Supreme Court broadens standard for unreasonable force claims against police

The Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier to bring unreasonable force claims against police, ruling unanimously that courts should examine the circumstances beyond the split seconds when an officer fears for their safety in deciding whether they can be tried for unreasonable force.

The case stemmed from a 2016 traffic stop in Texas.

In a 9-0 decision, they said the so-called “moment of the threat” doctrine should not be applied in such cases, instead directing courts to review the “totality of the circumstances.”

“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,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion

Kagan noted the situation at the precise moment of the shooting may often be what matters most, given that the officer’s choice in those split seconds are what is under review. However, she said earlier facts and circumstances may inform how a “reasonable officer” would have responded to later ones.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion — which was joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett — to add additional context to the majority opinion about the “dangers of traffic stops” for police officers.

He noted that notorious criminals like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and serial killer Ted Bundy were both apprehended following traffic stops.