Barnes v. Felix
Pending United States Supreme Court case
Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the "totality of the circumstances" test for evaluating excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment, previously established in Tennessee v. Garner (1985). Writing for a unanimous court, Associate Justice Elena Kagan rejected a "moment of the threat" test, used by some of the Circuit Courts, as excessively narrow within the scope of the Fourth Amendment.
Background
Case background
At 2:45 p.m. on April 28, 2016, 24-year-old Black man Ashtian Barnes was driving a rented silver Toyota Corolla on the Sam Houston Tollway in Houston, Texas when he was pulled over by Roberto Felix Jr., a traffic enforcement officer from Harris County, due to an unpaid toll connected to the car. Barnes did not know about the unpaid tolls on the rental car.
When asked, Barnes could not show a driver's license nor proof of insurance. He told Felix that it may be in the trunk of the car. Barnes opened the trunk without getting out of the car, turned off the car engine and removed the keys from the ignition.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Barnes v. Felix” is pending United States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Barnes, Felix and Pending, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “pending United States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q131538498. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2025, 1985 and 2016.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Barnes v. Felix”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Barnes v. Felix primary sources, Barnes v. Felix archive and Barnes research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Barnes v. Felix”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Barnes v. Felix” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.