Torres v. Madrid
592 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The application of physical force to the body of a person with the intent to restrain is a 'seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person and the person escapes.
Facts:
- New Mexico State Police officers Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson arrived at an apartment complex to execute an arrest warrant for another individual.
- The officers approached Roxanne Torres as she was getting into the driver's seat of her Toyota FJ Cruiser.
- Torres, who was experiencing methamphetamine withdrawal, did not initially notice the officers.
- When one officer tried to open her car door, Torres perceived them as carjackers and accelerated her vehicle to escape.
- Officers Madrid and Williamson fired their service pistols 13 times to stop her, striking her twice in the back.
- Despite being shot, Torres drove away from the apartment complex, stole a different vehicle, and drove 75 miles to another city.
- Torres was arrested the following day after being airlifted back to a hospital in Albuquerque.
Procedural Posture:
- Roxanne Torres sued Officers Madrid and Williamson in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming an unreasonable seizure.
- The District Court, a trial court, granted summary judgment to the officers.
- Torres (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that a suspect's continued flight after being shot negates a Fourth Amendment seizure claim.
- The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court, granted a writ of certiorari to review the Tenth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the application of physical force with intent to restrain constitute a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment, even if the suspect does not submit and is not subdued?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes, the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person. The Fourth Amendment's term 'seizure' is informed by the common law of arrest, where the 'mere grasping or application of physical force with lawful authority' constituted an arrest, not merely an attempted one. This 'mere-touch' rule does not require that the officer succeed in gaining control of the suspect. The court rejected the argument that a seizure requires the 'intentional acquisition of physical control,' explaining that seizures by force (like a shooting) have a different common law pedigree than seizures by a show of authority, which do require submission. The appropriate inquiry is whether the officer's conduct objectively manifests an intent to restrain, and such a seizure lasts only for the duration of the application of force if the suspect does not submit.
Dissenting - Justice Gorsuch
No, a Fourth Amendment 'seizure' has always required taking possession of a person or thing, not merely touching them. The majority's holding that a person can be simultaneously seized and roaming at large is a mistaken and novel view. It creates a schizophrenic reading of the word 'seizure,' giving it one meaning for objects and another for persons subjected to force. The common law 'mere-touch' rule relied upon by the majority was an obscure and long-abandoned English debt-collection practice that was never applied to criminal arrests. The majority's opinion conflates a battery with a seizure and an attempted seizure with a completed one, departing from the Constitution's original meaning and this Court's precedents which require a 'termination of freedom of movement' to effect a seizure.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split and clarifies the definition of 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment, specifically in cases involving the use of force where the suspect escapes. By holding that the seizure occurs at the moment of impact, the Court lowers the threshold for a Fourth Amendment event to occur, allowing excessive force claims to proceed even if the suspect was not apprehended. This ruling expands the scope of police conduct subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny but does not alter the subsequent analyses of reasonableness or qualified immunity, which remain significant hurdles for plaintiffs. The decision distinguishes between seizures by force and seizures by show of authority, solidifying two separate analytical tracks for determining if a seizure occurred.
