked him to open the trunk from his seat, which Barnes did while also turning the ignition back on. At this point, Constable Felix opened the driver’s side door and unholstered his gun. Barnes pulled away and Felix jumped on the side door sill while twice yelling at Barnes to not move. As the vehicle sped away with Constable Felix hanging on with his left hand, he fired several shots into the driver’s side. The vehicle came to a stop several hundred feet away.
Ashtian Barnes’ mother Janice subsequently filed a 42 USC §1983 lawsuit on behalf of the estate in federal district court, which granted Constable Felix qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court under the prevailing circuit case law that the “moment of threat” determines the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force. Considerations of Felix placing himself in danger by stepping onto Barnes’ car as it pulled away, or the fact that the underlying stop was for toll violations have no impact under a “moment of threat” analysis.
Unanimous decision
The Court’s 9-0 majority overturned the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In doing so, Justice Kagan wrote:
“The question presented to us was one of timing alone: whether to look only at the encounter’s final two seconds, or also to consider earlier events serving to put those seconds in context. With that matter resolved, we return everything else to the courts below. It is for them now to consider the reasonableness of the shooting, using the lengthier timeframe we have prescribed.”
Earlier in the opinion, Justice Kagan highlighted the Court’s 2014 decision in Plumhoff v. Rickard to explain the context-based analysis required under the Graham “totality of circumstances” approach. In Plumhoff, the daughter of a vehicle driver shot and killed while attempting to evade police alleged that the use of force was unreasonable because at the time the officers shot the chase had ended. Justice Kagan noted that the Court had rejected the daughter’s claim because everything preceding the shooting, five minutes of the driver’s “outrageously reckless” behavior coupled with his last second efforts to evade capture and resume flight, led the Court to determine the officer’s actions were reasonable.
Officers should read Barnes v. Felix, it is a short nine-page decision, while remaining attentive to legal updates distributed by their departments that reference the decision. Use of force determinations that individual officers must make in the course of their duties are supported by four foundational standards: federal constitutional law, state statutes, state case law and department guidelines. Knowing these standards and training with them in mind ensure post-incident clarity when a use of force is reviewed.
SCOTUS Barnes v Felix by Lexipol_Media_Group on Scribd
