Barnes, Individually and As Representative of the Estate of Barnes, Deceased v. Felix et al.
No. 23-1239 · Decided May 15, 2025 · vacated and remanded
Whether courts evaluating Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims may apply the "moment-of-threat" rule. The Court held that the "moment-of-threat" rule is irreconcilable with the Fourth Amendment because courts must analyze the "totality of the circumstances," including events leading up to a shooting, to determine if an officer's use of force was objectively reasonable.
Vote & lineup9–0 (unanimous) on the judgment. Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court (9). Concurrence(s): Kavanaugh (joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett).
The question
Whether courts evaluating Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims may apply the "moment-of-threat" rule. This rule limits the inquiry to circumstances existing at the precise time an officer perceived the threat inducing the use of deadly force. The Court must determine if this approach improperly narrows the required analysis of the "totality of the circumstances."
Petitioner's argument
- The "moment-of-threat" rule prevents courts from considering the full context and history of a police encounter.
- By limiting the view to a few seconds, courts cannot consider the reasons for the stop or earlier interactions between the suspect and officer.
- This narrow focus conflicts with the Supreme Court's mandate to analyze the "totality of the circumstances" in excessive-force cases.
Respondent's argument
- The Fifth Circuit's doctrine allows courts to assess many pre-shooting facts and circumstances that inform the perspective of a reasonable officer.
- The rule only bars inquiries into whether an officer's earlier error "created the need for deadly force."
- An officer does not lose the right to defend himself simply because he previously made a mistake.
The decision
- A claim of excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which requires that force be "objectively reasonable" from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene (*Graham v. Connor*, 490 U. S. 386, 396).
- The reasonableness inquiry demands an analysis of the "totality of the circumstances" (*County of Los Angeles v. Mendez*, 581 U. S. 420; *Tennessee v. Garner*, 471 U. S. 1).
- This "totality of the circumstances" inquiry has no time limit and requires "careful attention to the facts and circumstances" relating to the incident (*Graham*, 490 U. S., at 396).
- Prior events are relevant because they may show why a reasonable officer would perceive otherwise ambiguous conduct as either threatening or innocuous.
- The Court cited *Plumhoff v. Rickard*, 572 U. S. 765, where the use of deadly force was justified "at the moment" partly because of the driver's reckless behavior during the preceding five minutes of a car chase.
- The "moment-of-threat" rule is rejected because it acts as "chronological blinders," preventing courts from reviewing the full context required by the Fourth Amendment.
- The Court declined to address whether an officer's own "creation of a dangerous situation" factors into the reasonableness analysis, noting that the issue was not properly before the Court.
Separate opinions
Kavanaugh, concurring (joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett)
- Argues that traffic stops are "fraught with danger to police officers" (*Michigan v. Long*, 463 U. S. 1032; *Pennsylvania v. Mimms*, 434 U. S. 106).
- Notes that a suspect's attempt to evade by flight can indicate a larger danger beyond the initial traffic violation (*Lange v. California*, 594 U. S. 295).
- Emphasizes that courts must appreciate the "split-second judgments" officers make in "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" circumstances (*Graham v. Connor*, 490 U. S. 386, 397).