Torres v. Madrid
Overview
Overview
Torres v. Madrid (2021) held 5-3 that a police officer's application of physical force to a person's body constitutes a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment even if the force fails to stop the person or establish control. Officers who shot Roxanne Torres, who drove away and escaped, had seized her at the moment of the shots, giving rise to a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. The ruling rejects the 'successful acquisition of control' test for seizures.
The Facts
Facts
Roxanne Torres was approached by New Mexico state police officers at her apartment complex. She did not realize they were police, panicked, and drove away. Officers shot her twice in the back through her car window as she fled. She escaped, was later apprehended, and sued for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Tenth Circuit held she was not 'seized' because the officers never gained control of her.
The Issue
Issue
Whether a person is 'seized' under the Fourth Amendment when a police officer applies physical force, here, gunfire, to their body, even if the person escapes and the officer does not gain control.
The Rules
Rule
Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. California v. Hodari D. (1991) held that a seizure occurs either when a suspect submits to a show of authority or when an officer physically touches the suspect. Graham v. Connor (1989) governs excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard.
The Application
Analysis
When officers fired at Torres as she fled, they applied physical force to her body through the gunshots, triggering Fourth Amendment protection at that moment even though she escaped and was not brought under control. The Court rejected the requirement that a seizure depend on the officer's success in gaining custody, finding instead that the force itself, the intentional shooting, constituted the constitutional violation. Because Torres was seized through the application of this force, she could pursue her excessive force claim under the Graham reasonableness standard, which evaluates whether the force was justified by the circumstances.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
Decided March 25, 2021. The 5-3 ruling (Roberts writing) held that applying physical force constitutes a seizure regardless of whether control is gained. Torres's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim could proceed. The decision resolves the circuit split on the application-of-force seizure test and clarifies that shooting a fleeing person triggers Fourth Amendment protection.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support