Lawyers from MSG and Oakley engage in debate over the Supreme Court's decision concerning police force regulations.
In a recent court case development, letters have been sent to Judge Richard J. Sullivan from attorneys representing both Charles Oakley and Madison Square Garden (MSG), offering contrasting views on the influence of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Barnes v. Felix on the excessive force claim in Oakley's lawsuit against MSG.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous 9-0 decision, ruled that the "totality of circumstances" should be the test for evaluating excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment, instead of the "moment-of-threat" test that was previously used by some federal circuit courts. As a result, the decision in Barnes v. Felix could have implications for the lawfulness of how security guards removed Oakley from a New York Knicks game in 2017.
In the Barnes v. Felix case, Ashtian Barnes was pulled over by officer Roberto Felix Jr. for toll violations. After Barnes began searching for papers, Felix suspected he might be hiding marijuana (illegal in Texas) and demanded Barnes to stop. Barnes complied, exited the car, and opened the trunk upon Felix's request. However, as Barnes was walking away from the car, it started to move, and Felix, who was still clinging to the car, could not see where Barnes was going. As a result, Felix fired two shots and killed Barnes.
The key issue in Barnes v. Felix is how the law should judge whether an officer used excessive force. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasizes that the use of force must be evaluated based on all relevant circumstances, not just the immediate threat. The ruling also clarifies that prior events may provide valuable context for understanding why an officer would have perceived a particular situation as either threatening or innocuous.
Oakley's attorney, Valdi Licul, has argued that the Supreme Court's ruling in Barnes v. Felix is relevant to the case against MSG because the company seeks to exclude testimony by Larry Perkins, an expert witness who will testify on industry standards for responding to unruly stadium guests. According to Licul, MSG believes Perkins' views on standards of conduct are irrelevant and that context does not matter. However, Marshall, MSG's attorney, has argued that Barnes v. Felix is only relevant to cases involving the use of force by police officers and does not apply to private security guards like those involved in Oakley's case.
Ultimately, the outcome of Oakley v. MSG will depend on how the courts interpret and apply the principles from Barnes v. Felix in non-police security contexts. The case serves as a prime example of how Supreme Court decisions can have far-reaching implications for various legal issues beyond the immediate context of the case at hand.
In the debate surrounding Oakley's lawsuit against MSG, Oakley's attorney, Valdi Licul, suggests that the Supreme Court's ruling in the Barnes v. Felix case could provide valuable insights into the excessive force claim, given its emphasis on the "totality of circumstances" instead of the "moment-of-threat" test. On the other hand, MSG's attorney, Marshall, argues that the Barnes v. Felix decision applies only to cases involving police officers, not private security guards like those involved in Oakley's case. This difference in interpretation could significantly impact the analysis of Oakley's lawsuit against MSG in basketball-related sports law.
