This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D, a police officer, was patrolling a highway outside Houston. D received a radio alert about an automobile on the road with outstanding toll violations. D spotted the car, a Toyota Corolla, and turned on his emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop. The driver, Ashtian Barnes, pulled over. Parking behind Ashtian, D walked to driver-side door and asked for a license and proof of insurance. Parking behind Ashtian, D walked to driver-side door and asked for a license and proof of insurance. Ashtian replied that he did not have his license with him and that the car was a rental in his girlfriend’s name. As he spoke, Ashtian rummaged through some papers inside the car, causing D to tell him several times to stop “digging around.” D commented that he smelled marijuana and asked if there was anything in the car he should know about. Ashtian responded that he might have some identification in the trunk. D told him to open the trunk from his seat. Ashtian did so, while also turning off the ignition. At this point, the stop was less than two minutes. With his right hand resting on his holster, D told Ashtian to get out of the car. Ashtian opened the door and did not get out, but turned the ignition back on. D unholstered his gun. The car began to move forward, and D jumped onto its doorsill. He twice shouted, “Don’t fucking move.” And with no visibility into the car (because his head was above the roof), he fired two quick shots inside. Ashtian was hit and stopped the car. D radioed for back-up. Ashtian was dead when they arrived. Five seconds had elapsed between when the car started moving and when it stopped. And within that period, two seconds passed between the moment D stepped on the doorsill and the moment he fired his first shot. P sued D on her son’s behalf under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that D had violated Ashtian's Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force against him. The District Court granted summary judgment to D based on its moment of threat precedents. The court explained that P needed to show that D’s use of force was “objectively unreasonable.” Under prior precedent, when an officer has used deadly force, a court could examine only the situation existing “at the moment of the threat” that sparked the fatal shooting. The Court identified that moment in this case as “the two seconds before D fired his first shot,” when he was standing on the doorsill of a moving vehicle. The court found, an officer could reasonably think himself at risk of serious harm at that moment. The court explained that it could not consider “what had transpired up until” those last two seconds, including D’s decision to jump onto the sill. The Court of Appeals affirmed: “the inquiry is confined to whether the officer” was “in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in [his] use of deadly force.” P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.