As is seemingly becoming more and more common in recent years, there is a vital case on the Supreme Court’s docket that has some serious implications, especially here in Rhode Island. The case in question is Barnes V. Felix, which examines the legal framework known as the “Moment of Threat Doctrine” and if the Supreme Court rules the wrong way on this, we will see a massive decrease in police accountability and justice, spelling out disastrous consequences for the ocean state, which is already so behind in this area.

Facts of the Case:
On April 28, 2016, the following series of events transpired. 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes was driving a rental car on the Sam Houston Tollway in Texas. The rental was in his girlfriend’s name, and had several outstanding toll violations none of which were accrued by Barnes or his girlfriend. Barnes was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix, after coming to a stop, Officer Felix exited his cruiser and approached the drivers side of Barnes’ vehicle, asking Barnes to present his license and registration. Barnes explained to Felix the car’s rental status and how he believes that the documents were in the trunk. Barnes remotely opened the trunk but Felix did not go to the rear of the vehicle to check, instead he claimed to smell cannabis (Note: There were no traces of drugs of any kind found in the car), he then drew his gun, and proceeded to open the driver side door. This action prompts Barnes to start the car and attempt to drive away, but Felix, with the car door still open, steps onto the doorway and clings to the vehicle now in motion. Felix discharges his weapon into the vehicle, striking Barnes who brings the vehicle to a stop, parks, and shuts off the vehicle before succumbing to his wounds on sight. The entirety of this interaction spanned about three minutes.

Procedural History:
Following the death of Ashtian, his mother and father filed suit against Officer Felix and Harris County Texas, unfortunately the District Court Judge presiding over the case ruled for a Motion of Summary Judgement before the case even went to trial, stating that Ashtian Barnes posed a clear threat to Officer Felix upon review of the Dashcam Footage (Note: Dashcam footage can be found online). The Barnes family then appeals this decision to the higher District Five court, who also rules in favor of Officer Felix and Harris County, though notably this time, the judge presiding utilized the “Moment of Threat Doctrine” to come to this conclusion. Which set the grounds for the Supreme Court case we have before us, as there is a major circuit split over the validity of this legal framework when it comes to analyzing these types of cases.

What is the Moment of Threat Doctrine?
This doctrine, which has caused major controversy in judicial proceedings, with a majority of U.S. circuit judges opting not to apply it, is used by some circuit judges who are attempting to assess the constitutionality of an officer’s alleged use of force. Now what does that even mean? Basically a judge who is overseeing a case where an officer has allegedly used excessive force in violation of an individual Fourth Amendment rights would implement this doctrine, looking only at the moment that the officer took action, and what in that precise moment prompted said action. The doctrine hinges on the judge ignoring all actions on part of the officer or any other parties in the moment leading up to the action, as well as anything that follows, creating a narrow window of judgment and stripping the situation of its context. In contrast, circuit court judges who frown upon this doctrine, opt for what is known as the “Totality of the Circumstances” standard. This framework examines all of the factors surrounding an alleged action, taking into account the actions of the officer beforehand to come to a more comprehensive conclusion on whether or not the actions taken were reasonable. For example, an officer who clearly instigates a situation, increasing the chances that a said officer would need to act in a way that would violate someone’s Fourth Amendment rights would be scrutinized far more than an officer who was clearly acting in defense of themselves without having provoked any action.

The Question Presented to the Court:
The Supreme Court will not be weighing in on whether or not Officer Felix violated Ashtian Barnes Fourth Amendment rights. Instead the Court seeks to resolve the circuit split over the “Moment of Threat Doctrine”, once and for all giving a definitive answer on whether lower courts will go forward using this doctrine, or the “Totality of the Circumstances Standard”. Following their decision, the Lower Court decision in Barnes V. Felix, will either be upheld, or have to be assessed using the new supreme standard.

Outcomes:
The Supreme Court may rule in favor of Barnes, striking down the “Moment of Threat Doctrine”, though this would not mean that Felix would be brought to jealousy necessarily. More likely than not, due to Qualified Immunity, Officer Felix would be free of any legal consequences that would otherwise arise when applying the “Totality of the Circumstances Standard” to this case. Alternatively, a Lower Court judge may, upon review of all of the circumstances, find that Felix’s use of force was justified. In all reality this decision will have a greater impact and influence on future Fourth Amendment cases, rather than bringing justice for Ashtian Barnes. If the court rules in favor of adopting the “Totality of the Circumstances Standard”, then a real shift in how these cases are handled will be seen across the country. This precedent is not without its complications, as it is at times difficult to truly judge if an Officer’s actions are reasonable when taking into account how narrow of a window officers usually have when making these decisions. Though this could promote a change in police culture, incentivizing officers to resist lethal force or excessive force as a first choice when dealing with an intense situation, and ideally it would stop officers from instigating a situation to a point that requires these decisions at all.

What does this mean for Rhode Island:
Rhode Island’s Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights, even after last year’s minor amendments, still creates a wall of protection around officers who abuse their power. It limits when and how departments can discipline officers and buries misconduct behind closed doors. If the Supreme Court rules to uphold the “Moment of Threat Doctrine”, it won’t just make it harder to get justice in Rhode Island, it’ll lock those doors to accountability and toss the key. To be absolutely clear this would affect Black and Brown Rhode Islanders the hardest. These are the communities most likely to be overpoliced, most likely to experience excessive force, and least likely to see any meaningful accountability when it happens. And now, the highest court in the country might make things even worse. The people of Rhode Island have been demanding real police reform for years. We’ve called for the full repeal of LEOBOR because we know how deeply it protects misconduct and prevents accountability. Now, with Barnes v. Felix threatening to weaken our civil rights even further, that fight just became even more urgent. If our federal courts won’t protect us, then our state lawmakers must. We can’t wait until the next tragedy to act.