Use of Force: Context Matters in Fourth Amendment “Totality of Circumstances” Analysis
In a recent opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that there is no time limit on the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis employed when determining whether an officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable and compliant with Fourth Amendment rights.
The Incident
In Barnes v. Felix, a law enforcement officer patrolling a highway outside Houston pulled over a driver on an alert for unpaid tolls. The initial interaction involved the officer asking for identification and proof of insurance. The driver indicated he did not have his license with him and the car was a rental in his girlfriend’s name. He rummaged around the car and was told to stop “digging around.” The driver indicated he might have identification in the trunk and was asked to open the trunk, which he did while turning the ignition off. These interactions took approximately two minutes.
Next, with a hand on his holster, the officer told the driver to exit the car. The driver opened the door but did not exit and turned the ignition back on. The officer unholstered his gun and, as the car began to move forward, jumped onto its doorsill. He twice shouted, “Don’t fucking move,” and with his head above the roof and unable to see into the car, he fired two quick shots inside. The driver was hit, but managed to stop the car. The officer then radioed for back-up. By the time it arrived, the driver was dead. Five seconds elapsed between when the car started moving and when it stopped, and within that period, only two seconds passed between the moment the officer stepped on the doorsill and the moment he fired his first shot.
Summary Judgment in the Lower Courts
The District Court granted summary judgment, finding that in use-of-deadly force cases, the Fifth Circuit had developed a rule (similar to several other circuits) that a court could ask only about the situation existing “at the moment of the threat” that sparked the fatal shooting in the analysis of objectively reasonable officer conduct. Employing that standard, the District Court determined that an officer could reasonably believe himself to be “at risk of serious harm” when standing on the doorsill of a moving vehicle. That determination concluded the District Court’s analysis. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court’s Opinion
The Supreme Court discussed the standard of objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment, which requires an analysis of the “totality of the circumstances” under Graham v. Connor (490 U. S. 386, 396). The Court reasoned:
“Most notable here, the “totality of the circumstances” inquiry into a use of force has no time limit. Of course, the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often be what matters most; it is, after all, the officer’s choice in that moment that is under review. But earlier facts and circum¬stances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones.”
As such, the “at the moment of the threat” rule prevented a complete analysis of the events leading up to the moment of deadly force, including prior events that could further explain the officer’s perception and inform the reasonableness of the officer’s use of force. The Court therefore held that the “moment-of-threat rule” applied by the Fifth Circuit and District Court prevented that attention to context and thus conflicted with the Supreme Court’s mandate to analyze the totality of the circumstances. With that, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the lower court for further analysis.
Takeaways
The Barnes decision clarified that in all use-of-force cases, the Fourth Amendment requires a complete review of the relevant circumstances leading up to the use of force in order to determine whether an officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable. Plaintiffs may attempt to utilize this ruling to argue that an officer created the dangerous situation at hand in an effort to negate the reasonableness of the use of force. However, this decision appears more helpful to those defending officers as every relevant detail, no matter how small, should be analyzed to explain why an officer perceived a threat and acted reasonably at the moment force was used.
