Supreme Court Revisits Standards for Police Use of Force

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that lower courts must evaluate police use of force based on the "totality of circumstances," a decision that could open the door to more lawsuits against officers in excessive force cases.

The unanimous decision came in response to the fatal 2016 shooting of Ashtian Barnes, a 24-year-old unarmed Black man shot by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. during a traffic stop in Houston, Texas.

Felix had pulled Barnes over after discovering unpaid tolls linked to the rental car Barnes was driving. When asked to exit the vehicle, Barnes instead began slowly driving away. Felix then jumped onto the car’s doorsill and, within two seconds, shot Barnes twice. Although wounded, Barnes managed to stop the car but later died from his injuries.

Felix said he fired in self-defense, claiming that Barnes' driving put him in danger. The incident was captured by the officer’s dashboard camera.

Supreme Court Challenges Narrow Use-of-Force Standard

Lower courts previously ruled in favor of Felix, focusing only on whether he was in immediate danger at the exact moment he fired. Both the trial court and the appellate court held that Felix acted lawfully under the assumption that the threat at the time justified deadly force.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the courts erred by limiting their analysis to the final seconds of the encounter.

“By limiting their view to the two seconds before the shooting, the lower courts could not take into account anything preceding that final moment,” the opinion said.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Court, emphasized that earlier events may influence how a reasonable officer interprets a suspect’s actions later on. “While the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often matter most, earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones,” she wrote.

Qualified Immunity Under Scrutiny

This case also touches on qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects government officials from civil lawsuits unless they violate clearly established legal rights.

Barnes’ mother, Janice Barnes, sued Felix and Harris County under federal civil rights law, arguing the shooting was unjustified and that Felix escalated the situation by leaping onto the moving car rather than pursuing Barnes through safer means.

The Supreme Court’s ruling sends the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration using the broader totality standard. That gives Janice Barnes a new opportunity to argue her son’s rights were violated.

Clarification for Future Cases

The decision helps resolve a split among federal appellate courts over how to judge use-of-force incidents. Eight circuits already use the totality standard, while four focused only on the moment of perceived threat.

The Court’s clarification now instructs all courts to consider the full context leading up to police shootings.

“Prior events may show, for example, why a reasonable officer would have perceived otherwise ambiguous conduct of a suspect as threatening,” Kagan wrote. “Or instead they may show why such an officer would have perceived the same conduct as innocuous.”