Critical Incident Review: Barnes v. Felix – A Landmark Ruling, How it Affects the Need for Thorough Use-of-Force Investigations from a UOF Experts Perspective
As a law enforcement use-of-force expert and investigative specialist, I evaluate police actions through the lens of Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court case that sets the standard for determining whether an officer’s use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, as one of the hindsight analytical tools I have developed, not as a legal conclusion. This standard is often directly associated with law enforcement training and policy. The recent Barnes v. Felix decision, handed down on May 15, 2025, merely strengthens this framework by rejecting a narrow rule that limited how some experts review police shootings. This ruling is a game-changer for ensuring thorough and fair investigations into use-of-force incidents, and adding emphasis on avoiding the should have, would have, or could have trap. Here’s why Barnes v. Felix is a step forward for me as an expert in the review and analysis of police use-of-force incidents, highlighting its key strengths and what they mean for law enforcement and the public.
The Case: A Traffic Stop Gone Wrong
In April 2016, Officer Roberto Felix Jr. pulled over Ashtian Barnes for unpaid toll violations on a Houston highway. During the stop, Felix noticed the smell of marijuana and saw Barnes rummaging through papers, prompting Felix to order him out of the car. Instead of complying, Barnes started the car and began to drive away. Felix jumped onto the car’s doorsill, shouted for Barnes to stop, and fired two shots when the car kept moving. Barnes was fatally wounded but managed to stop the car. The entire incident unfolded in just five seconds, with two seconds between Felix stepping onto the doorsill and firing his first shot.
Barnes’s mother sued Felix, claiming he used excessive force in violation of her son’s Fourth Amendment rights. The lower courts sided with Felix, applying the Fifth Circuit’s “moment-of-threat” rule, which focused only on the two seconds before the shooting. The Supreme Court overturned this approach, ruling that courts must consider the full context of the incident, not just its final moments. This is how I, and other colleagues have analyzed force incidents for years.
Why Barnes v. Felix Matters
The Barnes decision is a win for balanced and thorough use-of-force investigations. It aligns with Graham v. Connor, which requires judging an officer’s actions based on what a reasonable officer would do in the same situation, considering all relevant circumstances. Below are the five major strengths of this ruling and why they’re important for me in my work.
- Looking at the Whole Picture
Graham v. Connor says courts must examine the “totality of the circumstances” to decide if force was reasonable. The Fifth Circuit’s moment-of-threat rule ignored this, limiting the analysis to the instant Felix fired his gun. This is not a consistent protocol throughout the Circuit Courts, however, Barnes rejects this narrow approach, ensuring courts can look at everything leading up to the shooting—like the reason for the stop, Barnes’s actions, and Felix’s commands. Keeping in mind the moment of the use of force is still a priority focus based on the verbiage in Barnes.
This is an important caveat for investigators and experts like me. For example, the Court pointed to Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), where a driver’s reckless behavior during a long chase justified an officer’s use of deadly force. In Barnes, details like Barnes turning the car back on or Felix smelling marijuana could explain why Felix felt threatened. By allowing a full review of the incident, Barnes ensures investigations are fair and complete, giving a clearer picture of what happened. This may seem like a “loss” from the perspective of Felix, but I believe, based on the context of this incident that it won’t necessarily have a detrimental outcome in the long run. Hang in there Felix.
- Focusing on the Moment of Force—With Context
Barnes keeps the spotlight on the moment force is used, which is often the most critical part of the analysis. The Court notes that Felix’s decision to shoot while clinging to a moving car is central because that’s when he acted. This aligns with Graham’s recognition that officers make split-second choices in tense, unpredictable situations. Remember, Felix was a respondent to the reckless behavior of Barnes in this incident.
But Barnes goes further by requiring that this moment be viewed in context. Felix’s fear for his safety can’t be judged in isolation—it’s tied to Barnes starting to drive away after being told to get out. This balance is key for investigators. It lets us focus on the officer’s decision while considering the events that shaped it, avoiding a distorted view that could unfairly blame or excuse the officer.
- Steering Clear of Officer-Created Danger
One outstanding point in Barnes is avoiding the question of whether Felix’s actions—like jumping onto the car—created the danger that led to the shooting. The Court didn’t address this because the lower courts never considered it, and it wasn’t part of the case’s appeal. This keeps the focus on Graham’s standard of objective reasonableness.
For investigators, this is not necessarily a contentious point. Judging whether an officer’s tactical choice was a mistake can be tricky and risks second-guessing decisions made under pressure. Keeping in mind that tactics that fail may not be the fault of the officer. Citizens have a responsibility to comply with officers commands. The application of tactic applied in split-second to achieve a change in behavior that fails, is not necessarily the fault of the officer. By not diving into this issue, Barnes lets us stick to evaluating whether Felix’s actions were reasonable based on the full situation, not whether he “caused” the danger. This clarity helps keep investigations objective and consistent.
- Broadening the Timeline
Barnes makes it clear that courts must look at the entire timeline of an incident, not just its final seconds. The Court emphasizes that earlier events—like Felix’s commands or Barnes’s non-compliance—can shape how an officer perceives a threat. This broader view is essential for understanding the full story. Knowing the full story does not change the fact that the use of force was a last resort to stop an impending threat of serious bodily harm or death.
As an investigator, I rely on dashcam footage, BWC, officer statements, and other evidence to build a complete and contextual timeline from the officers perspective. In Barnes, the five seconds from the car moving to stopping are critical, but so are the two minutes of interaction before that. This approach ensures investigations capture the dynamic nature of police encounters, making findings more explicit, educational and foundational in court.
- Recognizing the Dangers of Traffic Stops
Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, joined by three other justices, highlights the real dangers officers face during traffic stops, especially when a driver flees. He cites cases like Michigan v. Long (1983) and examples of officers killed during routine stops, as well as criminals like Timothy McVeigh caught during minor traffic violations. When Barnes drove away, it could have signaled a bigger threat, like a serious crime or intent to evade arrest. Not to mention that Barnes was disobeying direct commands and behaving unpredictably and recklessly, endangering the officers and the public.
This perspective is crucial for investigators. I have established an anchor in my reviews called the “Common Thread” this considers 5 primary components, Perspective, Context, Expectation, decisions and actions, performance and behavior. Each anchor point in the common thread has a deep well of information to offer in the analysis of these critical events. It reminds us to consider the officer’s mindset in high-stress situations, where fleeing can escalate risks to the officer and the public. Barnes supports Graham’s focus on factors like a suspect’s attempt to escape, ensuring investigations account for the chaotic reality of policing.
What This Means Going Forward
Barnes v. Felix is a landmark ruling that strengthens how we should be investigating and analyzing use-of-force cases, from my perspective it has ratified the way I have conducted my analyses for years. By moving beyond the moment-of-threat rule, it ensures investigators follow the calculus for objective reasonableness and call for a full, objective analysis. This protects officers from being judged out of context while holding them accountable when force is unreasonable. It also sets a precedent for experts on both sides to avoid oversimplified views, encouraging nuanced, dispassionate and objective reviews of complex incidents.
For law enforcement, Barnes is a reminder of the need for training in multiple areas. Looking at the big picture, it offers awareness that use-of-force cases will be judged thoroughly, balancing officer safety with individual rights. As an expert, I see this decision as a powerful tool for conducting investigations that are fair, evidence-based, dispassionate and objective.
The case now returns to the lower courts for a new review using the broader approach Barnes demands. This ruling should shape how departments conduct investigations, getting to the why, and how experts analyze police use of force, through a clear and comprehensive lens.
Authored by Sgt. Jamie Borden (Ret.)
