Police Use of Force Must Now Be Evaluated Based on the “Totality of the Circumstances”—Not Just the Moment Shots Are Fired
In a ruling with nationwide implications, including here in Michigan, the United States Supreme Court has clarified how courts must analyze excessive use of force claims under the Fourth Amendment. In Barnes v. Felix, decided unanimously on May 15, 2025, our Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may no longer limit their evaluation to just the exact moment when an officer uses force. They must also evaluate the totality of the circumstances leading up to the use of force as well.
This clarification marks a significant development for civil rights cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Attorney Charles Kronzek is admitted to practice in the federal district court in Texas and the U S Supreme Court. He reminds us that “a 1983 action” is a civil rights lawsuit.) It could impact how police officers here in Michigan and across the United States are held civilly accountable in lawsuits involving excessive force.
A Brief Background of What Happened?
Texas Deputy Roberto Felix conducted a traffic stop of a driver, Ashtian Barnes, for suspected toll violations. During that stop, Felix reported that he observed Barnes exhibiting suspicious behavior. Barnes stated the rental car was in his girlfriend’s name. He was rummaging through the vehicle, and Deputy Feix smelled a marijuana odor coming from the car.
After Deputy Felix ordered Barnes to exit the car, he turned off the ignition and opened the door. He quickly restarted the car and attempted to flee. Deputy Felix pulled his firearm as Barnes started to drive away. Deputy Felix jumped onto the doorsill of the car and, in about two seconds, fired two shots into the vehicle. Barnes was deceased at the scene.
Barnes’ mother filed the 1093 civil rights lawsuit alleging that the deputy used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
How the Lower Courts Got It Wrong
Both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the case based on the “moment-of-threat” doctrine. Under the doctrine, courts evaluate whether force was reasonable at the precise moment it was used. Applying that doctrine to this case meant only focusing on the two seconds when the officer pulled his firearm and was clinging to a moving car. According to our U.S. Supreme Court, that was the wrong standard.
SCOTUS Decision
The Court held that the proper legal test for evaluating this type of claim is the “totality of the circumstances”. This test comes from the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor. The Court emphasized that all relevant factors leading up to and during the moment that force was used should be considered in evaluating whether the force used was excessive. “Earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones.”
This means that all interactions, officer decisions, and a suspect’s behavior throughout the encounter should be considered when determining whether the use of force was objectively reasonable or excessive.
What Does This Mean for Michigan Police and Lawsuits?
Although this case originated in Texas, it has a nationwide impact, including in Michigan. The United States Sixth Circuit, which governs Michigan, already follows the “totality of the circumstances” approach in most use-of-force cases brought before it. Before this new Supreme Court decision, other federal districts did not use the totality of the circumstances approach. However, the Barnes decision makes it clear that no federal court may rely on the “moment of threat” doctrine analysis any longer.
This is important for several reasons:
- For Michigan Police Officers: Officers’ conduct will now be assessed based on their decision-making throughout the entire encounter, not just the moment they used force.
- For Plaintiffs: Individuals bringing this type of civil rights violations claim can use an officer’s conduct, such as poor communication, aggressive tactics, or failures to de-escalate, as evidence that an officer’s use of force was unreasonable.
- For Attorneys and Courts in Michigan: The ruling reaffirms that use-of-force claims analysis requires a case-by-case approach, grounded in a full view of events, not just a small window.
Limitations of the Ruling
The Court did not address “officer-created danger”, a doctrine that considers whether an officer’s conduct escalated the situation. Nor did it make any broad decisions about the qualified immunity of law enforcement, says the criminal defense attorneys at The Kronzek Firm.
Final Thoughts: A Balanced Legal Standard Moving Forward
The Barnes decision reaffirms protections for individuals subjected to excessive force and ensures that officers are judged based on the entire picture. For Michigan attorneys, police departments, and courts, it reiterates the importance of comprehensive evidence and detailed factual analysis in every use-of-force case.
Whether you’re a citizen seeking to understand your rights or a law enforcement agency reviewing policies, remember that context matters and every moment counts.
For more legal updates and analysis of Michigan law, follow our blog.
📞 Our attorneys have assisted thousands of Michigan clients for over 30 years. You can reach all of our offices 24/7 by calling 866 766-5245 (866 7NoJail).
[Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult an attorney for personalized guidance.]