About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (April 1, 2021)

handle is hein.crs/govecwm0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional _______ *.Research Service Torres v. Madrid: Police Use of Force, Fourth Amendment Seizures, and Fleeing Suspects Updated April 1, 2021 UPDATE: On March 25, 2021 the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-3 decision in Torres v. Madrid that the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, the majority, looking to the historical definition of seizure and its present-day legal meaning, concluded that 'seizure' of a person' plainly refers to an arrest. In addition, the majority determined that historically, an arrest could occur even through mere touch the slightest application offorce such as by the laying of hands and even where the arrestee escaped. Although, the majority acknowledged that Torres arose from a shooting rather than the laying of hands on a suspect, it declined to drawfJ an artificial line between grasping with a hand and other means of applying physical force to effect an arrest. According to the majority, the requisite seizing or touching can be as readily accomplished by a bullet as by the end of a finger. The majority reasoned that the focus of the Fourth Amendment is 'the privacy and security of individuals, and not the manner or form of governmental invasion. The majority described its holding in Torres as narrow, noting that for conduct to amount to a seizure by use of force, the force must manifest objective intent to restrain. In addition, a seizure lasts only as long as the application offorce and in this case, the seizure of Torres occurred for the instant that the bullets struck her. The majority clarified that, unlike seizure by application of force, seizure by show of authority still requires either voluntary submission or termination offreedom of movement. Although the majority concluded that the officers seized Torres, it did not decide the reasonableness of the seizure -a separate requirement under the Fourth Amendment or the officers' entitlement to qualified immunity. Justice Gorsuch authored a dissent in Torres, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, in which he argued that based on the text of the Fourth Amendment, seizure has always required taking possession of someone or something. Justice Gorsuch accused the majority of employing a schizophrenic interpretation of seizure that differs based on whether the seizure is directed at a person or an object. He also took issue with the majority's application of common law arrest cases, noting that the common law cases cited by the majority focus on civil arrest rather than criminal arrest, and do not support the determination that an arrest could historically be effectuated by use of firearms or other objects. The Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10552 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most