Continued from previous page
The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | February 2025
parking lot directly in your path . You are traveling at the speed limit , and there isn ’ t enough time or distance for you to think about what to do . Instead , you react instinctively and slam on your brakes . Unfortunately , you still collide with the other vehicle because there simply wasn ' t enough time to stop and prevent the accident .
After the incident , it becomes clear that if you had turned your wheel sharply to the right , you could have safely navigated onto a flat grassy area and into an empty parking lot . This solution seems simple and obvious in hindsight , but why didn ’ t you do it ? The answer is that you could only react instinctively , rather than think through your options .
Now imagine , if you were held responsible for the damage and injuries to the occupants of the other vehicle . To put this in perspective as the holidays approach , you had to make this decision in about the same time it takes to click “ confirm your purchase ” on an online shopping site , highlighting the swift nature of the situation .
When watching the dash cam video in the Barnes case , it ’ s easy to sit in a comfortable chair and wonder , “ What was this officer thinking ?” Officer Felix stands at the open door of the car and gives Barnes a lawful command to exit the vehicle . Instead of complying , Barnes starts the car , and it begins to move .
At this point , Officer Felix steps onto the door sill . This is where we need to focus , on that critical moment in time — the “ confirm your purchase ” moment . Because that moment is everything . Once a reaction occurs in such a situation , it ’ s already too late ; the decision has been made .
It ’ s challenging to suppress hindsight , but doing so is crucial in assessing cases like this one . For example , anyone watching the video now can see that the car moved forward and that Officer Felix could have safely stepped back and away . However , in that split second when he jumped onto the door sill , did he consciously and cognitively realize which way the car was moving ? Or did an innate emergency response kick in , preventing him from fully assessing the risk ?
Why do certain reactions occur , especially when , in hindsight , they seem ill-advised ? Two types of conflict can arise when someone faces competing demands . The first is called response conflict , which occurs when an instinctive , automatic reaction to protect oneself clashes with professional training or legal obligations that necessitate a controlled and proportional response . The second type is goal conflict , which involves trying to balance personal safety with professional responsibilities , such as detaining or arresting individuals . Both conflicts require rapid judgment in high-stress situations with limited time , making it even more difficult to make the “ right ” decision .
Are there situations in which officers have discretionary time but fail to use it wisely , resulting in tragic consequences . Yes , there are many such cases , often referred to as “ lawful but awful ” incidents . A common factor in these cases is that officers act much more quickly than circumstances require , sometimes leading to tragedies that could have been avoided . Yet there are also times when officers simply do not have the discretionary time and must act .
So , can the Supreme Court craft a constitutional standard that effectively addresses both situations where officers have discretionary time , but their pre-force choices arguably lead to the need for a split-second decision and those where split-second decisions are unavoidable and required ? Achieving this will be very challenging . The underlying disparities and variety of incidents may be what led some courts to adopt the “ moment of threat ” doctrine in the first place .
Conclusion Barnes v . Felix is a significant case that could influence the legal framework governing the use of force by law enforcement officers . The Supreme Court ’ s decision to examine the “ moment of threat ” doctrine highlights the importance of this issue and its effects on both law enforcement and the communities they serve . Ideally , the Court will address it thoroughly and provide meaningful guidance that can inform law enforcement policy and training . Regardless of the outcome , our team at Lexipol will be prepared to review the decision , assess whether any policy updates are necessary and provide them to agencies that subscribe to our policy management solution .
About the author Mike Ranalli , Esq ., is a Program Manager II for Lexipol . He retired in 2016 after 10 years as chief of the Glenville ( NY ) Police Department . He began his career in 1984 with the Colonie ( NY ) Police Department and held the ranks of patrol officer , sergeant , detective sergeant and lieutenant . Mike is also an attorney and is a frequent presenter on various legal issues including search and seizure , use of force , legal aspects of interrogations and confessions , wrongful convictions , and civil liability . He is a consultant and instructor on police legal issues to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and has taught officers around New York State for the last 11 years in that capacity . Mike is also a past president of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police , a member of the IACP Professional Standards , Image & Ethics Committee , and the former Chairman of the New York State Police Law Enforcement Accreditation Council . He is a graduate of the 2009 FBI Mid-Atlantic Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminar and is a Certified Force Science Analyst .
24