'Nothing subtle about a bullet': SCOTUS says police 'seizure' includes shots fired at fleeing suspec

[Nevilledog]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/25/supreme-court-police-seizure-includes-shots-fired-fleeing-suspect/6995659002/

WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that police can find themselves on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment when they shoot at a fleeing suspect.

The 5-3 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, stems from a 2014 incident in Albuquerque in which New Mexico State Police attempted to arrest a woman for white collar crimes. As the officers tried to enter Roxanne Torres' car, she sped off, later claiming that she thought the police were criminals attempting a car jacking.

As she drove away, the officers fired 13 shots, striking Torres twice in the back and temporarily paralyzing her left arm. She drove 75 miles to a hospital, but was ultimately airlifted to a hospital back in Albuquerque, where she was arrested the next day.

Roberts, joined by the court's liberal wing as well as Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that the physical force used by police represented a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment even if the bullets failed to stop Torres. The opinion represents an expansion of Fourth Amendment protections at a time when the nation is wrestling with police use of force and split-second decisions made by law enforcement officers.

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizure by police and other government actors. The nation's highest court spends a considerable amount of time debating what words like "unreasonable" and, in this case, "seizure" mean when applied to on-the-ground policing.

*snip*

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Jeffrey Bellin
@BellinJ
As promised, here's my writeup on Torres v. Madrid for @SCOTUSblog - an important new Fourth Amendment case decided today by the Supreme Court

Divided court issues bright-line ruling on Fourth Amendment seizures - SCOTUSblog
Against a backdrop of increasing national attention to police violence, the Supreme Court on Thursday issued an opinion in a closely watched criminal-procedure case that clarifies the meaning of the...
scotusblog.com
2:49 PM · Mar 25, 2021

[Blue_true]

1. Sounds like a solid ruling, IMO.

The troopers could have easily got the woman’s license plate and had other cops execute a safe stop. Her crime doesn’t seem to be one that warranted use of lethal force.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. Thing is, they are not even ruling on whether it was justified or reasonable.

The court is only ruling whether a shooting someone is a “seizure.”

I’ve never thought off it that way but I will take anything that helps that poor 4th Amendment that has taken a severe beating the last 40 years.

[Blue_true]

4. I may get hammered for this, but shooting at a fleeing person

only is warranted if the person is a KNOWN and identified serial murderer, because unless stopped, that person could kill again. All other situations, no, the person is fleeing, use safe pursuit or alert other officers to get help apprehending the person.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. Agreed.

Cops have gone from having to prove they were in actual life jeopardy to “I feared for my life” and now to “he drove past me ten feet away going the other direction but I still get to kill him because reasons and what are you gonna do about it”

[Blue_true]

13. You described the situation just as it is.

A cop that is intent on murdering a person didn’t need a reason that a reasonable person would agree with, the Supreme Court ruling now puts that type in severe legal jeopardy, that is some progress.

I read a brief passage yesterday where a police detective that solved a very famous (at that time) criminal case involving dangerous people stated that police officers have no reason to treat a person like George Floyd was treated, that backs up what a Tennessee police chief said immediately after seeing the Floyd murder (his statement was that any police officer who thinks what happened to Floyd was right should turn in his or her badge).

[elleng]

2. Good.

'The opinion represents an expansion of Fourth Amendment protections at a time when the nation is wrestling with police use of force and split-second decisions made by law enforcement officers.'

[Blue_true]

5. I believe that it will force police officers to observe a fleeing person more,

or calibrate their use of force to the apparent crime. Hopefully we won’t see cops like the one in South Carolina who took a shooting stance before fatally shooting a man in the back get off free. The cop made zero effort to pursue an unarmed man, instead setting up in a shooting stance and shooting the man.

[elleng]

6. Yes

[elleng]

7. 'The opinion offers two surprises. The most important is the majority's broad holding.

The majority goes out of its way to craft a clear line that reaches beyond the facts of this case. Both at the beginning and end of the opinion, the court announces: “We hold 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.” Notice that this captures not just significant restraints on liberty, but any touching at all. This is no oversight. Roberts downplays the implications of this breadth by explaining:

While a mere touch can be enough for a seizure, the amount of force remains pertinent in assessing the objective intent to restrain. A tap on the shoulder to get one’s attention will rarely exhibit such an intent.'>>>

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/divided-court-issues-bright-line-ruling-on-fourth-amendment-seizures/#:~:text=Divided%20court%20issues%20bright%2Dline%20ruling%20on%20Fourth%20Amendment%20seizures,-By%20Jeffrey%20Bellin&text=Against%20a%20backdrop%20of%20increasing,of%20the%20term%20%E2%80%9Cseizure.%E2%80%9D

[stopdiggin]

8. thank you. that's informed -- and cogent

and not brought forward elsewhere in this discussion.

[elleng]

9. Right, wanted to get ideas about the Court's thinking.

[MineralMan]

11. This is an important decision by the SCOTUS.

Truly.

[stopdiggin]

12. and some indication that the court is not

totally immune to emergent events, current thinking and public sentiment. Perhaps we might next see the light of common sense turn on 2nd amendment? Although, let's also be quick to add that the Supreme Court is not, and should not be, at the whim of public opinion polls. Getting public opinion and 'your voice' inserted into law is the job of your representative -- not the courts.

But the fact that the court did not rule narrowly and particularly in this case -- is revealing. And cause for hope?