The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently tackled allegations of use of excessive force in the case of Barnes v. Felix. This case comes in the aftermath of a tragic death in 2016, involving Officer Roberto Felix, Jr., and Ashtian Barnes, stemming from what began as a lawful traffic stop over outstanding toll violations. Barnes parents filed suit, asserting claims against defendants Officer Felix and Harris County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Officer Felix, acting on information received via a radio dispatch from the Harris County Toll Road Authority, identified and stopped a vehicle matching the description of a license plate that was reported to have outstanding violations. The officer approached the driver’s side window and requested Barnes’ driver’s license and proof of insurance. Barnes replied that he did not have the documentation and that the car had been rented a week earlier in his girlfriend’s name. During this interaction, Barnes was “digging around” in the car. Officer Felix warned Barnes to stop doing so and, claimed that he smelled marijuana. From this point, the situation rapidly escalated. He then asked Barnes if he had anything in the vehicle Officer Felix should know about. In response, he turned off the car and placed his keys near the shifting gear. Barnes responded verbally, telling Officer Felix that he “might” have the requested documentation in the trunk of the car. The body camera footage shared that: At this time, Barnes’s left blinker is still on, indicating that the keys are still in the ignition. Barnes follows the officer’s direction to open the trunk of the vehicle, followed by Barnes’s left blinker turning off. Officer Felix asked Barnes to get out of the vehicle, and there is evidence that Barnes’s driver side door opens. A few second later, Barnes’s left blinker turns back on, and Officer Felix drew his weapon. The bodycam captures Officer Felix pointing his weapon at Barnes to which he begun shouting “don’t fucking move” as Barnes’s vehicle begins moving. However, with the door still open Barnes began to drive away. Officer Felix partially entered the vehicle and ordered Barnes to stop. While the car was moving, Officer Felix shot inside the vehicle with “no visibility” as to where he was aiming. In the next second, Officer Felix fired another shot while the vehicle was still moving. He ended up discharging his firearm twice, resulting in Barnes’ death.
Barnes parents filed suit against defendants Officer Felix and Harris County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parents argued that Officer Felix’s use of force was unreasonable because even if Barnes attempted to flee, he did not pose a threat justifying deadly force. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgement, finding that Officer Felix did not violate Barnes’s constitutional rights and was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court found that Barnes posed a threat of serious harm to Officer Felix the moment the car began to move. The lower court decision hinged on the perceived threat, which the Court relied on to determine that the amount of force used by Officer Felix was reasonable and not excessive. Barnes’s parents appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Officer Felix. When the case reached the Fifth Circuit, the key question was whether Officer Felix’s use of deadly force was justified when it was employed and if he reasonably believed his life was in imminent danger. In the Fifth Circuit, it is well-established that the excessive-force inquiry is confined to whether the officers or other persons were in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in the officers’ use of deadly force. This “moment of threat” test means that the focus of the inquiry should be on the act that led the officer to discharge his weapon. As a result, any of the officers’ actions leading up to the shooting are not relevant for the purposes of an excessive force analysis in the Fifth Circuit. Here, the district court determined that the moment of threat occurred in the two seconds before Barnes was shot. At that time, officer Felix was still hanging onto the moving vehicle and believed it would run him over, which could have made Officer Felix reasonably believe his life was in imminent danger. Going a step further, Officer Felix was still hanging on to the moving vehicle when he shot Barnes. This position placed the officer close to being run over, leading Officer Felix to believe his life was in imminent danger. Under the “moment of threat” test, Officer Felix did not violate Barnes’s constitutional rights. Because the Circuit’s analysis was confined to the precise moment of the threat, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district Court’s grant of summary judgement, holding that no constitutional injury existed.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision underscores critical legal and training principles for officers on duty, particularly regarding the use of force. The “moment of threat” test applied by the Fifth Circuit emphasizes that the legality of using deadly force is determined by the immediate threat posed to the officer or others at the time force is used, not by the actions leading up to that moment. This principle stresses the importance of officers being able to articulate and demonstrate that their perception of an imminent threat was reasonable under the circumstances. For law enforcement officers, this case reiterates the significance of body camera footage in providing an objective account of the events as they unfold, the necessity of clear communication during encounters, and the crucial need for rigorous training on assessing and responding to threats. Officers are reminded that their decisions, especially those involving lethal force, must be grounded in a reasonable belief of imminent danger to themselves or others, as evaluated in the specific context of the threat’s immediate presence.
Barnes v. Felix, No. 22-20519 (5th Cir. 2023)