Torres v. Madrid

Torres v. Madrid (Docket 19-292) is a pending 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.

Torres v. Madrid
Full case nameRoxanne Torres v. Janice Madrid, et al.
Docket no.19-292
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)
Questions presented
Is an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, or must physical force be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a "seizure" ?

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. 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.[1]

Several legal actions followed. Torres pleaded no contest in 2015 to several counts to 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.[2]

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.[1] 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.[3] 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.[4][2]

Supreme Court

Torres petitioned to the Supreme Court on the question whether the unsuccessful attempt to detail her was considered a "seizure" within context of the Fourth Amendment.[2] 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",[5] and with precedence of three other Circuit Courts.[6] The Supreme Court certified the case in December 2019 to be heard prior to June 2020,[7] but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was pushed to be heard on October 14, 2020.[8]

References
  1. Barnitz, Katy (October 27, 2016). "Woman shot by State Police officers files lawsuit". Albuquerque Journal. Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  2. Williams, Erika (December 18, 2019). "Justices Take Up New Mexico Driver's Excessive Force Case". Courthouse News. Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  3. Torres v. Madrid, No. 1:16-cv-01163, 2018 WL 4148405 (D.N.M. Aug. 30, 2018).
  4. Torres v. Madrid, 769 F. App'x 654 (10th Cir. 2019).
  5. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991).
  6. Colb, Sherry (February 26, 2020). "Is a Gunshot Wound a Seizure?". Justia. Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  7. Howe, Amy (December 18, 2019). "Court fills out spring calendar with new grants". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  8. Howe, Amy (July 13, 2020). "Court releases October calendar". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved July 17, 2020.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.