The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that shooting at a fleeing suspect may violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on seizures.
“The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable ‘seizures’ to safeguard ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons,'” Chief Justice John Roberts said in the 47-page opinion on the 5-3 decision. “The question in this case is whether a seizure occurs when an officer shoots someone who temporarily eludes capture after the shooting. The answer is yes.”
The decision stems from the case of Roxanne Torres, who fled New Mexico State Police officers Janice Madrid and Richard Williams, who were attempting to arrest her in 2014 for white collar crimes.
Torres said she thought the police were carjackers, and she fled in her car to escape. Two of the officers fired 13 times to stop Torres, striking her twice in the back and temporarily paralyzing her left arm. Torres steered with her right arm and drove to a hospital 75 miles away before being airlifted back to Albuquerque, where she received care. She was arrested the next day.
Torres sought damages from both of the officers, claiming excessive force and violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizure. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a District Court’s summary judgment in favor of the officers on the basis that “a suspect’s continued flight after being shot by police negates a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim.”
The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision but did not rule on the seizure’s reasonableness, the damages caused, or the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity.
“The officers’ shooting applied physical force to her body and objectively manifested an intent to restrain her from driving away,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “We therefore conclude that officers seized Torres for the instant that the bullets struck her.”
Roberts was jointed in his opinion by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and one appointee of former President Donald Trump, Brett Kavanaugh. Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also appointed by Trump, did not take part in the opinion because she was not seated yet when the case was argued last fall.
The dissent argued seizure was limited under common law to placing hands on a suspect, but the majority opinion said seizure “can be as readily accomplished by a bullet as by the end of a finger.”
Copyright 2021 United Press International, Inc. (UPI). Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI’s prior written consent.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
Fleeing suspects of violent crime constitute the voter base of the democrat party in other words.
Was Hunter involved with his “lost” pistola??
For all you back shooters here. Never should back shooting ever be permitted. Suspect was just fleeing. They shot the suspect in the back. Cowards.
VIOLENT CRIMINALS fleeing the scene of a VIOLENT CRIME should be STOPPED BY WHATEVER MEANS AS NECESSARY!
Stopping them from COMMITTING ANOTHER VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACT.
I AGREE.. IF she was violent.. NOTHING I Have read in this, or ANY other story on it, showed she Was violent.. She just was FLEEING the cops, who proceeded to shoot her… FOR a ‘white collar’ crime… Nothing about violence there Crusty.
To quote John Russell (“Hombre”), “I’ll ask them to turn around, next time.”
yet….
“The decision stems from the case of Roxanne Torres, who fled New Mexico State Police officers Janice Madrid and Richard Williams, who were attempting to arrest her in 2014 for white collar crimes.”
NOT ‘justified’.
in THIS case.
I know I am and have taken heat for this view, but in my opinion, if anyone runs from police the police should be allowed to shoot them. My thinking is, not many perps would be shot before they stopped running from police. Problem solved.
More BS from Roberts. Just run and you can’t be shot but you’re free to commit other crimes.
“when an officer shoots someone who temporarily eludes capture after the shooting.”
If an officer shoots someone after they “temporarily eludes capture” from the crime scene.
#1. Define “temporarily”. Is it OK to shoot a suspect a day after the crime?
#2. Deadly force should only be used in self defence or to protect others from deadly force.
#3. But an officer should not be scared to use deadly force if it is warranted or just because the criminal is black.
Since a motor vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon, there are times at which deadly force against a person fleeing in a motor vehicle can be justified. Not sure how much they apply when the suspect is wanted for non-violent crimes.
Unless the police were in plainclothes and the car unmarked, “I thought they were carjackers” is a stretch.
As long as #2 INCLUDES FUTURE VIOLENT ACTS.
Which creates a quandary for LEOs, or immediate responders .
IF they don’t shoot, will the perp run around the corner and empty the magazine of the remaining 16 rounds into a crowd?
IF the car’s FLEEING from the cops, not running at them though, HOW could the say Deadly force was justified?
NOW IF SHE TRIED TO run them OVER with the car, hell yea i say it would be justified…
Our Supreme Court is anything but supreme today! It is a joke and a disgrace! With a “supreme” court like we now have, America is becoming a third-world country, as most of the members are nothing but a bunch of communists and leftists, and the Dems want to pack the court with more people like that! Wake up, America, and soon, before it is too late!
I’d say that the dummycrats don’t need to pack the courts. With Roberts on the court the dummycrats managed to steal the election and now all their marxist hairbrained ideas are going through with the help of Roberts.
AND more and more, KRAPPENAugh, is turning out to be the BIGGEST MISTAKE trump made.
The airspace between John Roberts ears, suffers from “seizures”. The two New World Order Bushes gave us David Souter and John Roberts. Rotten fish / traitors sure stink!!!!!!!!
Three more liberals got on the court by pulling the wool over Trump’s eyes.
IT’s certainly seeming that way.. Which makes you wonder, WAS ALL the fighting Piglosi and co, did to STOP Kavenaugh, gorsuch and barret getting confirmed, JUST FOR SHOW, because they KNEW those 3 were fellow libtards?
A police officer is now being charged in Nashville, TN, with murder for shooting a fleeing suspect.
The suspect had a pistol in his hand as he was running away.
Does the suspect carrying a pistol change the equation?
Amazing how dummycrats don’t scream out removing the 2nd amendment when it’s one of their own voters using a gun in an illegal way. But we always knew that it’s the dummycrats who want to arm the criminals so the law abiding citizens will be held hostage.
Exactly.. Hell one dem, even, when asked ‘If you did mandate gun confiscations, would that ever apply to gang members”… SAID HELL NO!
THEY ONLY want US disarmed. NOT the crooks.
It damn well BETTER!
How long (in Robert’s definition of “temporarily”) does it take for that fleeing suspect to turn and fire at the officer? How long does the officer have to respond?
And, what if that fleeing suspect HAD already fired at the office, but is NOW fleeing?
At what point does an armed (albeit fleeing) suspect constitute a threat to the office (or to the public)?
If the SCOTUS had articulated the answers to THESE questions, I’d be fine with their ruling…
Sadly, the “Robert’s Court” seems more concerned with NOT settling questions of law!
Especially if it REWARDS crooks…
There is ZERO EXCUSE for those charges.
Ditto for a nearly identical case in Georgia.
How is an OFFICER OF THE LAW supposed to determine, UNDER SEVERE STRESS if the ‘pistol in the perps hand’ isn’t going to be used around the next corner?
How is he to know the perp may make the corner, stop, turn, and shoot the cop in the face when he turns the corner?
REALLY????? Time to get rid of Justice Roberts…..
How? Good luck with impeachment.
Right now, THE ONLY two i’d keep, are Samuel alito and Clarance thomas.. I’d dump the rest.. EVEN GORSUCH AND KAVENAUGH.
You haven’t given Barrett much time.
How many bad calls must we let them do, BEFORE WE CALL THEM ON IT
The Dread Justice Roberts© strikes again.
Pulled up the opinion. After reading it I’m left with the thought – so what? They were there to arrest her. So how is shooting her different than her being in the back seat of the police cruiser? That’s the point, she’s going to jail.
I don’t see how her being “seized” has anything to do with being shot. Even if she were not shot if you read the opinion – she was “seized.” It may come as a shock to the SCOTUS, criminals don’t like going to jail. If they can get away it’s really hard to track them down. They can make it their business to not be found.
I also don’t buy her story that she thought she was being hijacked.
With the # of cops who try to make arrests while in plane clothes, i can MAYBE see someone thinking “that armed guy is a car jacker”.. MAYBE.
our justice system is fubar.
THE ROT is so firmly entrenched, i just don’t know HOW WE can ever correct it.
In many countries, fleeing from police is admission of guilt and shooting them is perfectly acceptable. The Supreme Court has stretched logic and found things in the Constitution that aren’t there too many times to believe their decisions are based on law any more. And it’s only going to get worse now that Dems have illegally seized power.
I don’t see this ruling as being broad enough to establish a general precedent that could prohibit LEOs from shooting at ALL fleeing suspects. The person in question was only accused of white collar crimes, but apparently nothing violent. I think I probably agree with the SCOTUS on this decision because of the circumstances. However, if the Law Enforcement Officers were instead pursuing a known violent felon or a suspect carrying a weapon, my opinion would be much different. Sadly, this will almost certainly have to be revisited some time later by the SCOTUS for clarification.
I have a SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH ‘precedence’.
It is JUDICIAL LAXITY AND LAZINESS!
No two cases are IDENTICAL and each case should be examined and DETERMINED BY FACTS OF THE CASE AT HAND.
Agreed. While I am more gradually severe in judicial outcomes than many folks:
– Institutionalization for reform.
– Banishment of incorrigibles.
– Execution of dangerous incorrigibles.
I am not confirmed in the idea that any police interaction as being necessarily validated. That is Napoleonic law thinking, and not in our English/ Roman legal philosophy. Individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and absent a probable or likely cause, are to be left alone to undertake their own lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness…..without permission.
Roberts is a dedicated Leftist now. He seemed to change right after he was pictured with Epstein on his Island. Coincidence Much?
i DON’T KNOW IF ROBERTS IS A ‘LEFTIST’…
BUT! I DO KNOW HE IS easily controlled by his leftist handlers!
No need to hide it, I guess.
IMO He’s been a leftists SINCE DAY BLOODY ONE.
A fleeing criminal is not a victim. So now even murder suspects can sue the police for doing his job. Dumb.
A fleeing victim is not a lethal threat, unless murderous intent is self-declared. Lethal force is to be avoided unless necessary.
My heart doesn’t bleed for criminals, but it could in a police state.
IF that felon is fleeing AFTER DOING a crime, and still has a weapon, HOW IS HE NO LONGER a threat???
“The officers’ shooting applied physical force to her body and objectively manifested an intent to restrain her from driving away,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “We therefore conclude that officers seized Torres for the instant that the bullets struck her.”
Then an individual, fleeing in fear for loss of life, is denied the presumptive inherent right of self-preservation in flight, and is committed to attack or kill officers, if possible, in self-defense of life?
Nowhere do I read that the officers feared for their lives or other lives, in the knowledge of a suspect with murderous intent.
You know, we actually pay this coward Chief Justice money for his legal juggling act, eight ringed robe and all.
So if the criminal is fleeing and shooting at the Officer, the Officer can’t shoot back in self defense? It’s getting to the point where Police should just leave their guns at home. I guess the Supremes are helping with the defunding of the Police.
BETTER YET. Cops should just all go on strike..
THEN SEE HOW SWIFTLY the crime rates skyrocket.
That would probably eliminate a lot of bad guys.
Another win for fleeing felons of violent crimes. Imagine a guy just rapped your young daughter, but he got away because the police couldn’t shoot him in the back. The next day he rapes your neighbors daughter. What has happened to our Supreme Court?
Horse manure! Cop tells suspect to stop multiple times and suspect continues to run, shoot suspect!