The question
Whether a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim must be judged only by the moment an officer faced a threat, or under the totality of the circumstances including events leading up to the use of deadly force.
Barnes v. Felix
What the Court decided
The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment and rejected the "moment-of-threat" rule. It held that a claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's totality-of-the-circumstances standard, which has no time limit and can take into account facts and events preceding the final moment of the encounter. The moment-of-threat rule, which limited review to the two seconds before the shooting, conflicts with the fact-dependent, context-sensitive analysis the Court has prescribed. The Court did not decide whether or how an officer's own creation of a dangerous situation factors into the reasonableness analysis.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Kagan, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
Delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. An excessive-force claim is governed by the Fourth Amendment's objective-reasonableness standard from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, applied to the totality of the circumstances. That inquiry has no time limit, so earlier facts and events may bear on how a reasonable officer would understand and respond to later ones, as Plumhoff v. Rickard illustrates. The moment-of-threat rule, which confined review to the two seconds before the shooting, prevents attention to context and cannot be reconciled with the fact-dependent, context-sensitive approach the Court requires. The Court declined to address whether or how an officer's own creation of a dangerous situation factors into the reasonableness analysis, because the courts below never confronted that issue.
Concurring
Kavanaugh, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett
Filed a concurring opinion joined by Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that a claim of excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's objective-reasonableness standard from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
Source: syllabus, Held
The totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry has no time limit, and earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Fifth Circuit's moment-of-threat rule, which limited review to the two seconds before the shooting, conflicts with the Court's instruction to analyze the totality of the circumstances.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court did not address whether or how an officer's own creation of a dangerous situation factors into the reasonableness analysis, because the courts below never confronted that issue.
Source: syllabus, Held
Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, and Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion joined by Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup