Torres v. Madrid

On July 15, 2014, New Mexico State Police Officers Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson approached Roxanne Torres in an Albuquerque apartment complex parking lot while executing an arrest warrant for another person. Torres, experiencing methamphetamine withdrawal, believed the plainclothes officers were carjackers and accelerated her vehicle to flee. The officers fired thirteen shots, striking Torres twice in the back and temporarily paralyzing her left arm. Despite her injuries, Torres escaped, drove to a hospital, and was arrested the next day. She later sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force and an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Tenth Circuit ruled that her continued flight negated a seizure claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the application of physical force with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person is not subdued.

In a 5-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case. The Court held that "the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued." The majority reasoned that a bullet can accomplish a seizure as readily as a finger, and the Fourth Amendment's focus is on privacy and security, not the form of governmental intrusion. The Court did not decide the reasonableness of the seizure or qualified immunity.

Whether a police officer's application of physical force to a person's body with intent to restrain constitutes a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment when the person does not submit and temporarily escapes.

Decided during a national reckoning with police violence following the George Floyd protests, the ruling was widely viewed as a win for government accountability and civil rights groups, allowing victims of police shootings to pursue remedies under the Fourth Amendment. Legal scholars noted it closed a loophole that could have immunized police violence from constitutional scrutiny. However, critics argued the decision was narrow, as it did not address the reasonableness of the force or qualified immunity, and some noted that missed shots still would not constitute a seizure. The ruling has important implications for regulating police use of force and expanding avenues for victims of police brutality to seek relief.