Contact information for Freedom of Information Requests, Post Commanders, and the Webmaster.
Information on Laws & Statutes relating to the Michigan State Police.
AMBER Alert, Michigan Blue Alert, Public Threat Alert, Vulnerable Adult Medical Alert
Information on carrying concealed pistols, permits, renewal, frequently asked questions, pistol free areas, pistol safety training course information, and more.
Freedom of Information Act Requests
Information on Domestic Violence, Fire Safety, Internet Safety, Safety for the Elderly, Safety Tips, Safe Driving, School Safety and Weather Safety.
Vulnerable or Impaired Person Enrollment
Information relating to fire investigations including field office locations, arson tip line ,fire investigation services and fire fighter training information.
Prosperity Regions 7 & 9 (District 1 - Central)
Prosperity Regions 5 & 6 (District 3 - Thumb and Tri-Cities)
Prosperity Region 8 (District 5 - Southwest)
Prosperity Regions 2 & 3 (District 7 - Northern Lower Peninsula)
Eighth District - Upper Peninsula
Search is currently unavailable. Please try again later.
The web Browser you are currently using is unsupported, and some features of this site may not work as intended. Please update to a modern browser such as Chrome, Firefox or Edge to experience all features Michigan.gov has to offer.
In Barnes v. Felix, the United States Supreme Court (USSC), held that when police use of force is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, they will look at the totality of the circumstances, and not merely the moment that force was used, consistent with the prior holding under Graham v Connor.
Deputy Felix, of the Harris County Constable’s Office, conducted a traffic stop of Ashtian Barnes for suspected toll violations, near Houston, Texas. Barnes indicated that he did not have his driver's license, that his car was a rental, and that it was rented in his girlfriend’s name.
Barnes began to rummage through the car, prompting Deputy Felix to order him to stop “digging around.” The deputy also smelled an odor of marijuana, and Texas law criminalizes marijuana possession.
Deputy Felix ordered Barnes to open the trunk. Barnes complied and turned off the ignition. Deputy Felix then ordered Barnes to step from the car. Barnes opened the door, but then turned the ignition back on, and did not step out. Deputy Felix unholstered his sidearm, and as Barnes began to drive forward, Deputy Felix jumped onto the doorsill. Deputy Felix shouted twice, “Don’t [expletive] move.” As the car continued to move, Deputy Felix had an obstructed view of the vehicle interior, and he fired his service weapon two times into the vehicle. Barnes was hit, and he stopped the car. Barnes was deceased by the time backup arrived. The shots were fired by Deputy Felix approximately two seconds after he stepped onto the doorsill of the moving car.
Barnes mother brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The case was dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court, with the Fifth Circuit affirming the dismissal. The Fifth Circuit applied that circuit’s “moment-of-threat” doctrine, confining its review to only the two seconds when Deputy Felix was clinging to the moving car, when deciding whether the force used was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The USSC decided, in a 9-0 decision, that the “moment-of-threat” doctrine was the incorrect framework to use when deciding use of force claims under the Fourth Amendment.
Instead, the Court held that the correct test is the “totality of the circumstances” analysis, that was previously set forth in Graham in 1989. The Court noted the “totality of the circumstances” inquiry has no time limit. While the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often matter most, the Court recognized that earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones. More specifically, the Court noted that prior events may show why a reasonable officer would perceive otherwise ambiguous conduct as threatening, or instead as innocuous.
The case was remanded back down to the Fifth Circuit, for reconsideration of the case, to be decided under the “totality of the circumstances” analysis.
The USSC did not address nor resolve any legal arguments related to “officer created” danger/jeopardy theory, but rather, limited its holding to only the time frame that should be analyzed.
Additionally, four justices of the Court joined in a concurring opinion to address the inherent dangers and risks of traffic stops, and particularly dangers created by the driver.
Although this case was largely consistent with prior 6th Circuit precedent applicable to Michigan police officers, officers are reminded that although police officers might benefit from the totality of the circumstances in use of force cases to argue their actions were objectively reasonable, individuals bringing suit against the police may similarly utilize the totality of the circumstances analysis in an effort to be critical of a police officer’s conduct and the decisions that led up to a use of force, including deadly force.
