U.S. Supreme Court will hear Barnes v. Felix, a case with potentially far-reaching implications for law enforcement and the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

On January 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Barnes v. Felix, a case with potentially far-reaching implications for law enforcement and the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. This pivotal case addresses critical issues surrounding the use of force by police officers and the standards by which their actions are judged. (Link to video: https://lnkd.in/gpRH6iWR)

The Fourth Amendment prohibits officers from using "unreasonable" force. In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court established that the "reasonableness" of an officer's actions must be determined by evaluating the "totality of the circumstances." However, courts nationwide have diverged in how they interpret and apply this standard in excessive force cases.

The Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits follow the "moment of the threat" doctrine, which evaluates the reasonableness of an officer's use of force narrowly, focusing only on the immediate moment when the officer perceives a threat to their safety. By contrast, the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits apply a broader approach, considering the officer's actions leading up to the use of force.

In Barnes v. Felix, the central question is whether Deputy Roberto Felix's own actions contributed to the dangerous situation that led to his use of deadly force. Specifically, the Court will examine whether Deputy Felix, by stepping onto the sill of the floorboard of Mr. Ashtian Barnes's vehicle as Mr. Barnes attempted to flee a car stop, created the threat that justified his use of deadly force. The Court will also consider whether the standard for evaluating reasonableness should account for actions taken in the moments immediately preceding a threat as part of the "totality of the circumstances."

The argument centers on a critical timeline: In the two seconds before Deputy Felix fired his weapon, he faced an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm. However, the approximately 2.5 seconds preceding that moment—when Deputy Felix stepped onto the floorboard—may be critical to understanding whether he created the conditions that put him at risk.

Another potential issue before the Court is whether officers have a constitutional duty to de-escalate situations before resorting to deadly force.

Additional info is available in the comments to follow, however, I invite my Law Enforcement, Attorney, Police Practice Experts, Safety, Sensemaking, HOP, HRO, Resilience Engineer, OODA, Cynefin, NDM friends, to look this over and give opinions on training and especially why it would have made sense in the 2-second decision cycle for Deputy Felix to do what he did.