Barnes drove a rental The incident occurred at 2:45 pm on April 28, 2016, when the silver Toyota Corolla reserved by his girlfriend was driving on the Sam Houston Tollway in west Houston. He was reportedly on his way to pick up his girlfriend's daughter from school. Hughes.
Roberto Felix Jr., a traffic enforcement officer with the Harris County 5th Precinct Constable's Office, the local police department, received a report that Barnes' car had a serious violation.
He parked his vehicle to the left of the center side of the southbound toll road, near the driver's side. Barnes was initially unable to produce proof of his license or insurance and told Felix the documents might be in the trunk. At the time, Felix said he smelled marijuana, although no evidence of any drugs was found in the car. In the initial moments, Barnes shut down the engine and removed the key from the ignition.
The rapid-fire sequence of events lasted only a few seconds and was captured on video from Felix's patrol car, with what was happening inside completely hidden from view.
Felix asked Barnes to get out of the car. But almost as soon as the door opened, Barnes quickly inserted the key into the ignition, started the engine and got the car running, according to Felix's testimony in the case. The vehicle begins to move forward. Felix walked to the threshold and yelled at Barnes not to move. He then fired two shots, hitting Barnes in the torso, and the vehicle quickly came to a stop.
Barnes died at the scene.
The murder was investigated by the Houston Police Department and the Harris County District Attorney's Office, which are separate from the Sheriff's Office, and a grand jury found no criminal charges likely.
Felix, a police officer since 2004, was involved in another fatal shooting in 2007, according to testimony he gave to the grand jury investigating Barnes' death. Police Department spokesman Jeff McShane said Felix still works there and has not been disciplined as a result of the Barnes incident. He added that a review of the shooting found it was justified.
"They didn't find anything wrong with his behavior," McShane said.
Felix, through his lawyer, declined to comment.
Felix said in his testimony that while it initially appeared to be a routine traffic stop, his opinion changed because he thought Barnes was acting suspiciously, such as not having a driver's license and rummaging through the car looking for a rental agreement. . .
"His actions continually indicated to me that he was up to something nefarious," Felix said in his deposition. (Felix saw no sign that Barnes was armed at the time of the incident, although one was later found in the car. gun.)
As Barnes restarted the engine and tried to put the car into gear, Felix said he feared for his safety, which is why he jumped on the door sill and opened fire.
"Maybe two or three seconds," Felix said. "But the moment felt longer than that."
In Hughes' lawsuit, she claims Felix used excessive force and violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits illegal searches and seizures. She also filed a separate claim against the police department, which was not directly disputed in the Supreme Court.
Her attorney said Felix could have avoided the use of deadly force by de-escalating the situation and argued he violated police department policy on use of force.
The dispute was filed after Judge Patrick Higginbotham of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, who was hearing the Texas case, reluctantly ruled in Felix's favor to the High Court. He wrote that he must follow the court's own precedent, but he all but begged the Supreme Court to intervene.
Most notably, Higginbotham concluded that had he not been bound by the "moment of threat" doctrine and been able to assess the broader evidence, he would have concluded that a constitutional violation had occurred .
"Given the rapid development of the incident and Officer Felix's actions in drawing his weapon and jumping on the pedal, the totality of the circumstances shows that Officer Felix violated Barnes' Fourth Amendment protection against excessive force," he wrote. right."
Texas District Judge Alfred Bennett had similar concerns, ruling in March 2021 that no constitutional violation had occurred based on appeals court precedent.
Like Higginbotham, Bennett criticized the appeals court's approach, saying it "effectively blocks stronger scrutiny of Fourth Amendment protections when it comes to conflicts between the public and police." .
It is already extremely difficult to successfully prosecute police officers for excessive use of force. The court's decision will not drastically change the legal landscape in this area, but it remains of national significance.
Hughes' attorneys say that's because 12 federal appeals courts are divided, with four courts upholding the threat-moment doctrine and eight rejecting it. If the court rules in favor of Hughes, the doctrine would be invalidated nationwide, a loss for police officers accused of using excessive force. But if the court rules in Felix's favor, it could be more difficult for plaintiffs to make such claims.
Felix's attorney said lower courts were not as divided on the issue as Hughes' legal team said. They said the 5th Circuit's approach was consistent with how the Supreme Court has directed lower courts to handle excessive force claims, including the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor.
The Supreme Court said in that case that when determining whether excessive force was used, courts must view the incident from the perspective of what an "objectively reasonable" police officer would have done under the same circumstances.
At its core, the dispute comes down to what exactly the Supreme Court meant in a 1989 case that built on a ruling four years earlier when it said courts should consider "the overall situation" when evaluating an officer's conduct. Condition". Hughes' attorney said that should include the sequence of events leading up to the use of force, while Felix's attorney said it should be limited to the exact moment the officer decided to use force.
In some cases, a broader consideration of the preceding moments will give the plaintiff a better chance of proving that the officer acted unreasonably, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
Even if Felix loses in the Supreme Court, he still has a good chance of winning on the excessive force claim. That's because he can invoke the qualified immunity defense, which courts are increasingly using to protect police officers in similar cases. This defense applies when a constitutional violation occurs but the officer failed to notice that the alleged conduct was illegal. The court must re-examine the Barnes case to determine whether it was "clearly" established that Felix's conduct violated the Constitution at the time of the incident.
Felix's lawyers insist he will be protected by appeals court precedent.
"Felix is entitled to qualified immunity under the clear law in effect when he blocked Barnes," they wrote in court documents.
But as Hughes' attorney points out, even if she ultimately loses, she could still get a lower court ruling that would put police on notice that conduct like Felix's would be unconstitutional going forward. This could change police training, help prevent similar incidents from happening, and mean officers would not be protected by qualified immunity in future cases involving similar conduct.