By Andrew Chung
(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider on Wednesday a woman’s civil rights lawsuit over the fatal police shooting of her son during a traffic stop in Houston in a case that could make it easier to hold officers accountable for using excessive force.
The justices are scheduled to hear arguments in an appeal by Janice Hughes, whose 24-year-old son Ashtian Barnes was killed in the 2016 incident. Hughes appealed after a lower court dismissed her lawsuit that accused the Houston police officer, Roberto Felix Jr., of violating the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures by using deadly force against her son.
At issue is whether the lower courts in the case properly analyzed the incident by considering only the exact “moment of threat” to the officer, while excluding the officer’s actions leading up to the deadly episode.
The so-called “moment of threat” doctrine is used by courts in several regions of the country, including the Texas federal courts overseen by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where this case was decided – but not in other federal courts, according to lawyers for Hughes.
Lawyers for Hughes urged the Supreme Court to reject the doctrine and allow courts to assess the “totality of the circumstances.” They said in a legal filing that limiting the analysis promotes bad policing because it “immunizes officers who unnecessarily place themselves into jeopardy and improperly use deadly force.”
“Felix made a split second judgment – based on years of experience and training – to act rather than risk harm to himself and the public. The Constitution affords him that choice,” Felix’s lawyers wrote in a court filing.
Felix, a Harris County Constable’s Office traffic enforcement officer, pulled Barnes over on April 28, 2016, because the rented Toyota Corolla he was driving on a highway had outstanding toll violations.
Barnes searched for his license and proof of insurance, and suggested they might be in the trunk, according to court papers. Felix claimed to smell marijuana, though no evidence of drugs was found in the car, the filings showed.
Felix ordered Barnes out of the vehicle, but instead the car began to move forward, according to court papers. Felix stepped on to the driver’s door sill and shouted at Barnes not to move, then fired twice, the filings showed. Barnes died at the scene.
The shooting resulted from Felix’s dangerous decision “to pull his gun without provocation, then point that gun in Ashtian Barnes’ direction, then leaping onto a moving vehicle and firing twice into it without warning, with no clue as to what he was aiming at, and in clear and reckless disregard to the danger he created to the public and to Ashtian Barnes,” according to the lawsuit.
Local officials investigated the shooting but Felix was never charged with a crime. An internal police probe also cleared Felix of any wrongdoing, according to court papers.
Hughes sued the county and the officer seeking monetary damages, but lower courts found that Felix’s actions were reasonable when considering only the two seconds before he fired his first shot, when he was hanging onto the moving vehicle and believed his life was in danger.
Even as 5th Circuit precedents obliged them to apply the doctrine, the judges who reviewed the lawsuit criticized the narrow view they were required to take. In a written opinion, Judge Patrick Higginbotham of the 5th Circuit said the doctrine “stifles” Fourth Amendment protections.
If he were able to consider Felix’s role in “drawing his weapon and jumping on the running board,” Higginbotham wrote, he would have found that Felix “violated Barnes’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force.”
A Supreme Court decision is expected by the end of June.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)
