News

Mother’s Fight for Justice: Supreme Court to Review Police Shooting Case

The Supreme Court’s decision could redefine police accountability and the standards for evaluating excessive force.

Mother’s Fight for Justice: Supreme Court to Review Police Shooting Case Credit | REUTERS

United States: On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will review a woman’s civil rights case about her son’s death during a police traffic stop in Houston. This case aims to make it simpler to punish police officers for excessive force use, as reported by Reuters.

A Mother’s Fight for Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Janice Hughes’s appeal regarding the 2016 death of her son Ashtian Barnes at police hands. After losing her legal case in court Hughes presented her claim that Officer Roberto Felix Jr. violated her son’s Fourth Amendment rights during the police stop in Houston.

The lower courts failed to analyze the entire incident when deciding the case by using only the exact moment of threat and ignoring past officer actions.

A Divisive Legal Doctrine

According to the attorneys representing Hughes, courts under the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals apply the “moment of threat” doctrine during cases throughout Texas, but legal teams report its absence in national federal courts.

In a court filing, Hughes’ attorneys urged the Supreme Court to reject the doctrine and permit courts to evaluate the “totality of the circumstances.” They claimed that restricting the analysis encourages bad policing because it “immunizes officers who unnecessarily place themselves into jeopardy and improperly use deadly force.”

Supreme Court Weighs Police Conduct in Fatal Houston Shooting #news #breaking #breakingnews https://t.co/FtfHGcWtpb
— Brian Brown, Ph.D. (@BrianBrownNet) January 22, 2025

“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.

The Incident and Legal Proceedings

On April 28, 2016 Harris County Constable’s Office traffic officer Felix stopped Barnes when he saw Barnes driving a rented Toyota Corolla with unpaid toll tickets on a highway.

According to legal documentation Barnes looked for his documents inside his car but suggested they could be in the trunk. Felix believed he detected marijuana during his search yet drug tests found no traces in the car’s interior.

Law enforcement tried to remove Barnes from the vehicle, but it immediately started moving, according to official court documents. Felix climbed onto the driver’s door edge and ordered Barnes not to move before he shot twice according to official documents. Barnes died at the scene.

According to the lawsuit, Felix killed Ashtian Barnes by “pulling his gun without provocation, then pointing 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.”

The US Supreme Court is set to consider 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 https://t.co/kkTluISMn9 pic.twitter.com/hLnA0BLeyV
— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) January 22, 2025

Local authorities examined the shooting but authorities did not file charges against Felix. A police department investigation confirmed Felix had no blame to accept.

Hughes brought suits against the county and Felix but lost because the courts ruled Felix acted appropriately because his life was threatened during those first two seconds of hanging onto the moving vehicle.

Although the 5th Circuit rules forced them to use this doctrine, two Court officials expressed concerns about its restricted scope. According to 5th Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham his decision restricts protected Fourth Amendment rights, as reported by Reuters.

Awaiting a Landmark Decision

Higginbotham wrote that if he could have taken into account Felix’s involvement in “drawing his weapon and jumping on the running board,” he would have concluded that Felix “violated Barnes’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force.”