February 2026 | The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine 25
SCOTUS in Barnes v. Felix Clarifies Use-of-Force Analysis but Leaves Open an Unresolved Question
Eric Daigle, Esq.
On May 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Barnes v. Felix, fundamentally altering the legal evaluation of excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling rejected the narrow“ moment-of-threat” doctrine previously applied by the Fifth Circuit, mandating that courts assess the“ totality of the circumstances” when determining the reasonableness of police force instead. This decision not only resolves a significant circuit split but also carries broad implications for law enforcement accountability and civil rights litigation across the country.
The case originated from a tragic encounter in Houston, Texas, on April 28, 2016, when Officer Roberto Felix, a law enforcement officer, stopped Ashtian Barnes for suspected toll violations. The initial interaction began as routine where Barnes pulled over, and Felix requested his license and proof of insurance. Barnes admitted he did not have his license and that the car was a rental in his girlfriend’ s name. As Barnes searched for documents, Felix repeatedly told him to stop“ digging around,” and noted the smell of marijuana. 1
All subsequent actions were captured on the officer’ s dashcam within two minutes of the stop. Barnes claimed he might have identification in the trunk and turned off the car. Per Felix’ s request, he opened it from the driver’ s seat. The situation then rapidly escalated. Felix, with his hand on his holster, instructed Barnes to exit the vehicle. Instead, Barnes restarted the engine with the driver’ s door still open. As the car began to move, Felix jumped onto the doorsill, balancing precariously with his head was above the roof, and shouted“ Don’ t f *** ing move” twice. 2 With no visibility in the car’ s interior, he then fired two shots, fatally wounding Barnes. From the car’ s movement to the shooting, the entire sequence lasted about five seconds, with only two seconds elapsing between Felix stepping onto the doorsill and firing his weapon.
Barnes’ s mother, Janice, filed a lawsuit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that Felix had violated her son’ s Fourth Amendment right by using excessive force. 3 The District Court granted summary judgment to Felix, applying the Fifth Circuit’ s“ moment-of-threat” rule. This doctrine confined the analysis strictly to whether Felix was in danger during the two seconds he was on the moving car’ s doorsill and disregarded all events leading up to the shooting. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that only the officer’ s perception of threat at the precise moment of force mattered, rendering prior context irrelevant. 4
The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the lower court’ s judgment. Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan emphasized that the“ moment-of-threat” rule was inconsistent with established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Instead, the Court reaffirmed the standard set by Graham v. Connor in 1989, holding that the reasonableness of police force must be judged based on the“ totality of the circumstances.” 5 This approach requires courts to consider all relevant facts, including the events and decisions leading up to the use of force, not just the final moments. Justice Kagan’ s opinion clarified that a reasonable officer’ s perspective is shaped by the entire context of an encounter, including the suspect’ s prior conduct, the officer’ s knowledge of escalating risks, and any opportunities for de-escalation. 6
The Court declined to establish a rigid temporal cutoff for when events become irrelevant, instead instructing lower courts to conduct a holistic analysis in each case. 7 The opinion stated,“ To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment.” 8 The Court withheld judgement about whether Officer Felix’ s use of deadly force was ultimately justified and also did not address whether an officer’ s own creation of a dangerous situation should weigh against them in the analysis. Instead, it remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard. 9
The Supreme Court’ s decision in Barnes v. Felix resolves a longstanding circuit split. Several federal appellate courts had adopted the“ moment-of-threat” rule, effectively shielding officers from liability by focusing exclusively on split-second judgments made during high-stress encounters.
Continued on page 39