Rhode Island is already failing at police accountability. This Supreme Court case could make it worse

"...the court will seek to resolve the circuit split over the moment of threat doctrine, giving a definitive answer to whether lower courts can use this doctrine going forward..."

As is 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. If the Supreme Court rules the wrong way, we will see a massive decrease in police accountability and justice, spelling disastrous consequences for the Ocean State, which is already so behind in this area. 

Facts of the Case: 

On April 28, 2016, 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes drove 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 driver’s side of Barnes’ vehicle, asking Barnes to present his license and registration. Barnes explained the car’s rental status to Officer Felix and how he believed the documents were in the trunk. Barnes opened the trunk remotely, but Officer Felix did not go to the vehicle’s rear to check. Instead, he claimed to smell cannabis. (Note: No traces of drugs were found in the car.) Officer Felix drew his gun and opened the driver’s side door. This action prompted Barnes to start the vehicle and attempt to drive away, but Officer Felix, with the car door still open, stepped onto the doorway and clung to the vehicle, now in motion. Officer Felix discharged his weapon into the car, striking Barnes, who brought the vehicle to a stop, parked, and shut off the car before succumbing to his wounds. 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 in favor of a motion for summary judgement¹ before the case went to trial, stating that Ashtian Barnes posed a clear threat to Officer Felix upon review of the dashcam footage. (Note: The dashcam footage can be found online.) The Barnes family appealed the decision to the Fith Circuit Court, which also ruled in favor of Officer Felix and Harris County, though notably, the presiding judge utilized the moment of threat doctrine to come to his conclusion, which set the grounds for the Supreme Court case we have before us, as there is a major circuit split² 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 controversy in judicial proceedings, with a majority of United States circuit judges opting not to apply it, is used by some circuit judges when attempting to assess the constitutionality of an officer’s alleged use of force. What does that even mean? A judge overseeing a case where an officer has allegedly used excessive force in violation of an individual’s 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 the part of the officer or any other parties in the moment leading up to the action and anything that follows, creating a narrow window of judgment and stripping the situation of 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 the factors surrounding an alleged action, taking into account the officer’s actions beforehand to come to a more comprehensive conclusion on whether or not the actions taken were reasonable. For example, an officer who instigates a situation, increasing the chances that 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 acting in defense of themselves without having provoked any action. 

The Question Presented to the Court: 

The Supreme Court will not weigh in on whether Officer Felix violated Ashtian Barnes’ Fourth Amendment rights. Instead, the court will seek to resolve the circuit split over the moment of threat doctrine, giving a definitive answer to whether lower courts can use this doctrine going forward or be bound by the totality of the circumstances standard. Following their decision, the Lower Court decision in Barnes V. Felix will be upheld or re-assessed using the new Supreme Court standard. 

Outcomes: 

The Supreme Court may rule in favor of Barnes, striking down the moment of threat doctrine, though this would not necessarily mean that Officer Felix would be brought to justice. More likely than not, due to qualified immunity³, 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 find that Officer Felix’s use of force was justified upon review of all of the circumstances. The Supreme Court decision will have a greater impact on future Fourth Amendment cases, rather than bringing justice for Ashtian Barnes. If the court adopts the totality of the circumstances standard, 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 sometimes difficult to judge if an officer’s actions are reasonable when considering how narrow a window officers usually have when making these decisions. However, this could promote a change in police culture, incentivising officers to resist using lethal or excessive force as a first choice when dealing with an intense situation. Ideally, it would stop officers from instigating a situation to a point that requires these decisions. 

What does this mean for Rhode Island? 

Even after last year’s minor amendments, Rhode Island’s Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBOR) 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 will lock those doors to accountability and toss away the key. To be 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. 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 becomes more urgent. If our federal courts won’t protect us, our state lawmakers must. We can’t wait until the next tragedy to act.

1. A motion for summary judgment is a pretrial motion where a party asks the court to rule in their favor without a full trial.

2. A Circuit Split occurs when District Courts have different rules about the same thing..

3. Qualified immunity is a type of legal protection that shields government officials from being sued for violating someone’s rights, as long as the official did not violate a "clearly established" law.