Barnes v. Felix
Why the Last Two Seconds Are No Longer the Whole Story
For years, courts wrestled with whether a use-of-force case should be judged solely by an officer’s split-second actions or by the full sequence of events leading up to them. That debate changed on May 15, 2025, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Barnes v. Felix. This is the kind of case that should now be built into officer training, supervisory review, and use-of-force education, because it affects every officer, trainer, supervisor, and union representative involved in these incidents.
The case arose from a traffic stop outside Houston. Officer Roberto Felix Jr. received a radio alert about a vehicle with outstanding toll violations, located the vehicle, and initiated a stop on the highway shoulder. Felix asked Ashtian Barnes for his license and proof of insurance. Barnes said he did not have his license with him and explained that the car was a rental in his girlfriend’s name. As Barnes began to reach around the inside of the car, Felix repeatedly told him to “stop digging around.” Felix again asked for identification and said he smelled marijuana, then asked whether there was anything in the vehicle he should know about. Barnes replied that he might have identification in the trunk, and Felix told him to open it from the driver’s seat. Barnes did so while also turning off the ignition. All of that happened in less than two minutes.
Things then escalated quickly. Felix told Barnes to get out of the car. Barnes opened the door but did not exit. Instead, he restarted the vehicle. Felix drew his firearm and, as the car began moving forward, he jumped onto the doorsill and shouted for Barnes not to move. With his head above the roofline, the car accelerating quickly, and no clear view into the interior, Felix fired two quick shots inside. Barnes was struck but managed to stop the car. About five seconds passed from the time the car started moving until it stopped, and about two seconds passed between Felix stepping onto the doorsill and firing the first shot. Barnes died at the scene.
Barnes’s mother sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Felix violated Barnes’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment to Felix under the Fifth Circuit’s “moment-of-threat” rule, which limited the analysis to only whether the officer was in danger at the precise moment that led to the use of deadly force. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that events leading up to the shooting were not relevant under that rule.
“Chronological blinders”
That approach ran headfirst into the Supreme Court’s existing Fourth Amendment framework. Under Graham v. Connor, excessive-force claims are judged by an objective reasonableness standard. And under Graham, County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, and Tennessee v. Garner, that reasonableness inquiry requires courts to assess the “totality of the circumstances.” In Barnes, the Supreme Court unanimously held that this analysis has no artificial time limit. While the final moments of an encounter may matter most, earlier facts and events can shape how a reasonable officer would understand and respond to what happens next.
Because of that, the Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s “moment-of-threat” rule and held that courts must consider all relevant facts and events leading up to the use of force when deciding whether that force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The Court vacated the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration under the proper standard.
The lower courts focused almost exclusively on the final two seconds, asking only whether Felix was in danger at that precise moment. The Supreme Court deemed that approach too narrow, explaining that a court cannot properly assess the totality of the circumstances while wearing “chronological blinders.”
That phrase matters. It underscores that legal analysis does not begin only when the threat becomes immediate. Instead, it must account for every event and action throughout the encounter.
Not the final word
This decision does not render the final two seconds irrelevant; they still matter. What Barnes changes is that those seconds can no longer be viewed in isolation. Instead, it underscores the need to evaluate an incident in its full context. That principle should be embedded in training, report writing, supervisory review, and the guidance provided by both agency and union leadership.
It’s important to realize that Barnes v. Felix addresses only part of the excessive-force inquiry. The Supreme Court clarified that courts must assess the entire encounter, not just the final split second. However, it did not resolve whether, or how, an officer’s earlier actions leading up to the use of force should be considered in that analysis. Since that issue remains unresolved, Barnes is a significant decision but not the final word.
Officers must look beyond the moment force was used and ensure that the entire encounter is thoroughly documented from their perspective. This is crucial because documentation should rely not only on body camera or MVR recordings but, more importantly, on the officer’s own account of what they saw, heard, felt, and did in real time.
Ultimately, video can record the incident, but the officer’s real-time perspective provides its human context.
This article is informational, not legal advice. Department policy, state law, collective bargaining language, and the facts of a specific incident still matter.
Cases Referenced
Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. ___ (2025)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 581 U.S. 420 (2017)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)