The Supreme Court appears poised to reject limits on police brutality lawsuits

The Supreme Court appeared poised Wednesday to reject a legal theory that severely limits lawsuits seeking to hold police officers accountable for using deadly force.

The case arose, an appellate judge wrote, because of a common occurrence. “A routine traffic stop,” the judge wrote, “resulted in the death of an unarmed black man.”

The question for the jury is how the court should limit its consideration to the “moment of threat” and not to the context of the encounter.

There was something like a consensus that the theory was too narrowly focused on the seconds before the shooting.

“Everyone agrees that this is wrong,” said Judge Neil M. Gorsuch. “What’s wrong with saying that?”

The case began one afternoon in April 2016, when 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes was driving on a freeway outside of Houston in his girlfriend’s rental car. He was on his way to pick up his daughter from school.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Barnes, the license plate number was linked to unpaid tolls made by other drivers. Officer Roberto Felix Jr. pulled over. the vehicle is at the Harris County Auditor’s Office for these unpaid fees.

When Mr. Barnes could not immediately see the license and registration of the vehicle, the officer asked him to get out of the vehicle. Mr. Barnes started to leave, the car door still open. Officer Felix drew his gun, reached through the window of the moving vehicle and shot Mr. Barnes twice, according to dash cam footage.

Mr. Barnes’ mother, Janice Hughes Barnes, sued, saying the officer’s use of force was unreasonable, violating the Fourth Amendment.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled last year in favor of the officer on what they said was a narrow question. “We can only ask whether Officer Felix was in danger ‘at the time of the threat’ that caused him to use deadly force against Barnes,” wrote Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham.

Judge Higginbotham added a concurring opinion, writing for himself. If he had been allowed to consider all the circumstances surrounding the break, he wrote, he could have acted differently.

“Given the rapid sequence of events and the role of Officer Felix in drawing his weapon and jumping onto the board,” the judge wrote, “the totality of the circumstances all deserve a finding that Officer Felix violated Barnes’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. “

In Wednesday’s argument in the case, Barnes v. Felix, No. 23-1239, some justices expressed concern about the two-second ruling. “An officer does not deserve the time we are spending here today to make a decision,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

But most judges seem to allow the court to consider more than a second before the shot.

“Can you please,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked Ms. Barnes’ lawyer, “with the narrow view that it is wrong for the court to look only at the time of the threat?”

The lawyer, Nathaniel AG Zelinsky, said he would do so, although he added that “it would be useful if the court clarified that this means that you can look at the jump in addition to the shot.”

Charles L. McCloud, an attorney for Officer Felix, said the court should limit its focus on when he used force. “Clinging to the side of a fleeing suspect’s vehicle, Felix believed his life was in danger,” Mr. McCloud said. “This conclusion should end this case.”

In denial, Mr. Zelinsky disagreed. “You have to look at the whole picture,” he said, “and here it’s more than two seconds.”