Keeping Cops Accountable: Supreme Court Issues Decision in Barnes v. Felix

For far too long, the idea that state actors who violate our rights should be held accountable has felt like a hollow promise. The Framers entrusted juries of ordinary citizens with the responsibility of adjudicating disputes between citizens and their government. Assessing the objective reasonableness of a police officer’s use of force is precisely the type of judgment call the Framers wanted jurors to make. Yet a tangled web of judicially-confected doctrines often shields egregious governmental misconduct from public scrutiny.

A recent Supreme Court decision has brought a significant and welcome shift in this landscape. In Barnes v. Felix, the Justices unanimously delivered a decisive blow to one of these doctrines—offering a glimmer of hope for greater accountability for law enforcement.

The case stems from the tragic 2016 death of Ashtian Barnes, who was killed by a Harris County, Texas, constable following a stop for unpaid tolls. In a horrifying sequence of events, as Mr. Barnes attempted to drive away, Constable Roberto Felix made the perilous decision to jump onto the moving vehicle and open fire, killing Barnes.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the moment of threat test, focusing solely on whether Constable Felix was in danger at the precise instant he opened fire, which he plainly was. This analysis disregarded the broader context of the encounter, including the minor nature of the initial offense and the fact that Constable Felix had placed himself in harm’s way by leaping onto the moving car.

The Supreme Court resoundingly rejected this deeply flawed logic, criticizing the Fifth Circuit’s test for “improperly narrowing the requisite Fourth Amendment analysis.” The Justices held that evaluating the reasonableness of an officer’s fear demands a comprehensive review of the totality of the circumstances, “including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment” when deadly force was employed.

The Court explicitly stated that the inquiry has no time limit because “earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones.” By limiting their view to only the two seconds before the shooting, the Fifth Circuit judges improperly applied “chronological blinders” that prevented them from considering the full context of the incident.

The Barnes decision echoes the common law’s historical protection of human life, which traditionally restricted the use of deadly force by officers—particularly in cases of flight from arrest for minor offenses. Historically, officers were only allowed to use deadly force against persons using forceful resistance against them. The Court further ensured the vitality of this Fourth Amendment principle in the 1985 case of Tennessee v. Garner, holding that “the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”

The Barnes ruling carries profound implications because it arrived amid a disturbing trend of questionable police tactics leading to the tragic and unnecessary deaths of law-abiding gun owners. Police officers are trained to presume the worst in even the most mundane encounters and react accordingly. When officers make poor tactical decisions, they put everyone at risk. The moment of threat test encouraged needlessly dangerous policing, and allowing police to use deadly force solely because someone is armed effectively nullifies the Second Amendment.

Consider the chilling death of Philando Castile, who was stopped for a broken taillight. Mr. Castile, licensed to carry, informed the officer he was armed. The officer ordered Castile to retrieve his license and not reach for the gun. Castile assured the officer he would comply. But as soon as he reached for his license, the officer saw the gun and opened fire—killing Castile.

Or take the horrific killing of Andrew Scott. Startled by pounding on his door late at night, Scott grabbed his lawfully owned pistol and answered the door. He had no way of knowing the people on the other side were police because the officers didn’t identify themselves or activate their emergency lights before approaching the wrong apartment. When Mr. Scott saw unidentified armed people and retreated inside, officers took his life.

While a unanimous Supreme Court victory feels like the ultimate triumph for the Barnes family, their path to justice has only just begun. This decision is a crucial step forward, but qualified immunity still casts a dark shadow.

Consistent with the Framers’ intent and the Court’s holding in the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor, a jury should get to weigh “the severity of the crime at issue, whether Barnes posed an immediate threat to the safety of Constable Felix, and whether Barnes was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Despite what many may perceive as a deeply troubling incident, there’s still no guarantee that this case will reach a jury.

Nevertheless, the ruling serves as a vital vindication of long-standing guardrails on policing and has the potential to help restore public confidence in law enforcement. It also promotes safer policing practices by underscoring the importance of considering the broader context leading up to the use of deadly force.