Venable is proud to recognize the work of its Appellate Group in drafting the Brief of Amici Curiae Current and Former Law Enforcement Officials in connection with the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. ___ (2025). The Court held that claims of excessive force by police officers must be evaluated under the "totality of the circumstances," including an officer's escalatory conduct that shapes the encounter. The Court's decision rejects the Fifth Circuit's narrow "moment of the threat" doctrine, which restricted the excessive force inquiry to the precise moment the officer perceived a deadly threat.
The Barnes matter arose from a traffic stop where a police officer pulled over Ashtian Barnes for minor, non-violent traffic infractions. When Barnes began to drive away, the officer drew his weapon, leapt onto the moving vehicle, and fatally shot Barnes. Under the Fifth Circuit's "moment of the threat" rule, that use of deadly force was reasonable—as the officer was hanging onto a moving car when he opened fire. But in a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that "a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment." That inquiry considers not just the risks at the moment the officer opened fire, but his decision to step onto the moving vehicle in the first place.
Venable appellate attorneys Liz Rinehart and Kyle Keraga authored the Brief of Amici Curiae on behalf of more than 20 nationally recognized law enforcement officials, urging the Court to reach this result. The brief explained that the “totality of the circumstances” rule aligns with police training, policies, and nationwide best practices—and that the “moment of the threat” rule improperly excludes important evidence of whether officers followed those best practices when making tactical decisions in the field. Counsel for the petitioner referenced this amicus brief at oral argument, and Justice Kavanaugh cited it in a four-member concurrence, agreeing that the "moment of the threat" rule should be rejected, and that officers should be held accountable when they use excessive force during traffic stops. To Justice Kavanaugh, the danger faced by police officers when a suspect flees a traffic stop is highly relevant—but such risk is merely one of the relevant circumstances, not their totality.
Dr. Adam Feldman of Legalytics observed that Venable’s amicus brief “proved a crucial asset in the case” by drawing “a clear connection between modern tactical doctrine and constitutional law.” He notes that the brief “substantively aligned with the majority’s rejection of the Fifth Circuit’s narrowed standard,” serving as “a linchpin in establishing that good policing and constitutional reasonableness are mutually reinforcing.” Venable is delighted to see that this brief was cited by Justice Kavanaugh in his concurrence, and that it played an influential role in the Supreme Court's decision.