Whether Suspect Shot By Police Was “Seized” For Fourth Amendment Purposes To Be Decided By Supreme Court
Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, in a case where officers shot a suspect who temporarily eluded capture and subsequently sued for civil damages, is set to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Fall Term.
One morning in July 2014, four New Mexico State Police officers were watching an apartment complex in Albuquerque, for the purpose of serving an arrest warrant on a woman. Officers Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson were in an unmarked patrol car near Roxanne Torres, who was in a Toyota backed into a parking spot with the motor running. The officers, wearing tactical vests and marked clothing, approached Torres’s vehicle.
Officers Madrid and Williamson attempted to open the locked door of the car in which Torres was sitting. The officers claim they shouted to Torres to open her car door, but Torres claims she was unable to read the markings on the officers’ clothing and could not not hear what they were saying. Instead, Torres claims she thought she was being carjacked, so she drove forward. Although neither officer was in front of Torres’s vehicle at the time Torres drove forward, they testified they believed Torres was going to hit them with her car.
Both officers fired their weapons at Torres as she drove away. Torres was struck twice in the back. Despite being wounded, Torres did not stop her car and left the apartment complex, ultimately seeking hospital treatment. The next day, Torres was charged with multiple offenses to which she plead no contest, including aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer and assaulting an officer.
Torres subsequently filed a Section 1983 complaint against Madrid and Williamson, alleging excessive use of force in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the officers, on ground that the Fourth Amendment was not implicated because Torres had not been “seized.” The district court reasoned that because Torres continued to drive away after being shot, there was no seizure, and “[w]ithout a seizure, there can be no claim for excessive use of force.” On Torres’s appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed.
Torres petitioned the Supreme Court in August 2019, to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision. Her petition argues that the Tenth Circuit decision is at odds with the Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court. Those other jurisdictions, she argues, hold that a person is “seized” for Fourth Amendment purposes when a law enforcement officer applies physical force with the intent to stop her, even if the person continues for a time to evade capture. Torres argues the Tenth Circuit’s decision is thus “awry, and reflects confusion regarding the proper reading of [the Supreme] Court’s precedents.”
Madrid and Williamson opposed Torres’s petition, and multiple national groups filed amicus briefs, including the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the NAACP. The U.S. Department of Justice also filed an amicus brief, arguing “the uncontested facts establish [Madrid’s and Williamson’s] actions did constitute a ‘seizure’ whose constitutionality would turn on its reasonableness,” and advocates the Supreme Court remand the case for further proceedings on the reasonableness of the momentary seizure that occurred when the two bullets struck Torres.
The Supreme Court granted Torres’s petition and scheduled it for oral argument on March 30, 2020. That argument has since been postponed and will be rescheduled for argument in the Supreme Court’s October 2020 term. FEDagent will post an update on Torres v. Madrid, et al. when the Supreme Court decides the case.
Review Torres’s petition to the Supreme Court and all briefs filed by the parties and amici in Torres v. Madrid, et al.
This case law update was written by James P. Garay Heelan, Associate Attorney, Shaw Bransford & Roth, PC.
For thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.