Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to support the revival of a civil case against a Harris County constable’s deputy who was implicated in Ashtian Barnes’ 2016 shooting death on Wednesday. The action might establish a precedent for how courts handle accusations of excessive force against law enforcement.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the officer would be protected by the moment of threat doctrine, allowing justices to only consider his decision to shoot and kill Barnes in the instant that he felt his life was in danger, not the moments preceding the shooting. This decision prompted an appeal to the country’s highest court.
According to court filings, Barnes was driving a rental automobile with a history of unresolved toll road offenses when Harris County Precinct 5 Constable Roberto Felix pulled him over on Beltway 8 on April 28, 2016.The deputy can be seen approaching the car in dashboard video captured during the encounter. Felix tells Barnes to get out of the car, and the door swings open. After Barnes allegedly put the car in motion, the officer is seen in the video pulling out his gun.
Felix clutched to the driver’s side door as the car started to move ahead, firing his weapon almost immediately and killing Barnes.
His mother, Janice Hughes Barnes, sued Felix and Harris County after he passed away, claiming that the deputy had violated Ashtian Barnes’ Fourth Amendment rights, which forbid unjustified search and seizure.
RELATED: The 2016 Harris County Constable fatal shooting case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court
According to the lawsuit, Barnes never threatened Felix and followed all of the deputy’s directions before Felix pulled out his revolver, aimed it directly at Barnes’ head, and started yelling obscenities. According to the lawsuit filings, Felix failed to inform Barnes that he was being arrested, held for a search, or accused of breaking any laws in the minutes before his death.
Every single one of the accusations made in the complaint was refuted by Felix.
The deputy was not indicted by a grand jury on any of the criminal counts related to the 2016 incident. According to U.S. District Judge Alfred Bennett’s 2021 analysis of the incident and decision, the court’s authority to consider such instances is restricted by the moment of threat doctrine.
“The Fifth Circuit has effectively suppressed a more robust examination of the Fourth Amendment’s protections when it comes to encounters between the public and the police by narrowly focusing the judicial inquiry to only examine the exact moment the officer decided to use deadly force,” Bennett wrote.
Judge Patrick Higginbotham requested that the High Court resolve the dispute, writing that the principle prevents courts from considering the issue in its whole.
The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will establish a precedent for courts that evaluate shootings involving officers based only on the officer’s snap decisions in the face of danger.
Nathaniel Zelinsky, the attorney for the Barnes family in the civil lawsuit, referred to the application of the theory as legal amnesia on Wednesday, arguing that it is inconsistent with precedent, goes against common law, and defies common sense.
According to Zelinsky, the respondents had up until now adopted the moment of threat theory, but they have since changed their minds in front of this court. They now contend that the law of self-defense and superseding cause should be applied by courts, who should consider what happened prior to the threat.
On Wednesday, U.S. justices seemed to support restarting the civil case, which, with the High Court’s consent, may go back to a lower court. Zelinsky was questioned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the potential effects on future officer training of remanding the case, which effectively denied the application of the moment of threat theory.
Felix’s lawyer, Charles McCloud, defended the idea, saying it is meant to ensure that an officer does not forfeit his right to self-defense simply because he erred in the past.
According to McCloud, Sergeant Felix was clinging to the side of a fugitive suspect’s vehicle when he used force, and Felix had a reasonable belief that his life was in immediate danger. This matter should be resolved at that point.
The second, fourth, fifth, and eighth circuit courts of appeals all use the moment of threat theory. Other courts examine the whole course of events, taking into account all relevant factors. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to render a ruling in the case.
