US Supreme Court to Decide Whether an Unsuccessful Attempt to Stop a Suspect is a “Seizure."
December 5, 2020 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz, Esq.
In Torres v. Madrid, (US 19-292), the US Supreme Court agreed to address whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by the use of physical force constitutes a Fourth Amendment “seizure.” In the court below, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it did not, and in favor of the police. 769 Fed. Appx. 654 (2019).
Early in the morning, New Mexico state police went to an apartment in Albuquerque to arrest a woman involved in an “organized crime ring.” Upon arrival, the officers saw two persons standing in front of the woman’s apartment next to a Toyota Cruiser. The Cruiser was parked with other cars parked on both sides of it. The officers, who were wearing tactical vests with police markings, decided to make contact with the two individuals in case one was the subject of their arrest warrant.
As the officers approached the Cruiser, one individual ran into the apartment, while the other, plaintiff Roxanne Torres, entered the Cruiser and started the engine. Officer Williamson approached the Cruiser’s closed driver-side window and told Torres several times, “Show me your hands,” as he perceived Torres was making “furtive movements.” Officer Madrid was near the driver-side front tire, where she also perceived the driver to be making “aggressive movements.”
Torres claimed that she did not know that Williamson and Madrid were police officers, and that she could not hear them. But when she heard the sound of her door handle, she “put the car into drive,” thinking she was being “carjacked.” At that point, the officers drew their weapons. In response, Torres “stepped on the gas … to get away,” and the officers fired. Officer Madrid testified that the Cruiser “drove at [her]” and she fired “at the driver through the windshield” to “stop the driver from running her over.” Williamson said that he shot at the driver because he feared being “crushed” between the Cruiser and the neighboring car. Two bullets struck Torres, but she continued forward, driving over a curb. After colliding with another vehicle, she stopped in a parking lot. According to Torres, she was “tripping out” on “meth.” She said that she asked someone to call police but did not wait because she had an outstanding arrest warrant. Torres then stole a vehicle and drove to a hospital 75 miles away. Ultimately, she was airlifted to a hospital in Albuquerque and arrested there.
Torres sued the officers in federal court, asserting that the officers used excessive, unreasonable force. The Tenth Circuit held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, for the officers had not seized Torres at the time of the shooting.
When an officer asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must demonstrate “both that a seizure occurred and that the seizure was unreasonable.” Without a seizure, there can be no excessive force claim. Said the court:
Torres failed to show she was seized by the officers’ use of force. Specifically, the officers fired their guns in response to Torres’s movement of her vehicle. Despite being shot, Torres did not stop or otherwise submit to the officers’ authority. … She was not taken into custody until after she was airlifted back to a hospital in Albuquerque and identified by police.
These circumstances — a suspect’s continued flight after being shot by police — “negates a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim.” An officer’s “intentional shooting of a suspect does not effect a seizure unless the ‘gunshot terminates the suspect’s movement or otherwise causes the government to have physical control over him.’” Id. (citations and alterations omitted).
Here, the officers’ use of deadly force against Torres failed to control her ability to evade capture or control. Because Torres managed to elude police for at least a full day after being shot, there was no seizure when the officers fired their weapons into her vehicle. “Without a seizure, Torres’s excessive-force claims … fail as a matter of law.”
Oral argument held by the Supreme Court on 10-14-20.
In Torres v. Madrid, (US 19-292), the US Supreme Court agreed to address whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by the use of physical force constitutes a Fourth Amendment “seizure.” In the court below, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it did not, and in favor of the police. 769 Fed. Appx. 654 (2019).
Early in the morning, New Mexico state police went to an apartment in Albuquerque to arrest a woman involved in an “organized crime ring.” Upon arrival, the officers saw two persons standing in front of the woman’s apartment next to a Toyota Cruiser. The Cruiser was parked with other cars parked on both sides of it. The officers, who were wearing tactical vests with police markings, decided to make contact with the two individuals in case one was the subject of their arrest warrant.
As the officers approached the Cruiser, one individual ran into the apartment, while the other, plaintiff Roxanne Torres, entered the Cruiser and started the engine. Officer Williamson approached the Cruiser’s closed driver-side window and told Torres several times, “Show me your hands,” as he perceived Torres was making “furtive movements.” Officer Madrid was near the driver-side front tire, where she also perceived the driver to be making “aggressive movements.”
Torres claimed that she did not know that Williamson and Madrid were police officers, and that she could not hear them. But when she heard the sound of her door handle, she “put the car into drive,” thinking she was being “carjacked.” At that point, the officers drew their weapons. In response, Torres “stepped on the gas … to get away,” and the officers fired. Officer Madrid testified that the Cruiser “drove at [her]” and she fired “at the driver through the windshield” to “stop the driver from running her over.” Williamson said that he shot at the driver because he feared being “crushed” between the Cruiser and the neighboring car. Two bullets struck Torres, but she continued forward, driving over a curb. After colliding with another vehicle, she stopped in a parking lot. According to Torres, she was “tripping out” on “meth.” She said that she asked someone to call police but did not wait because she had an outstanding arrest warrant. Torres then stole a vehicle and drove to a hospital 75 miles away. Ultimately, she was airlifted to a hospital in Albuquerque and arrested there.
Torres sued the officers in federal court, asserting that the officers used excessive, unreasonable force. The Tenth Circuit held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, for the officers had not seized Torres at the time of the shooting.
When an officer asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must demonstrate “both that a seizure occurred and that the seizure was unreasonable.” Without a seizure, there can be no excessive force claim. Said the court:
Torres failed to show she was seized by the officers’ use of force. Specifically, the officers fired their guns in response to Torres’s movement of her vehicle. Despite being shot, Torres did not stop or otherwise submit to the officers’ authority. … She was not taken into custody until after she was airlifted back to a hospital in Albuquerque and identified by police.
These circumstances — a suspect’s continued flight after being shot by police — “negates a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim.” An officer’s “intentional shooting of a suspect does not effect a seizure unless the ‘gunshot terminates the suspect’s movement or otherwise causes the government to have physical control over him.’” Id. (citations and alterations omitted).
Here, the officers’ use of deadly force against Torres failed to control her ability to evade capture or control. Because Torres managed to elude police for at least a full day after being shot, there was no seizure when the officers fired their weapons into her vehicle. “Without a seizure, Torres’s excessive-force claims … fail as a matter of law.”
Oral argument held by the Supreme Court on 10-14-20.