Barnes v. Felix

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
91 F.4th 393 (2024)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under the 'moment of threat' doctrine, the Fourth Amendment excessive force inquiry is strictly confined to whether the officer was in danger at the precise moment deadly force was deployed, rendering the officer's prior conduct or tactical errors irrelevant.

Facts:

Officer Roberto Felix initiated a traffic stop of Ashtian Barnes on a tollway for outstanding toll violations.
During the stop, Barnes claimed he did not have his license and that the car was a rental, leading Felix to ask Barnes to open the trunk.
Barnes turned the vehicle off but then restarted it; Felix drew his weapon and ordered Barnes to exit.
As the vehicle began to move, Felix jumped onto the door sill of the car while pointing his weapon at Barnes.
While clinging to the frame of the moving vehicle with his head outside the roof, Felix fired two shots blindly into the car.
Barnes was struck by the gunfire, the car stopped, and Barnes subsequently died from his injuries.

Procedural Posture:

Janice and Tommy Barnes filed a lawsuit against Officer Felix and Harris County in state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding constitutional injury.
The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry regarding the use of deadly force limited strictly to the immediate moment of the shooting, or may the court consider the officer's preceding actions that may have created the danger?

Opinions:

Majority - Patrick E. Higginbotham

No, the inquiry is limited strictly to the immediate moment of the threat. The Court affirmed that under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, the excessive force analysis must focus exclusively on the specific instant the officer discharged his weapon. Regardless of the officer's tactical decision to jump onto the moving vehicle, at the precise second he fired, he was clinging to a moving car and reasonably believed his life was in imminent danger. Therefore, the prior escalation was irrelevant to the constitutional analysis.

Concurring - Patrick E. Higginbotham

Yes, under a proper application of Supreme Court precedent, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances. Judge Higginbotham wrote separately to criticize the Circuit's 'moment of threat' doctrine, arguing that it impermissibly narrows the Fourth Amendment analysis mandated by Tennessee v. Garner. He contended that by ignoring the officer's role in creating the danger—specifically jumping onto the vehicle—the doctrine devalues human life and shields officers who escalate routine stops into deadly encounters, though he acknowledged he was bound by stare decisis to affirm.

Analysis:

This case starkly illustrates the Fifth Circuit's rigid application of the 'moment of threat' doctrine, which acts as a powerful shield for law enforcement in excessive force claims. By refusing to consider 'officer-created jeopardy,' the court effectively immunizes poor police tactics that escalate non-violent situations into deadly ones, provided the officer is in danger at the final instant. The concurrence highlights a significant circuit split, as the majority of other circuits (and arguably the Supreme Court) employ a broader 'totality of the circumstances' approach, signaling that this issue is ripe for Supreme Court review.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Barnes v. Felix (2024)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"