For Immediate Release: October 17, 2024

Should Police Answer for Misuse of Deadly Force? SCOTUS to Hear Case on Reckless Behavior by Police Against Unarmed Citizens

WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that challenges the “moment-of-threat doctrine,” which has contributed to a climate in which police unnecessarily escalate situations over relatively minor crimes and then respond to the perceived danger with excessive or deadly force.

The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief in Barnes v. Felix calling on the Supreme Court to overturn the moment-of-threat doctrine and rein in reckless police behavior that not only escalates the level of danger during encounters with members of the public but too often results in the deadly use of force against unarmed citizens. For instance, an Illinois sheriff’s deputy was charged with first-degree murder for shooting and killing Sonya Massey after she called 911 for help at her home. A year earlier in Ohio, a pregnant mother was killed by a police officer in a grocery store parking lot. And in August 2024, police officers in Arizona jumped out of their car at Tyron McAlpin, who is deaf and has cerebral palsy, and repeatedly punched and tasered McAlpin due to his startled response. Some federal courts analyze the liability of police officers in such events under the moment-of-threat doctrine.

“The ‘moment-of-threat doctrine’ not only violates established Fourth Amendment principles for determining what constitutes a reasonable use of force, but it also encourages police to act recklessly with impunity,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Unfortunately, this mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be ‘neutralized’ is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets law enforcement officers beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment.”

In the afternoon of April 28, 2016, Harris County Texas Officer Roberto Felix initiated a traffic stop of Ashtian Barnes due to a report by the Toll Road Authority that the license plate number on his vehicle had outstanding toll violations. When asked for proof of insurance, Barnes explained that the car had been rented a week earlier by his girlfriend and the documentation might be in the trunk. The officer claimed he smelled marijuana and ordered Barnes to open the trunk. A few seconds after Barnes opened the trunk, the car’s blinker toward the side of the Tollway to which Barnes pulled over turned off for about ten seconds. Once the same blinker turned back on, Felix shouted at Barnes not to move, stepped onto the door sill where the driver-side door was open, and shoved his gun into Barnes’s head. At that point, the car started to move, and Officer Felix fired two shots into the car, killing Barnes.

Barnes’s parents filed a lawsuit arguing that Barnes did not pose a threat justifying deadly force, especially in light of the fact that Officer Felix jumped onto the car, but the trial court dismissed the case, concluding that Felix’s use of deadly force was “presumptively reasonable,” because the moment of threat occurred when Felix was hanging onto the moving vehicle and feared for his safety. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal under its moment-of-threat doctrine, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on appeal.

Angela M. Liu, Peter J. McGinley, Christopher J. Merken, Steven Oberlander, Shane Sanderson, and Luke D. Yamulla of Dechert LLP advanced the arguments in the Barnes v. Felix amicus brief.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org.

Source: https://tinyurl.com/mshzsp59

To donate via PayPal, please click below: