View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: January 30, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------


** Does ‘Moment-of-Threat’ Doctrine Give Police a License to Kill? SCOTUS Asked to Rein In Police Recklessness, Use of Deadly Force
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, DC — Should police be made to answer for their reckless actions leading to use of deadly force against unarmed citizens? ([link removed]) That’s what the U.S. Supreme Court must decide.

Even as the Trump administration scales back oversight into police misconduct, it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court may be open to overturning the “moment-of-threat doctrine,” which has contributed to a climate where police unnecessarily escalate situations over relatively minor crimes and then respond to the perceived danger with excessive or deadly force. For instance, an Illinois sheriff’s deputy shot and killed Sonya Massey in her home after the deputy terrified her to seek cover by unnecessarily drawing his gun and then placed himself in close proximity to where he claimed she might throw hot water on him. In Ohio, pregnant mother Ta’Kiya Young was killed by a police officer who chose to place himself in front of her car as she slowly pulled out of her parking space. And in Arizona, police officers repeatedly punched and tasered Tyron McAlpin, who is deaf and has cerebral palsy, due to his startled response when the officers suddenly jumped out of their car at him.

Weighing in on Barnes v. Felix, The Rutherford Institute warned ([link removed]) that 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

“In an age when police are increasingly militarized, weaponized and protected by the courts, run-of-the mill encounters between police and citizens are now inherently dangerous for any individual unlucky enough to be in a situation where police are inclined to respond to perceived challenges to their ‘authority’ by drawing and using their weapons,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “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.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

In the afternoon of April 28, 2016, a Harris County Texas police officer 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, the officer 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 the officer fired two shots into the car, killing Barnes. The incident was recorded on video ([link removed]) .

Barnes’s parents filed a lawsuit arguing that Barnes did not pose a threat justifying deadly force, especially in light of the fact that the officer jumped onto the car, but the trial court dismissed the case, concluding that the officer’s use of deadly force was “presumptively reasonable” because the moment of threat occurred when the officer 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 subsequently agreed to review 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 briefs ([link removed]) .

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , 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 ([link removed]) .

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fcan-the-supreme-court-tame-trigger-happy-cops Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fcan-the-supreme-court-tame-trigger-happy-cops)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2025 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])