The Supreme Court, with the Chief Justice writing for the majority, decided a new Fourth Amendment case on Thursday, Torres v. Madrid, ruling that "the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person."
The ruling expanded the Constitution’s protection against an “unreasonable seizure,” ruling that a person who is shot by a police officer may sue, even if he or she was able to drive away without actually being detained or held. Previously, courts have often held that claims for excessive use of force and an “unreasonable seizure” are limited to situations where officers had physical control over a suspect.
Torres involves a seizure claim from a woman who was shot twice in the back by police while driving away from them. She was injured but kept driving and therefore she did not come under police control. The police were at the apartment complex to arrest another woman. Torres said she thought they were carjackers.
She sued the police claiming she was shot in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She was not searched but was she "seized"? The Tenth Circuit ruled she was not, as she was never brought under police control. Answering the question “whether a seizure occurs when an officer shoots someone who temporarily eludes capture after the shooting,” the Supreme Court reversed the lower court: “The answer is yes.”
The case is Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292.