The US Supreme Court ruled 5-3 Thursday in Torres v. Madrid that a Fourth Amendment seizure was effectuated when officers applied physical force with the intent to restrain, even if the person of interest did not submit and was not subdued.
Torres was approached by two officers whom she believed were carjackers. She ignored their orders because she feared for her life, and she sped away. The offices proceeded to shoot at her vehicle to subdue her, firing 13 shots and hitting her twice. She was able to escape and sought medical attention in a hospital 75 miles away, at which point she was arrested.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion relies on precedent from Hodari D, in which the court held that “common law considered the application of force to the body of a person with intent to restrain to be an arrest, no matter whether the arrestee escaped,” but they did not expand on Hodari because they independently reached the conclusion that physical touch without subdoing is sufficent for seizure.
Roberts wrote the rule he introduced in the opinion is narrow. “In addition to the requirement of intent to restrain, a seizure by force—absent submission—lasts only as long as the application of force.” Further, once a suspect flees they are not seized and that may inform the amount of damages they may receive. Finally, he rejected the “intentional acquisition rule” proposed by the officers since it would go against all Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
In the dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that the majority opinion is contrary to common law and ordinary meaning of seizure. Further, he believes the majority overly relies on dicta from Hodari, which should not be considered. Finally, he said that the majority relies on “long-abandoned debt-collection practice that must be reengineered to do the work the majority wishes done,” and creates two meanings of seizure that are in conflict with each other.
The court remanded the case to the Tenth Circuit, which must now decide if the officers are protected by qualified immunity.
