A recent 2025 decision by the United States Supreme Court, Barnes v Felix, 605 U.S. ___(2025), has changed the landscape of how Federal Courts are to evaluate Fourth
Amendment claims of police use of force, more specifically, the use of deadly force. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Court rejected a prior restrictive legal analysis called the ‘moment of threat’ doctrine, which traditionally had shielded police officers from liability. Instead, the SCOTUS opined that a “totality of the circumstances” test should be used to analyze Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. This bright-line change has the potential to affect school resource officers and school police officers across the country.

Facts of the case: In 2016, Officer R. Felix of the Houston Police Department conducted a traffic stop of Ashtian Barnes due to a minor toll violation. During the traffic stop, Officer Felix asked Barnes for his license and proof of insurance. After Barnes rummaged around for his paperwork, he told Officer Felix that he didn’t have a license. Officer Felix asked Barnes to step out of his car; rather than exiting, Barnes proceeded to turn on the ignition of his car, and the car started to move forward. Officer Felix unholstered his duty weapon, jumped onto the door sill of Barnes’ vehicle, and shouted for Barnes to ‘not f—ing move’. About three seconds later, Officer Felix fired two shots into the car, striking Barnes, killing him.

Subsequently, the Barnes family filed suit in state court alleging excessive force; the case was subsequently removed to federal court. The federal District Court granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit, used the ‘moment of threat’ doctrine as the basis for its ruling and limited the trial court’s inquiry into the reasonableness of the officer’s actions to the danger the officer faced during his time on the car door and immediate threat.

Upon a Writ of Certiorari, a unanimous SCOTUS, bolstered by a majority opinion by Justice Kagan, rejected the ‘moment of threat’ doctrine as too narrow. The SCOTUS held that courts must evaluate excessive-force claims by looking at the totality of the circumstances — including events leading up to the use of force, not just the split-second before the use of force. The Court reasoned that a narrow focus on the final moment can obscure critical context (like why the stop began or how the encounter unfolded), which is relevant to whether the officer’s actions were “objectively reasonable” under settled Fourth Amendment law.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh (joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett) agreed with the judgment but wrote separately to emphasize the real dangers officers face during traffic stops. Under this view, circumstances like flight from a stop might still justify force in some contexts even when using a broader review. SCOTUS vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration under the broader “totality- of-circumstances” standard.

Before Barnes v Felix, some District and Circuit courts focused almost exclusively on the split second when force was used (moment of threat). Now, courts must consider:

• How the encounter began
• Whether the officer’s actions escalated or de-escalated a situation
• The choices made leading up to the force
• Available alternatives, especially when time and distance exist

It is important to point out that the Barnes decision does NOT create a new legal test, nor does it prohibit officers from using force when objectively reasonable.

Why this matters to School Resource Officers:
SRO encounters often:

• Develop over minutes or longer
• Often involve known students
• Occur in controlled environments (schools) with backup and administrative support nearby

That means pre-force decisions (such as tone, positioning, commands, patience, and de-escalation) will carry more legal weight. Schools are not traffic stops

Courts may now closely examine:

• How the encounter began
• Whether the officer escalated or de-escalated the situation
• The availability of time, distance, cover or back-up
• The officer’s decision-making before force was used
• Recognition of youth behavior and developmental differences
• Consideration of the school’s educational mission

In school environments, where encounters often develop over time, this broader view is especially significant.

Practical implications for SROs and School Administrators:
Courts will now likely ask SROs:

• Why physical force was chosen versus other options
• Whether the SRO contributed to the escalation
• Whether time, space of staff support could have reduced the risk

This does not mean force is prohibited; it means how you got there that matters. How can school resource officers and administrators respond to a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test? Courts will now look to the FULL context of the case; plaintiffs will likely point to:

• School district, law enforcement agency and other school SRO policies and procedures
• Memoranda of Understanding that are or should be in place
• Training on adolescent behavior, crisis intervention, threat assessment and special education considerations.

Deviations from these policies, procedures or MOUs can now be prime evidence.
For SROs:

• Slow situations down when possible
• Use communication, rapport and relationships
• Call for assistance early; think beyond ‘command and control’
• Document decision-making and alternatives considered

For school administrators (and law enforcement agencies):

• Review, evaluate and update SRO MOUs
• Ensure policies and procedures reflect school-based policing principles
• Support regular joint training for SROs and administrators

Bottom Line
Barnes v Felix reinforces a core principle of school-based policing:

How an SRO handles the moments leading up to force matters just as much as the moment that force is used.

For school resource officers who follow training, emphasize de-escalation and act consistently with school safety best practices, this decision can strengthen – not weaken –legal defensibility.

© 2026 Clouse School Safety Consulting, LLC