The Supreme Court appeared poised Wednesday to reject a legal theory that would have placed stricter restrictions on lawsuits to hold police officers accountable for using deadly force.
The matter came up, An appellate court judge wrotefrom a common event. “A routine traffic stop has once again ended in the death of an unarmed black man,” the judge wrote.
The question for the judges was to what extent courts should limit their consideration to the “moment of danger” rather than the larger context of the encounter.
There was something of a consensus that the theory focused too little attention on the seconds before the shooting.
“Everybody agrees that it’s wrong,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said. “What’s wrong with saying that?”
The case began one afternoon in April 2016, when 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes was driving his girlfriend’s rental car on a highway outside Houston. He was going to pick up his daughter from daycare.
Although Mr. Barnes did not know it, the car’s license plate was associated with unpaid tolls that had been paid by another driver. Officer Roberto Felix Jr. of the Harris County Constable’s Office pulled the car over based on those unpaid tolls.
When Mr. Barnes could not immediately locate his license and car registration, the officer asked him to step out of the vehicle. Instead, Mr. Barnes began to drive away with the car door still open. Officer Felix drew his gun, jumped into the door of the moving car and shot Mr. Barnes twice, as listed. Dash cam footage.
Mr. Barnes’ mother, Janice Hughes Barnes, filed suit, saying the officer’s use of force was unreasonable, a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Govt last year There was a narrow question on what the officer said in his favour. “We can only ask whether Officer Felix was in a ‘time of danger’ danger that caused him to use deadly force against Barnes,” Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote.
Judge Higgenbotham added a concurring opinion, writing only for himself. Had he been allowed to consider all the circumstances surrounding the stop, he wrote, he might have ruled differently.
“Given the rapid sequence of events and Officer Felix’s role in drawing his weapon and jumping on the running board,” the judge wrote, “the totality of the circumstances shows that Officer Felix was free to use excessive force.” violated Barnes’s Fourth Amendment right.”
Arguing in the case on Wednesday, Barnes v. Felix, No. 23-1239, some judges expressed concern about the separate rulings of second-guessing police officers. “An officer doesn’t get the time we’ve spent here today making a decision,” Justice Brett M. Cavanaugh said.
But most justices seemed inclined to allow more than seconds of deliberation before shooting.
“Would you be satisfied,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked Ms. Barnes’ lawyer, “with a narrow view that it is wrong for the court to look at the moment of intimidation?”
The lawyer, Nathaniel AG Zielinski, said they would, though he added that “it would be helpful if the court clarified that that means you can see the jump in addition to the shoot.”
Officer Felix’s attorney, Charles L. McCloud, said the court should limit its focus to the moment he used force. “He was clinging to the fleeing suspect’s car, and Felix reasonably believed his life was in danger,” Mr McCloud said. “This conclusion should end this case.”
In rebuttal, Mr. Zielinski disagreed. “You have to look at the whole picture,” he said, “and here it’s just over two seconds.”
