On January 22, 2025, the United Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a police officer-involved shooting case to determine the question of what circumstances are considered under the Fourth Amendment to decide whether a shooting was reasonable and justified. Barnes v. Felix, No. 23-1239, 2024 WL 4394125 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2024). The Court’s decision could have major consequences for Illinois law enforcement agencies concerning civil liability exposure and law enforcement operations.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits a police Officer from using "unreasonable" force. U.S. Const. amend. IV. In Graham v. Connor, the United States Supreme Court held that the test for “reasonableness” depends on "the totality of the circumstances." 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). The thirteen separate United States of Courts of Appeals are split on how to define the “reasonableness” test as it relates to use-of-force cases.
Four circuits have adopted a “moment of the threat” or “moment in time” approach. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th circuits evaluate the reasonableness of an Officer's actions only in the narrow window when the Officer's safety was threatened and do not examine the events that precede the moment of the threat (even if the Officer’s actions created the threat). Under this narrow test, an Officer’s actions leading up to the use of force are not relevant for the purposes of an excessive force inquiry.
Eight circuits-the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits-reject the moment of the threat doctrine and follow the totality of the circumstances approach and consider an Officer's actions leading up to the use of force. This broader approach considers pre-force conduct and tactics more deeply in deciding whether the use of force was reasonable.
Barnes will look into these legal issues within the context of an Officer-involved shooting that occurred in Texas in April, 2016. An Officer fatally shot Ashtian Barnes during a traffic stop on the Harris County Tollway. The Officer saw Barnes’ vehicle, which had been flagged for toll violations. The Officer initiated a stop and Barnes pulled over to the median. When the Officer requested documentation, Barnes could not produce it. He was driving a car rented in his girlfriend’s name. When he began “digging around” in the car the Officer smelled cannabis and questioned Barnes, who then turned off the vehicle and suggested checking the trunk for documentation. Dash cam footage shows that after Barnes opened the trunk and exited the vehicle, the car began to move. The Officer drew his weapon and stepped onto the moving car with the gun pressed against Barnes’ head. While holding onto the car frame with his head above the roof, the Officer fired two shots. Barnes’ vehicle stopped, and he was pronounced dead at the scene.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, focusing exclusively on the two seconds before the shooting when Barnes’s car began moving with the Officer on. The Court discounted any examination of the Officer’s actions prior to this moment, ruling that because the Officer reasonably feared his life in that moment, his use of deadly force was justified regardless of his previous actions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court ruling in this case could result in significant changes to the scope of civil liability exposure to Illinois law enforcement Officers. If the Court adopts a broader approach, an Officer’s actions (and tactics) could be considered, thereby potentially subjecting Officers and agencies to greater civil liability. IFMK Law will monitor and analyze the outcome of Barnes v. Felix in the new year.