The Moments Before: A Closer Look at Barnes v. Felix

Aspirant Consulting Group
Jun 5
6 min read

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. Felix didn’t create a new legal standard for officers in Pennsylvania or New Jersey. For those of us working under the Third Circuit, the idea that use-of-force incidents should be judged based on the totality of the circumstances, not just the final moment, has been the rule for decades.

But that’s exactly why this case matters.

Because while the law here hasn’t changed, Barnes reinforces a principle that’s already been part of the legal landscape in this region: that the decisions an officer makes leading up to a use of force, tactics, positioning, judgment, etc., can carry as much weight as the moment force is applied.

The Court’s unanimous rejection of the “moment-of-threat” approach, previously used in some other circuits, sends a clear message across the country. Use of force doesn’t begin at the trigger pull, and it won’t be judged that way in court. That has implications far beyond legal doctrine. It affects how departments write policy, how supervisors review incidents, and how officers prepare for and explain the decisions they make under pressure.

Even if the standard in Pennsylvania and New Jersey remains the same, Barnes is a timely reminder to make sure the way we apply it in training, policy, and review is consistent, defensible, and real.

What Happened in Barnes v. Felix

The case stemmed from a 2016 traffic stop in Texas. A constable pulled over a driver, Ashtian Barnes, for unpaid toll violations. During the stop, Barnes initially complied, even turning off the ignition. But moments later, he restarted the car and began to drive off. In response, the officer stepped onto the vehicle’s driver-side doorsill and within roughly two seconds, fired two shots into the cabin, fatally striking Barnes.

The entire incident, from the moment the car began moving to when it came to a stop, lasted about five seconds.

The officer said he feared for his life while clinging to the car, and the lower courts accepted that reasoning. But critically, they focused only on those final seconds when the officer was on the vehicle, ignoring everything that led up to the shooting.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that narrow view.

The Court reaffirmed that use of force must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances. That includes the officer’s decisions and actions leading up to the use of force, not just the moment it occurs. Tactical judgment, communication, warnings, opportunities to de-escalate, and whether the officer unnecessarily increased the risk of the encounter are all part of the constitutional analysis. In short, the Court made clear: context matters.

What This Means for Officers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey

For officers working in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, both part of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the standard affirmed in Barnes v. Felix should feel familiar. That’s because the Third Circuit has consistently applied the “totality of the circumstances” approach since the 1990s, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s original guidance in Graham v. Connor.

The Third Circuit has long recognized that force incidents must be evaluated in full context. Several key cases built that foundation:

Abraham v. Raso (1999): The court emphasized that use-of-force cases must include pre-shooting conduct and tactical decision-making, not just the final moment of force.
Bennett v. Murphy (2002): Reaffirmed that courts must assess whether an officer’s entire course of action was objectively reasonable, not just whether they perceived a threat when force was used.
Giles v. Kearney (2009): Although based in a correctional setting, this case underscored the circuit’s insistence on reviewing all relevant facts, not just isolated snapshots.

In other words, Barnes doesn’t introduce anything new for officers in this region, but it does confirm that the legal framework we’ve operated under for decades is now the standard across the country.

A Clear Call to Reflect

For officers, supervisors, and department leaders in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Barnes v. Felix doesn’t impose a new legal burden. The “totality of the circumstances” standard has been part of our legal landscape for decades.

Still, the decision is an important one.

It reaffirms the constitutional framework we’ve been operating under, and it offers an opportunity for agencies to take a closer look at how that standard is reflected in day-to-day practice. Not just in what’s written in policy, but in how officers are trained, how incidents are reviewed, and how departments prepare their personnel to explain critical decisions after the fact.

Because while the legal bar hasn’t moved here, this decision offers a clear opportunity for every agency to pause and ask: Do our policies, training programs, and review processes actually reflect the standard we say we follow? Are we preparing officers not just to survive these encounters, but to explain them clearly and defensibly under constitutional review?

What Departments Should Do Now

This is an ideal time for agencies to take a close look at the systems that shape use-of-force decisions, and to ensure they align with what the law and the courts now demand nationwide. That includes:

Review Policy Language

Your use-of-force policy should clearly reflect that pre-force decisions, tactical positioning, verbal communication, and de-escalation efforts are all relevant to how force will be evaluated. That doesn’t mean second-guessing officers; it means making expectations clear.

Use-of-force incidents will be reviewed based on the totality of the circumstances, including decisions and actions made by the officer leading up to the use of force.

Evaluate Training Focus

Ensure that training reinforces the idea that force is judged in full context. Scenario-based training should emphasize:

Time and distance considerations,
Tactical disengagement when appropriate,
Communication and warning opportunities, and
Articulating decision-making throughout the incident.

Strengthen Internal Review Practices

Most internal reviews already focus on whether an officer’s actions were within policy and whether the force used was reasonable and proportional to the resistance or threat encountered. That foundation is essential, but Barnes reinforces the importance of looking beyond just the final moments.

Reviews should reflect the same constitutional lens courts now require: Was the officer’s overall conduct objectively reasonable, when viewed in context? That includes not only whether the officer followed department policy, but also:

Were there reasonable alternatives available earlier in the encounter?
Did the officer’s approach, communication, or tactics help avoid or contribute to the need for force?
Were time, distance, or other resources available but not used?

This isn’t about second-guessing officers after the fact. It’s about helping them build decision-making awareness and tactical judgment that holds up under scrutiny. Think After-Action Reviews (AARs), focused on clarity, learning, and growth.

What was the goal?
What actually happened?
What went well?
What could be improved?

Using that kind of framework during use-of-force reviews helps shift the conversation toward development. It gives officers a structured opportunity to reflect on their choices and consider how small adjustments, earlier communication, better positioning, etc. might change the outcome next time.

What the Court Didn’t Decide: Officer-Created Danger

While the Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. Felix clarified that use of force must be judged based on the totality of the circumstances, it did not decide whether an officer’s own actions, like stepping onto a moving vehicle, can make a later use of force unconstitutional.

The Court acknowledged this issue but left it open, stating that the lower courts hadn’t addressed it and that it wasn’t part of what the Justices were ruling on. This means that the question of “officer-created danger” remains unresolved at the national level.

For now, that question will continue to be shaped by lower courts, including those in the Third Circuit, which already allows pre-force decisions to be considered as part of the overall reasonableness analysis under the Fourth Amendment.

Final Thoughts

Barnes v. Felix didn’t change the standard in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, but it should still prompt action. It sends a clear message from the highest court in the country: context matters, and so do the decisions that lead to force.

For officers in the Third Circuit, this is familiar territory. But familiarity doesn’t always equal consistency. This is a moment for departments to step back and make sure their policies, training, and review practices actually reflect the standards we’ve been operating under for years.

That means clear expectations, defensible policy language, realistic training, and review processes that prioritize learning, not just legal protection.

We owe it to ourselves and each other to treat every incident as a chance to get sharper, smarter, and more prepared.