In a 9-0 opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the “totality of the circumstances” test employed to analyze excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment cannot be limited in time to only the “moment of the threat.” Instead, the Court emphasized that the “totality of the circumstances” test, which considers the relevant facts and events leading up to the moment when an officer uses deadly force, remains the proper way to asses the “reasonableness” of the force used.

Background and Procedural History

In Houston, Texas on April 28, 2016, Officer Roberto Felix (“Felix”) initiated a traffic stop of Ashtian Barnes (“Barnes”) based on suspected toll violations. Felix requested Barnes’ drivers license and proof of insurance, but Barnes admitted he did not have his license with him and that the car was a rental in his girlfriend’s name. While speaking with Felix, Barnes rummaged through papers inside the car, which caused Felix to tell him to stop “digging around” several times. Felix stated to Barnes that the vehicle smelled of marijuana and asked if there was anything in the car Felix should be aware of. Barnes stated that he might have some identification in the trunk. Officer Felix told him to open the trunk from the driver’s seat. While doing so, Barnes turned off the ignition. At this point, not even two minutes had passed from the start of the traffic stop.

The rest of the interaction escalated quickly. Felix asked Barnes to exit the vehicle, but instead Barnes restarted the car. Felix unholstered his gun and jumped onto the vehicle’s doorsill when it started moving. Felix shouted “[d]on’t fucking move” twice and with no visibility into the car fired two shots, fatally wounding Barnes. Approximately five seconds elapsed from when the car began to move and when it stopped due to the shots fired. Within that five second incident, only two seconds passed between when Felix stepped on the doorsill and when he fired the first shot. This two second period became highly relevant in the lower court proceedings and the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Janice Barnes, the decedent’s mother, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Felix, alleging excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Felix by applying the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s (“Fifth Circuit”) “moment-of-threat” rule. This rule restricts the reasonableness analysis to the two seconds Felix was on the doorsill. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, emphasizing that only the moment Felix perceived a threat—those final two seconds—mattered in the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness analysis.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the Fifth Circuit’s narrow approach aligns with its existing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The issue before the Court was whether courts may apply the “moment-of-threat” rule, which focuses on the precise moment an officer perceives a threat or the “totality of the circumstances” test used in Fourth Amendment excessive force claims that involve deadly force.

Ruling and Rationale

The Court held that the Fifth Circuit’s moment-of-threat rule is incompatible with the existing totality of the circumstances test. Justice Kagan, delivering the opinion of the Court, stated that an officer’s use of deadly force must be evaluated from “the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” balancing both individual and governmental interests. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). The use of deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment when it is not “objectively reasonable.” Id. at 397.The inquiry into officer reasonableness requires examining the “totality of the circumstances.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 9 (1985). Justice Kagan points to several examples in existing caselaw of circumstances that can be considered: (a) the “severity of the crime” that prompted the stop; (b) warnings an officer gives to a suspect; and (c) the stopped suspect’s conduct, Graham, 471 U.S. at 396; Garner, 471 U.S. at 11.

The Court stated that the “totality of the circumstances” inquiry does not have any implied time limit. Inherently, the facts leading up to a shooting relate to how an officer reacts to developing events. The Court stated that, “[p]rior events may show, for example, why a reasonable officer would have perceived otherwise ambiguous conduct of a suspect as threatening. Or instead, they may show why such an officer would have perceived the same conduct as innocuous.” The moment-of-threat rule, applied in the Fifth Circuit, directly prevents the examination of that context.

The Supreme Court illustrates the difference between “moment-of-threat” and “totality of the circumstance” using Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014); a case evaluating a fatal shooting that occurred at the end of a more than five-minute car chase. In that case, a fleeing suspect ran his car into a police cruiser and came to a stop. The driver then tried to escape, stepping on the gas and spinning the car’s wheels. An officer fired several fatal shots into the car. Under a “moment-of-threat” analysis, a court could only examine the reasonableness of the officer’s shooting at the moment the car was stopped and spinning its wheels. However, in considering the totality of the circumstances, the court could examine the driver’s behavior during the chase to conclude that he attempted to flee the scene and posed a deadly threat to others. Under the totality of the circumstances, the deadly force would be reasonable due to the events that transpired before the shooting occurred. Additionally, a court applying the totality of the circumstances, cannot do so if “it has put on chronological blinders,” and restrict the time period it can consider. For this reason, the Court held that a lengthier timeline —one that considers facts and events leading up to the shooting—must be used.

Conclusion

The holding in this case will have a significant effect on municipalities and their police departments and officers. In this ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated that courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances known to officers before and during an event that requires the use of deadly force. This decision is important because it supports and encourages officers to evaluate all circumstances that they are aware of when determining whether to use force. This increases the likelihood that force will only be employed when necessary to protect them from legitimate threats of danger.

Authored by:

not-pictured: Zachary Frye