{"id":11392,"date":"2025-05-15T10:52:20","date_gmt":"2025-05-15T17:52:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392"},"modified":"2025-05-15T10:54:35","modified_gmt":"2025-05-15T17:54:35","slug":"police-use-of-force-and-the-moment-of-threat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392","title":{"rendered":"Police Use of Force and the “Moment of Threat”"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court has long held that claims of unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment must be evaluated under the “totality of the circumstances.” Since Illinois v. Gates<\/em> in 1983, it has rejected categorical rules that confine the assessment. Today the high court decided in Barnes v. Felix<\/em><\/a> that a claim of unlawful use of force against a police officer cannot be confined to the “moment of threat.” Unlawful use of force is considered a seizure and analyzed under the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n

Today, we reject that approach as improperly narrowing the requisite Fourth Amendment analysis. To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No big surprise there. The decision was unanimous.<\/p>\n

The court declined to consider another question that excited interest in this case:<\/p>\n

We do not address here the different question Felix raises about use-of-force cases: whether or how an officer\u2019s own \u201ccreation of a dangerous situation\u201d factors into the reasonableness analysis. Brief for Respondent 22; see supra<\/em>, at 8. As in another of our recent Fourth Amendment cases, that issue is not properly before us. See Mendez<\/em>, 581 U. S., at 429, n. The courts below never confronted the issue, precisely because their inquiry was so time-bound.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So the case goes back to the court of appeals.<\/p>\n

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, added a concurring opinion “to add a few points about the dangers of traffic stops for police officers, particularly when as here the driver pulls away in the midst of the stop.” These justices are justly concerned about people in ivory towers sitting back in comfortable armchairs and judging too harshly in hindsight the decisions of police officers made in the field, in the moment, in dangerous situations. Right.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court has long held that claims of unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment must be evaluated under the “totality of the circumstances.” Since Illinois v. Gates in 1983, it has rejected categorical rules that confine the assessment. Today the high court decided in Barnes v. Felix that a claim of unlawful use of force against a police officer cannot be confined to the “moment of threat.” Unlawful use of force is considered a seizure and analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Today, we reject that approach as improperly narrowing the requisite Fourth Amendment analysis. To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment. No big surprise there. The decision was unanimous.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,47,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policing","category-search-and-seizure","category-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPolice Use of Force and the "Moment of Threat" - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Police Use of Force and the "Moment of Threat" - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court has long held that claims of unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment must be evaluated under the “totality of the circumstances.” Since Illinois v. Gates in 1983, it has rejected categorical rules that confine the assessment. Today the high court decided in Barnes v. Felix that a claim of unlawful use of force against a police officer cannot be confined to the “moment of threat.” Unlawful use of force is considered a seizure and analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Today, we reject that approach as improperly narrowing the requisite Fourth Amendment analysis. To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment. No big surprise there. The decision was unanimous.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-05-15T17:52:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-05-15T17:54:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392\",\"name\":\"Police Use of Force and the \\\"Moment of Threat\\\" - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-05-15T17:52:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-05-15T17:54:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Police Use of Force and the “Moment of Threat”\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Police Use of Force and the \"Moment of Threat\" - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Police Use of Force and the \"Moment of Threat\" - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"The Supreme Court has long held that claims of unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment must be evaluated under the “totality of the circumstances.” Since Illinois v. Gates in 1983, it has rejected categorical rules that confine the assessment. Today the high court decided in Barnes v. Felix that a claim of unlawful use of force against a police officer cannot be confined to the “moment of threat.” Unlawful use of force is considered a seizure and analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Today, we reject that approach as improperly narrowing the requisite Fourth Amendment analysis. To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment. No big surprise there. The decision was unanimous.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2025-05-15T17:52:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-05-15T17:54:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392","name":"Police Use of Force and the \"Moment of Threat\" - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-05-15T17:52:20+00:00","dateModified":"2025-05-15T17:54:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11392#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Police Use of Force and the “Moment of Threat”"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11392"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11392\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11394,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11392\/revisions\/11394"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}