A Texas cop who was cleared of fatally shooting a man in 2016 is having his case reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Eight years ago, Constable Roberto Felix Jr. was brought up on charges of unreasonable use of deadly force for shooting an unarmed man.
A grand jury was unable to find him guilty of murder, citing a lack of evidence, and a federal court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his unreasonable use of deadly force charges. However, his case is now being brought in front of the Supreme Court for review.
In April 2016, Felix, of Harris County, pulled over 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes, a Black man who was driving his girlfriend’s rental car. According to authorities, the car’s license plate number was linked to toll violations by another driver.
Dashcam footage from the incident shows Felix asking Barnes if he has marijuana in the car and telling him to open the trunk, ABC13 in Houston reported. Barnes allegedly started to drive away.
Felix opened the driver’s side door and jumped on the car, which was in motion. He pulled out his gun and fired, hitting and killing Barnes.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. A Texas police shooting case from 2016 is being brought in front of the Supreme Court under 4th Amendment questions. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. A Texas police shooting case from 2016 is being brought in front of the Supreme Court under 4th Amendment questions. Kevin Carter/Getty Images
A Harris County Constables Office spokesperson confirmed to Newsweek that Felix is still employed as a constable in Harris County.
Since his death, The Justice for Ashtian Barnes project has become involved in advocating against police violence, stating: “The Texas Civil Rights Project along with the Barnes family envision a better future where traffic enforcement no longer carries firearms and where Black, brown, and poor Texans are no longer at risk of death during routine traffic stops.”
This case, which Barnes’ mother, Janice Hughes Barnes, brought forward as a civil rights suit, was dismissed due to the 5th Circuit’s “moment of threat” doctrine. This doctrine determines that officers are allowed to fire if they feel threatened.
However, the doctrine does not take into account how the officer ended up under threat in the first place.
Barnes’ mother has appealed the case, arguing that Felix put himself in danger by jumping into Barnes’ moving car, making himself responsible for being in a “moment of threat” situation.
This appeal has now been brought to the Supreme Court, arguing that the “moment of threat” doctrine, in its current form, violates the Fourth Amendment’s right to protection from unlawful search and seizure.
According to ScotusBlog, the court will judge the case based on: “Whether courts should apply the ‘moment of the threat’ doctrine, which looks only at the narrow window in which a police officer’s safety was threatened to determine whether his actions were reasonable, in evaluating claims that police officers used excessive force.”
An amicus brief filed by the National Urban League in favor of Janice Barnes to the Supreme Court argues that “the moment of threat doctrine impedes courts’ ability to balance individual rights and state interests” and that “the moment of threat doctrine especially harms African American communities.”
Janice Barnes’ case is not only supported by civil rights groups but has also been championed by the Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute think tank. The Cato Institute said that the “moment of threat” doctrine’s use in this case allows officers to use deadly force outside situations that are genuinely necessary.
“Ashtian Barnes didn’t die because he threatened anyone. He died because of Constable Felix’s bad decision, and the constable should be held accountable,” the Cato Institute said.
However, the Supreme Court brief filed on behalf of Felix argues that: “This case is not the appropriate vehicle to resolve the purported circuit split, because even if a broader review of Felix’s conduct is performed, and even if a Fourth Amendment violation is found, Felix would still be entitled to qualified immunity under clearly established law.”
Do you have a story we should be covering? Do you have any questions about this article? Contact [email protected]
0){let uncommonKnowledgeContainerHtml=’
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground. ]]>
