The judge held that the court must consider the Fourth Amendment when considering such cases.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the mother of a man killed by police during a traffic stop on May 15 could pursue a civil rights lawsuit against the officer who shot him.
The country’s Supreme Court found that the US Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit misfocused only on the moment when excessive force is used, as opposed to the moment that leads to the use of force.
“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” she wrote to the court.
Kagan spoke about the facts of the incident.
The incident dates back to April 28, 2016, when Roberto Felix Jr., a traffic enforcement officer in Harris County, Texas, responded to a radio alert about a vehicle with a toll violation. Felix found the car and pulled it. Driver Ashtian Burns pointed his car towards the shoulder of the highway, the opinion said.
Related Stories
Felix asked Burns for his driver’s license and insurance proof. Burns said he didn’t have a license and said the car was rented. While we were talking, Burns was making a stir with the papers in the car, so Felix repeatedly urged him to stop “digging.”
Felix asked Burns if there was anything in the car he should know about, smelling marijuana. Burns said there might be an identification in the trunk and opened the trunk from his seat. Felix instructed Burns to leave the vehicle, but Burns opened the door and turned on the ignition without leaving, the opinion stated.
Felix drew a gun as the car began to move forward, and let out a scream that ordered Burns not to move. Felix fires twice at the car as his head is positioned on the roof and could not see inside the car. Burns parked the car, but was dead by the time the backup arrived.
“It was about five seconds between when the car started moving and when it stopped, and during that period, two seconds passed between the moment Felix stepped into the doallil and when he fired his first shot,” the opinion stated.
“Roberto Felix, a 20-year veteran officer from Houston, Texas, ordered the Ashtian Burns to get out of the car during regular traffic stops. Burns escaped and Felix drove down the side of the car.
“And Burns continued his flight despite the obvious danger of death Felix faced due to Felix’s suspension order and the actions of Burns.
In his opinion, Kagan writes that if a police officer’s use of force is not “objectively rational,” it violates the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
And when assessing rationality, the court must consider “the whole situation,” she writes.
The Fifth Circuit applied the rule of moments of threats that only investigated “the situations that existed at the exact time when officers recognized the threat leading him to fire.”
“Today, we reject that approach as inappropriately narrowing down the necessary fourth amendment analysis. To assess whether officers acted reasonably in using force, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” the opinion stated.
Kagan now writes that lower courts must “use the long time frames prescribed in light of the rationality of the shooting.”
The Supreme Court exempts the 5th Circuit from the ruling and sends the case back to the lower court for “a further case consistent with this view.”
