Torres v. Madrid

Last updated

Torres v. Madrid
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 14, 2020
Decided March 25, 2021
Full case nameRoxanne Torres v. Janice Madrid, et al.
Docket no. 19-292
Citations592 U.S. 306 ( more )
Case history
Prior
  • Summary judgment granted, Torres v. Madrid, No. 1:16-cv-01163, 2018 WL 4148405 (D.N.M. Aug. 30, 2018)
  • Affirmed, 769 F. App'x 654 (10th Cir. 2019)
  • Cert. granted, 140 S. Ct. 680 (2019)
Holding
The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh
DissentGorsuch, joined by Thomas, Alito
Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. 306 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case based on what constitutes a "seizure" in the context of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in the immediate case, in the situation where law enforcement had attempted to use physical force to stop a suspect but failed to do so. The Court ruled in a 5–3 decision that the use of physical force with the intent to restrain a person, even if that fails to restrain the person, is considered a seizure.

Contents

Background

In July 2014, police officers were on a stakeout of an apartment complex in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to serve a warrant to a person known to be living there. Roxanne Torres had driven to the complex to drop off a passenger. At the time, she was under the influence of methamphetamines, and had been for two days. [1] Two of the officers approached her car as a possible person of interest, and gave her instructions to get out of the car or allow them to open the doors. However, as it was dark, and both officers were in darker clothing and tactical vests, though still wore police badges, Torres mistook their orders as a possible carjacking and began to set the car in motion. The officers believed she was driving towards them, and fired multiple shots into the vehicle. Torres was hit multiple times but continued to drive the car off and away from the officers, evading any immediate pursuit, and eventually to a hospital to be treated. [2] Having an outstanding warrant herself, she provided a false name on admittance before she was arrested. [1]

Several legal actions followed. Torres pleaded no contest in 2015 to several counts including evading a law enforcement officer and assault on an officer. The district attorney's office reviewed the case and declined to file any charges against the officers as body cam footage showed both wore the identification identifying them as officers. [3]

Torres filed a civil action against the officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, asserting that the officers' use of gunfire was "excessive force" under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Torres argued that the officers' actions prior to her trying to move the car amounted to an arrest and seizure, and thus the use of gunfire to stop her was unreasonable at that point. [2] The district court judge concluded that in the situation at hand, Torres had never been arrested or seized by the officers so the Fourth Amendment rights did not apply as they never had physical control of Torres. As all other actions that officers took fell within qualified immunity, the District Court granted summary judgement to the officers. [4] Torres appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgement, in that Torres was never arrested or seized, and thus has no Fourth Amendment claim. [5] [3]

Supreme Court

Torres petitioned to the Supreme Court on the question whether the unsuccessful attempt to detain her was considered a "seizure" within context of the Fourth Amendment. [3] The petition argued that the Tenth Circuit's decision was at odds with California v. Hodari D. , the prevailing standard for what constitutes a "seizure", [6] and with precedence of three other Circuit Courts. [7] The Supreme Court agreed in December 2019 to hear the case prior to June 2020, [8] but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was pushed to be heard on October 14, 2020. [9] [10]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate on the case, as at the time the case was argued she had yet to be confirmed to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg following her death. [11]

The Supreme Court issued its decision on March 25, 2021. The 5–3 majority opinion reversed the Tenth Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further review. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh. [12] Roberts wrote in his opinion, "The officers' shooting applied physical force to her body and objectively manifested an intent to restrain her from driving away. We therefore conclude that the officers seized Torres for the instant that the bullets struck her." [13]

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Gorsuch wrote "The majority's need to resort to such a schizophrenic reading of the word 'seizure' should be a signal that something has gone seriously wrong. Today, for the first time, the majority seeks to equate seizures and criminal arrests with mere touches, attempted seizures and batteries." [12]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the state governments. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murders of a woman's three children by her estranged husband. The decision has since become infamous and condemned by several human rights groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edith Brown Clement</span> American judge (born 1948)

Edith Brown Clement is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt. The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a civilian's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his or her person.

<i>Brendlin v. California</i> 2007 United States Supreme Court case

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.

<i>United States v. Patane</i> 2004 United States Supreme Court case

United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Miranda warnings.

Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the traditional, common-law-derived "knock and announce" rule for executing search warrants must be incorporated into the "reasonableness" analysis of whether the actual execution of the warrant is/was justified under the 4th Amendment. The high court thus ruled that the old "knock and announce" rule while not a hard requirement, was also not a dead letter.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), was a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision that "declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop."

<i>Bryan v. MacPherson</i>

Bryan v. McPherson, 630 F.3d 805, was heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in October 2009. Plaintiff-appellee Carl Bryan was tasered by defendant-appellant Officer Brian MacPherson after being pulled over to the side of the road for failure to wear a seat belt. The case considered whether MacPherson's use of a taser during a routine traffic stop violated Bryan's Fourth Amendment rights. The majority opinion, written by Kim McLane Wardlaw, declared that the use of the taser in this situation could be considered excessive force. Richard Tallman and Consuelo María Callahan wrote the dissent. This case affirmed that this use of a taser could indeed be considered excessive force.

California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held that a fleeing suspect is not "seized" under the terms of the Fourth Amendment unless the pursuing officers apply physical force to the suspect or the suspect submits to officers' demands to halt. Consequently, evidence that is discarded by a fleeing suspect prior to the point in time at which they are seized is not subject to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.

Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments. The case covered the asset forfeiture of the petitioner's truck after the police found a small quantity of drugs within it and he was convicted on non-felony possession charges.

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases. After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution's "community caretaking" exception.

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court declined to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.

Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether a plaintiff suing for malicious prosecution must show that they were affirmatively exonerated of committing the alleged crime. The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that no such requirement existed and that a plaintiff suing for malicious prosecution in the context of a Fourth Amendment "need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction." Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Media coverage of the decision portrayed the Court's ruling as a victory for civil rights lawsuits.

References

  1. 1 2 "Supreme Court says New Mexico woman can sue police over excessive force even though she escaped from officers". CNN . March 25, 2021.
  2. 1 2 Barnitz, Katy (October 27, 2016). "Woman shot by State Police officers files lawsuit". Albuquerque Journal . Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  3. 1 2 3 Williams, Erika (December 18, 2019). "Justices Take Up New Mexico Driver's Excessive Force Case". Courthouse News . Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  4. Torres v. Madrid, No.1:16-cv-01163 , 2018 WL 4148405( D.N.M. Aug. 30, 2018).
  5. Torres v. Madrid, 769F. App'x654 ( 10th Cir. 2019).
  6. California v. Hodari D. , 499 U.S. 621 (1991).
  7. Colb, Sherry (February 26, 2020). "Is a Gunshot Wound a Seizure?". Justia . Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  8. Howe, Amy (December 18, 2019). "Court fills out spring calendar with new grants". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  9. Howe, Amy (July 13, 2020). "Court releases October calendar". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  10. Kruzel, John (October 14, 2020). "Supreme Court wades into legal gray zone around police shootings". The Hill . Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  11. Hurley, Lawrence (March 25, 2021). "U.S. Supreme Court widens ability to sue police for excessive force". Reuters. Archived from the original on March 26, 2021. Retrieved March 26, 2021.
  12. 1 2 de Vogue, Ariane (March 25, 2021). "Supreme Court says New Mexico woman can sue police over excessive force even though she escaped from officers". CNN . Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  13. Fritze, John (March 25, 2021). "'Nothing subtle about a bullet': Supreme Court says police 'seizure' includes shots fired at fleeing suspect". USA Today . Retrieved March 25, 2021.