On October 14, 2020, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Torres v. Madrid. The decision in this case has the potential to impact how law enforcement officers may use force against individuals they attempt to apprehend.
The Background
In 2014, Roxanne Torres was living in New Mexico when she was approached by two police officers who were looking for a different person. When she saw them approaching, she got into her car and attempted to drive away.
The officers fired at her thirteen times, hitting her twice in the back. Torres drove away and was later found at a hospital where she received treatment for her injuries.
Torres sued the police officers for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court ruled that because Torres had not been seized by the police when they began shooting at her, there had been no violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.
The Legal Issue
The question before the Supreme Court was whether or not a person who is shot by law enforcement but escapes before being apprehended has been “seized” under the Fourth Amendment. If so, then they would be able to sue for excessive force.
The Supreme Court has previously defined a seizure as occurring when an officer “by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” However, there have been conflicting interpretations of what constitutes restraint.
The Arguments
Torres’ attorney argued that she had been seized because she had felt compelled to stop driving due to being shot and feared further harm if she did not comply with officers’ orders. The officers’ attorneys argued that Torres had not been seized because they had not physically restrained her or used any show of authority beyond attempting to arrest her.
During oral arguments, Justice Kavanaugh asked whether it mattered if the police officers’ actions were intentional or accidental. Justice Kagan questioned whether a person who was shot but not apprehended could ever be considered not seized.
The Implications
The decision in Torres v. Madrid has the potential to impact how law enforcement officers use force against individuals they attempt to apprehend. If the Supreme Court rules that Torres was seized by the officers’ use of force, it would set a precedent that could make it easier for individuals to sue for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
Additionally, the decision may have implications for police training and policies regarding the use of force. If law enforcement agencies are held liable for excessive force in cases where individuals are shot but not apprehended, they may be incentivized to adopt stricter policies and training programs to avoid similar incidents in the future.
The Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Torres v. Madrid is expected to be released in 2021. It will be interesting to see how this case impacts future cases involving excessive force by law enforcement and what changes may result as a result of this decision.