Brianna barnes houston texas on the fourth
Barnes v. Felix
Pending United States Supreme Court case
United States Supreme Court case
| Barnes v. Felix | |
|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Full case name | Janice Hughes Barnes, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Ashtian Barnes, Deceased, Petitioner v. Roberto Felix, Jr., et al. |
| Docket no. | 23-1239 |
| Whether courts should apply the moment of the threat doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment. | |
Barnes v. Felix is a pending United States Supreme Court case on excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment.[1][2] The court will decide whether courts should apply the “moment of the threat” doctrine, which looks only at the narrow window in which a police officer's safety was threatened to determine whether his actions were reasonable, in evaluating claims that police officers used excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.[3]
Oral arguments were held on 22 January 2025.[4]
Background
At 2:45 pm[5]CT on 28 April 2016, 24 year old Black man Ashtian Barnes was driving a rented silver Toyota Corolla on the Sam HoustonTollway in Houston, Texas when he was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. of the Harris County Constable Precinct 5 due to toll violations connected to the car.
When asked, Barnes could not show a driver's license nor proof of insurance, telling Felix that it may be in the trunk of the car. Barnes turned off the car engine and removed the keys from the ignition. Felix later claimed to have smelled marijuana, an illegal recreational substance in the state of Texas; no trace of drugs were ever found in the car nor on Barnes.[5]
Felix ordered Barnes to exit the vehicle and pulled out his gun without any apparent threat to his safety. The car then began to roll forward while the door was open and Felix jumped onto the car while pointing his gun at Barnes and fired two shots, killing Barnes.[3][6] He was hit in the torso and died at the scene.[5]
Felix had been a police officer since 2004 and was involved in another fatal shooting in 2007. He was not disciplined for Barnes' killing.[5]
The Houston Police Department, which is separate from the constable's office that employed Felix, and the Harris County District Attorney's Office were charged with investigating Barnes' killing.[5] They convened a grand jury, which decided on 31 August 2016 not to bring charges against Felix in the death of Barnes. On that same day, dashcam video of the stop was released.[7]
Barnes' mother, Janice Barnes, brought an excessive force claim against Felix on his behalf. The Fifth Circuit dismissed her claim, citing the “moment-of-threat” doctrine.[3][8]
Precedent
In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee v. Garner that the use of deadly force by police is unconstitutional "unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."[9]
In 1989, the court clarified in Graham v. Connor that when hearing a claim, courts must consider the "totality of the circumstances", this is known as the totality doctrine.[10][11]
"Moment-of-threat" doctrine
The First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts accept and apply the totality doctrine. While the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth circuits all reject the totality doctrine and apply the "moment-of-theat" doctrine. The "moment-of-theat" doctrine evaluates Fourth Amendment violations only within the context of the narrow window when the officer's safety is allegedly threatened, excluding the events that precede it.[12]
Supreme Court
Barnes was represented at the Supreme Court by attorneys Katherine Booth Wellington and Nathaniel Zelinsky,[3] Felix by attorneys Lisa Schiavo Blatt and Judith Ramsey Saldana, and Harrison County by attorney Seth Barrett Hopkins.[13]
The Biden Administration's Solicitor GeneralElizabeth Prelogar filled an amicus brief in the case.[5] Zoe A. Jacoby represented the United States as amicus curiae during oral arguments.[3]